JonathanStrange
PrinceWithA1000Enemies
I used to play chess daily. Played for years in clubs, coffeehouses, bars, online, at home against my computer, over-the-board tournaments, even traveled to Las Vegas or LA or Phoenix or wherever to play in tournaments. Loved the game.
Then I stopped. I'm not sure why. I think it was a combination of burn-out and realization that while my early progress as a chessplayer had been very fast (I'm talking ordinary mortal fast, not chess prodigy fast), I had reached my limit early on.
I learned chess at ten from my father. He and my uncles would play chess and cards together. They weren't very good chessplayers and I was winning with weeks of learning the rules.
I'd taught some friends the game but they were terrible. I never lost a single game against them and so I persuaded my mother to buy Chessmaster. My first real challenge. I read two or three very basic chessbooks; an old one like "Invitation to Chess" by K. Harkness had some simple tips I used often (esp. the "See what your opponent threatens")
I never had any lessons or coaching; but in my first over-the-board tournament at 14, I received a 1767 USCF provisional rating. By 15, I had an established rating of 1900+ and was ambitious to become a master. I played online where my rating was actually far higher than "real life" - somehow online ratings were inflated perhaps because if your opponent's rating was too high for his strength and you won, your rating became too high for your actual strength. And so on.
My in-person tournament over-the-board rating approached 2000, the candidate master or expert level - where it stalled.
I'd never read much chess literature, never studied openings or endgames. I did lots of tactics but that was it. So I began studying endgames and openings. Developed a repertoire, studied strategy, analyzed my games, search for tips and advice. I was a chess fanatic. This was true for about 4 years. I continued to play in tournaments as well as online.
My chess strength never improved despite my acquiring a sensible opening rep, endgame knowledge, strategic insight. I'd gone from having glanced at two simple chessbooks and relying on a handful of simple tips to having studied thoroughly dozens of texts and playing thousands of games. I gained virtually nothing in strength or rating.
My games' were better strategically but never quite good enough. I'd get into difficut positions and still win because many of my opponents would eventually miss a tactic and lose a pawn or worse. They'd be psychologically baffled by the turn around and I'd win. Yet I didn't progress because better players could pull themselves together often enough.
After about four years, I evaluated what I wanted out of chess. I did want the self-esteem boost of being a Master - a title that meant virtually nothing to anyone outside of chess except for meaning a nerd - but it was obvious that I'd reached the height of my ability. I'd never reach the real world 2200 level (although online I'd reached and passed that level a few times already). I barely was reaching 2000.
So I stopped playing for "numbers". Maybe I came to my senses. Maybe I just gave up. Still, if you give something a decent shot, and it doesn't work, then you shouldn't have any regrets. I don't. It was a hobby. Chess remains fun but I rarely play anymore.
Sometimes at work, an engineering colleague and I will play. They're usually very bad players. Worse than I was at ten-years-old. But who cares? We talk, drink coffee, and play.
I haven't played online or in a tournament in real ife for six years. I'm one of those chess dropouts.
Then I stopped. I'm not sure why. I think it was a combination of burn-out and realization that while my early progress as a chessplayer had been very fast (I'm talking ordinary mortal fast, not chess prodigy fast), I had reached my limit early on.
I learned chess at ten from my father. He and my uncles would play chess and cards together. They weren't very good chessplayers and I was winning with weeks of learning the rules.
I'd taught some friends the game but they were terrible. I never lost a single game against them and so I persuaded my mother to buy Chessmaster. My first real challenge. I read two or three very basic chessbooks; an old one like "Invitation to Chess" by K. Harkness had some simple tips I used often (esp. the "See what your opponent threatens")
I never had any lessons or coaching; but in my first over-the-board tournament at 14, I received a 1767 USCF provisional rating. By 15, I had an established rating of 1900+ and was ambitious to become a master. I played online where my rating was actually far higher than "real life" - somehow online ratings were inflated perhaps because if your opponent's rating was too high for his strength and you won, your rating became too high for your actual strength. And so on.
My in-person tournament over-the-board rating approached 2000, the candidate master or expert level - where it stalled.
I'd never read much chess literature, never studied openings or endgames. I did lots of tactics but that was it. So I began studying endgames and openings. Developed a repertoire, studied strategy, analyzed my games, search for tips and advice. I was a chess fanatic. This was true for about 4 years. I continued to play in tournaments as well as online.
My chess strength never improved despite my acquiring a sensible opening rep, endgame knowledge, strategic insight. I'd gone from having glanced at two simple chessbooks and relying on a handful of simple tips to having studied thoroughly dozens of texts and playing thousands of games. I gained virtually nothing in strength or rating.
My games' were better strategically but never quite good enough. I'd get into difficut positions and still win because many of my opponents would eventually miss a tactic and lose a pawn or worse. They'd be psychologically baffled by the turn around and I'd win. Yet I didn't progress because better players could pull themselves together often enough.
After about four years, I evaluated what I wanted out of chess. I did want the self-esteem boost of being a Master - a title that meant virtually nothing to anyone outside of chess except for meaning a nerd - but it was obvious that I'd reached the height of my ability. I'd never reach the real world 2200 level (although online I'd reached and passed that level a few times already). I barely was reaching 2000.
So I stopped playing for "numbers". Maybe I came to my senses. Maybe I just gave up. Still, if you give something a decent shot, and it doesn't work, then you shouldn't have any regrets. I don't. It was a hobby. Chess remains fun but I rarely play anymore.
Sometimes at work, an engineering colleague and I will play. They're usually very bad players. Worse than I was at ten-years-old. But who cares? We talk, drink coffee, and play.
I haven't played online or in a tournament in real ife for six years. I'm one of those chess dropouts.
