[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.