[ShoneRL]

A bit of an unhinged, unpopular opinion take: Chess is a very overrated game that's overglorified to the limit and it's an unhealthy addiction for a lot of people and I think modern media needs to stop flaunting Chess as something of a high-horse type of thing.

To put simply, I believe Chess is good as something of a brain exercise for when you're younger or if you are a parent and want to develop your child's logical thinking and that's it, no more and no less.

So what happens if you take Chess further?

People don't know when to stop and I've seen with my eyes this happen because there was this kid at Chess tournaments who was a much better player than I am, however the kid just lived Chess, there was nothing else to the kid, he was socially very unintelligent & awkward, didn't really do much anything else since his parents shoved him to Chess when he was 6 and made it a daily routine thing for him to focus on Chess and his school studies. Gradually, Chess took over his entire identity and he's now a titled player and from people who see him on an everyday basis, they all still don't say much about this now-adult other than that he's still just focused on Chess. The general sentiment of everyone who knows this kid is just pity because it's just a very one-dimensional life. He achieved success but it sacrificed a lot of his childhood, and for what?

Chess players, even titled ones don't really make a lot of money from tournaments and if you want to be good at it and play at tournaments, you have to dedicate basically all your time to it and have good discipline to keep at it, day after day. There's the coach hustle but that also requires you to be at least above average and also I haven't met a coach who's not just living Chess so it's about the same, you still get sucked into this lifestyle.

Chess at a higher level is pretty draw-ish and ultimately a memorization contest. Most strong players will not slip up if given a slight advantage and they will be able to convert this slight advantage into at least a draw. Strong players already have a good grasp on tactical motifs and can spot opportunities easily but that's where Chess theory comes into play. There's many openings and every opening has variations, which have optimal moves and then of course inaccurate moves and blunders. Just Sicilian theory is enough for someone to spend years of their life memorizing moves and building a repertoire.

Ultimately, Chess doesn't get more fun the stronger you get and that's counter-intuitive because people want to get better. I played Chess for a few years both casually and professionally, I won some tropheys and have some medals to show for it. I beat titled players (2300+ rated) but I quit all of it to focus on software engineering because Chess got boring. For me, Chess got to a point where further improvement depended on memorizing opening theory, middlegame theory and endgame theory. Just memorize and nothing more. I refused to do that so I often drawn/lost games in situations where I played less than ideal moves and my opponent knew the theory to punish my very slight inaccuracy. What I liked in Chess was the calculation, so something like Fischer Chess (Chess960) was fun but did you know people actually made theory even for that? So games got more and more boring, in casual games I would purposefully play bad moves to throw my opponent off their theory and to get into unknown territory in terms of tactics. I'd do that just to try to make the game fun again, but obviously I was burned out and there was no coming back from it.

In my country I am friends with a lot of Chess people. I saw a lot of things, like titled players throwing games for .. $10-$20. They spent about 20-30 years of their life to get good at Chess and now they have to throw games for money. Do I want to be that guy? How does it feel to study and play something for 30-40 years then just have to throw games for $20? Probably awful.

Also, general health-wise, most Chess players I know are sedentary, playing Chess isn't really healthy as you are sat in a chair for hours on end. It's very competitive, which can lead to stress and stress just leads to burnout often.

To end this post, I want to say that I luckily didn't keep on this path. In my opinion, life needs variety and so I have done much more and I am happier than the years I spent on Chess. Studied hard, got a job as a software engineer, went on many vacations, enjoyed food & drinks everywhere, had friends/love come and go, played many games, read books and watched movies and I just lived a more fulfilling life than my past Chess lifestyle because it's frankly, a stark contrast between the two.

TLDR: Trying to logically explain my distaste for Chess in modern times.

[sjducb]

This argument generalises to all sport.

If you want to become the best in the world at something then you have to give it 100%. It will be everything in your life.

Most people who try to be the best don’t make it. If you’re nearly the best then your life sucks. You’ve spent all of your energy trying for something that’s not going to give you any returns personally.

[ShoneRL]

I suppose it does to a certain extent but most of my experiences were with Chess, Football and Boxing. People say Chess is a sport but it's not really physically-exerting like some other sports or even healthy at all.

In terms of other sports, I think football (soccer) is a sport you don't really have to be 100% at, since that sport is somehow globally recognized and profitable so even subpar players can live well off it and it also seems much healthier than Chess and then there's the whole team aspect of it.

[sjducb]

I think you have to be very good at football/boxing to make a living off it.

A subpar 3rd division football player is a better athlete than anyone you have ever met in your day-to-day life.

Chess supports maybe 30 full time competitors, whereas football supports a few thousand. However millions more people try to be footballers. Your odds of success are probably better with chess.

All three of those sports destroy your body. With chess it’s the hours sitting still and being stressed. With boxing and football it’s the concussions, tough training regimes and accumulated injuries that never fully heal.

Elite sport is bad for you.

[erfgh]

Football is very different because you don't have to spend as much time. Professional players train for 1-3 hours per day and that's it. The remaining time of the day they do nothing at all because there's no point to physically exert yourself more, you'll just get injured for no benefit. Also, you have to be 100% rested when game time comes which means that 2-3 days prior to the game you take it very easy during training, or even don't train at all.

[sjducb]

This is true. With physical sports you have a limit on the time you can spend training. That’s different to chess and other e sports.

[ShoneRL]

Local football team has people who are mostly mediocre and they make decent money, since I know one of the players. I don't mean to belittle their efforts or the time invested but generally, it is a competitive sport but it's also at same time providing more opportunities overall.

I suppose it depends on where you are and how competitive it is.

You do have a point about elite sport though the argument extends to casual as well, where casual football, tennis or even basketball is just healthier than sitting over a chess board. Pardon me, I might be a bit biased here since I am maybe too conscious about sedentary chair-lifestyle since I work from an office and spend a lot of time in a chair and lately been trying to get more active.

[sjducb]

Mediocre compared to who?

I’m pretty sure the worst professional player in your local team could beat me and my whole five aside team by himself.

The skill gap between professional and good amateur is huge.

[sjducb]

I agree all casual sport is good, and that physical sports are better than sedentary ones.

[pookha]

American football is literally a chess match. It's an orchestarted sport where scheme's are major components of the game. bill belichick (coach for New England) invented a type of coverage (pattern-match) that took professional football coordinators 20 years to understand but once they did it altered how the game is played and took away sections of the field. Once you understand what they're doing Football is an incredibly complex sport compared to Basketball, Hockey and Soccer (pure sports).

[TrackerFF]

As the classic quote goes:

"The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life."

[AntoniusBlock]

Chess at the highest levels is drawish, but we're talking 2500+ FIDE. The vast majority of players aren't near 2500. Memorisation isn't even a problem for most people because most people won't ever be playing at the professional level and even then the amount of memorisation required isn't as much as you're making it out to be. For example: a close friend of mine is an FM and I saw his opening files. He has around 500 lines on the Benko, around 600 lines on the English (1. c4) and 700 lines on the Sicilian Najdorf (including anti-Sicilians). That's his entire repertoire, which he has been building up for 10 years. That isn't a crazy amount. As for 960 theory, please show me. I've heard of 960 principles, like developing bishops before knights because bishops, but not actual opening theory.

>Middlegame theory

What do you mean by this? There are strategical principles, but I don't think I've ever heard of middlegame theory.

>Endgame theory

Endgame theory isn't too difficult up to around 2000 FIDE if you know the basic principles (taking opposition, key squares, square rule, philidor position, other rook endgame basics, knowing which pieces you can mate with, etc) which can be learnt in an evening. You said you love calculation. Well, to me, even if you don't know endgame theory you can still be a good endgame player if you're a good calculator.

Anyway, I agree with your other points about there being no money in chess and chess leading to an unhealthy lifestyle.

[ShoneRL]

I remember I saw some website which allowed you to select some 960 position and it would show like some commentary on how to proceed as either side and what should be prioritized and showcase past games with the same position, this was like a year or two ago.

By middlegame theory, I meant that there is a lot of resources on Chessable that go into middlegame theory of an opening if both sides played early opening by the book, so even middlegame is quite covered in terms of variants and the otherwise general strategy ideas are actually incorporated as part of the theory and studied as such.

As for endgames, I don't think the theory is too difficult but it's also been a situation where people are guided towards books like Dvoretsky's endgame manual and 100 endgames you must know and stuff like that which again is just thrown at you and told to go study it because a lot of the people read these books.

Now, generally, I agree, you can play Chess by intuition to a really good level but I've had games where my opponents just told me my moves were sound, made sense and in a way they were "good" but they fell to a part of their preparation theory that was like 8-9 moves deep and honestly, I really didn't like that and I absolutely didn't want to join this "rat race" because I think for me it would be a unhealthy life to aimlessly keep studying Chess just so I can be competitive against other people who do this same exact thing of studying.

Anyways, hope I clarified things and thanks for chipping in!

[AntoniusBlock]

> I remember I saw some website which allowed you to select some 960 position and it would show like some commentary on how to proceed as either side and what should be prioritized and showcase past games with the same position, this was like a year or two ago.

Computer generated? If so, I wouldn't be worried. Besides, imagine this scenario: you search for a 960 game on Lichess right now, you or your opponent have 25 seconds to move. In 25 seconds, you can't input a 960 position into another site and learn theory for that very specific position. If you take longer than 25 seconds to make a move, Lichess aborts the game automatically. It's not possible. 960 is a completely feasible variant if you want to avoid opening theory. Also, a big 960 tournament will be played next year^, so things are getting exciting in the 960 world.

>By middlegame theory, I meant that there is a lot of resources on Chessable that go into middlegame theory of an opening if both sides played early opening by the book, so even middlegame is quite covered in terms of variants and the otherwise general strategy ideas are actually incorporated as part of the theory and studied as such.

I have two things to say to this: 1. you should know the plans and ideas for the middlegames you get because these middlegames arise from your opening repertoire, which you should have already studied (pawn structures, best piece placement, common sacrifices, pawn breaks, etc). 2. as you say the theory is influenced by strategy (and tactics), so if you have a solid strategical foundation (and tactical), you will be fine as long as you're not playing an extremely sharp opening, in which you must know concrete theory. A book I found extremely helpful for strategy was: Mastering Chess Strategy by GM Hellsten.

>As for endgames, I don't think the theory is too difficult but it's also been a situation where people are guided towards books like Dvoretsky's endgame manual and 100 endgames you must know and stuff like that which again is just thrown at you and told to go study it because a lot of the people read these books.

Those books are not for beginners, especially Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual. I agree with you. If I were to recommend an endgame book to a beginner, I would recommend Silman's Endgame Course by IM Silman. You're a strong player, though, so I think you could get a lot out of Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (at least the grey/blue sections, which Dvoretsky's notes as being the most essential parts).

>Now, generally, I agree, you can play Chess by intuition to a really good level but I've had games where my opponents just told me my moves were sound, made sense and in a way they were "good" but they fell to a part of their preparation theory that was like 8-9 moves deep

What was your opening repertoire?

^ = https://en.chessbase.com/post/freestyle-super-tournament-in-...*

[sph]

Sounds like you have terrible experience with being forced to explore one's talent for the game, but I dont think that deep of an history with it can provide an objective assessment of the game: any hobby taken to the extreme, maniacal and methodical level stops becoming a hobby, and turns into work. There is this widespread notion that the deeper you go, the more enjoyable it is and it is utter nonsense. Even in gaming, the concept of minmaxing, which is antithetical to enjoying a game, is encouraged, but all it does is turn a fun pastime into spreadsheets and hard effort for asymptotic gain.

On the other hard I had ignored the game for all my adulthood because I felt, in my ignorance, that it was a game too hard to get into. I'm starting to like it as I learn, but I have no chance nor desire to break the 2000+ ELO threshold, to compete, to leave my mark.

I am learning Chess so that if one day I find an elderly gentleman at the park with a board, I can sit for a game and a chat.

[ShoneRL]

While I absolutely understand your point, I also feel like it's sometimes beyond someone's control to get sucked into something. I started playing with friends on school breaks and soon I was joining a Chess club with them and soon I was googling ways to get better and soon I was skimping out on social interaction because I felt it was better to stay home and play online chess because starting up a game was far easier than having to go somewhere physically and wonder if it's gonna be a good time and all.

Chess is a bit weird. I enjoy playing it. It's just a game but we place intellectual superiority on people who play it (well) but that's not true, a great Chess player wouldn't necessarily be a great engineer or an architect. There's some point of prestige to playing Chess, even in your wording, why is the elderly person playing Chess at a park a "gentleman"? It's because they play Chess and playing Chess is just classy in pop culture.

Anyways, my original comment was just an introspective on what Chess really is about on a higher level in my experiences, generally I see Chess as bit of a flawed game, since the better you get, the less interesting the game is and it just transitions in an overcomplicated memory game.

There's no glory to Chess. Good players were just kids that got shoved into this Chess lifestyle and kept at it. Adult players can get better but if you haven't played Chess as a kid, your talent is very limited and your progression speed is much worse, it's not impossible per say but it's also not likely.

"I am learning Chess so that if one day I find an elderly gentleman at the park with a board, I can sit for a game and a chat."

Since I quit actively playing, this is exactly my thought, it doesn't hurt to know how to play but any effort towards improving isn't really important, nor should it be any sort of priority. Take it slow, enjoy the ride but don't get too entangled.

A wise man once said, "The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life." and that just resonated with me, deeply, because it is really true on every and so many levels.

[sph]

Even if I dont completely agree with your negative take, I appreciate the point your making.

"The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life." applies to a lot of things. How worth is it for me to spend my evenings honing my programming skills, instead of traveling, seeing the world, falling in love?

At the end of the day, there is no preordained path, nor St. Peter at the gate or other God deciding our worth by weighing our heart. Do what is fun for you, no one cares, not even God. The person that played chess all their life, and the person that did something better end up in the same place, forgotten, waiting to be swallowed by our red giant sun.

But if your parents wanted you to become a chess Grandmaster, and you just want to play ball, fuck them, go live your life.

[erfgh]

If you spend the same time studying programming that you need to spend to become a good chess player then you will likely become a professional programmer which means you will make a decent living in most countries of the world.

Also, you can build interesting systems that actually improve peoples' lives whereas in chess you just sit on your ass calculating and memorizing stuff that affect nobody at all outside the game.

[ShoneRL]

If you say it that way, nothing is worth talking about in life and nothing is worth doing because we all just die and end up wherever as is per the usual nihilism doctrine. The quote I cited, indeed, potentially applies to a lot of things but hey, we are talking Chess.

I appreciate this community since I can voice out things that people might be contemplative about and my negativity filled post was really just no false positivity comment about the reality of Chess in a random world country which I experienced time and time again.

The OP is "How to learn chess as an adult" and as I saw it, my first question in my mind was "Why should you learn chess as an adult?" and then I saw the lengths this person went to improve and while I don't want to be a toxic or negative bub about it, I also feel like I can contribute to this discussion by sharing my own opinion since I directly have a lot of experience with Chess. Now, I don't say that in an elitist way, I don't claim to be an expert but I feel like this blog post and similar posts are quite misleading and might trap uninformed people into thinking that Chess is something really worth learning as an adult or just increase the bias that Chess is some unique sport when it's just really a overrated game, kinda like Monopoly or any other game.

I spent a lot of time on Chess and I am glad to have provided some information on what it was like for me, because I think that it's really valuable for someone to read this and take away whatever they can from my experiences. I don't claim I have it all figured out, but generally, I suggest to keep Chess in moderation and no, you don't need to get better at it because it doesn't really get more fun.

Have a nice day! Thanks for reading.

[tutfbhuf]

I think what you're describing is the crux of the issue for chess players who don't want to commit full-time to chess but also have problems just playing a game here and there casually because it draws them in. In other words, they’re too good to be casual but not good or dedicated enough to be full-time professionals. These people are usually chess experts with 2000+ ratings but below international master (IM) level. I, for one, played chess when I was a kid, but decided not to devote too much time to it (1800 elo), although it was a lot of fun, because I wanted to spend time with friends and I didn't want to spend too much time on chess. Over the years, I adopted the approach of trying to be in the top 10% in many different things, just for fun and interest, instead of being just in the top 0.1% in one thing.

[NickC25]

>* What I liked in Chess was the calculation, so something like Fischer Chess (Chess960) was fun but did you know people actually made theory even for that?*

I'm sure there's been theory developed for Fisher Random (960) but memorizing that seems like a bigger PITA than for standard chess, because there's literally 960 starting positions to memorize the theory for, as opposed to one. Plus, if you play 960 online, you will not have a choice as to your starting position, it will be completely random. "Oh, I memorized a bunch of theory for starting position 521 and 859, but now I'm faced with position 157, so shit I'm out of luck" said nobody ever.

I do love 960, I play Crazyhouse960 the most as it's very fluid, requires little opening prep as it's randomized, and there's no endgame to solve for. It's just pure tactics and in-the-moment thinking.

[erfgh]

Most of what you say about the highest level is true for most other pursuits.

My view is that chess without memorization is not a very interesting game. What remains is just calculation which is uninteresting to 99+% of people. Since you reached a high level in the game I believe you have excellent calculation skills and part of the reason for that is that you, as you say, find calculation interesting.

I find calculation pointless and thus I'm very bad at it; even after 30 years of playing I hang pieces on half my games and I rarely, if ever, calculate more than one move deep. I believe most people are like me in this regard and therefore most people will remain at a sub-1500 rating forever.

[teleforce]

I know it's a cliche but these are the wise words from the old master, "The ability to play chess is the sign of a gentleman. The ability to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life" - Paul Morphy.