5 ms·

I have to say I don't really like this quote. The first part smacks of superficiality i.e. learn chess enough to be able to show off in polite society. The seco

I have to say I don't really like this quote. The first part smacks of superficiality i.e. learn chess enough to be able to show off in polite society. The second part I think simply denotes a misunderstanding of what playing chess well means. You can play chess well without being a GM. In my family I had/have two people who plaid chess well (2000-2300 range) without wasting their lives in any way. They held full time jobs, had families and enjoyed the game at a pretty serious level. If anything chess helped them stay mentally active and engaged well into their 90's.

manquer 5y ago
The point is it exponentially harder to break the 2500 / 2600/ 2700 barriers . It is hard work. The reason it is hard work is because beyond a point the preparation is a lot about memorizing and remembering a lot of lines variations not improving on your understanding or theory. That's also why older you grow it is harder to be at the top, understanding is not diminished at 40+, however memorizing abilities are. You will have to understand Paul morphy story to understand to why he said something like that. He was the world best by a good distance and he quit playing at 22. He had struggles and was consumed by it. After spending most of your formative years and not finding the meaning in the life despite having won pretty much everything can be life altering. He is known as the pride and sorrow of chess with good reason.
- leto_ii 5y ago
  It's true I didn't know about Morphy when I made my comment, I read on Wikipedia afterwards. In context the quote has different connotations. However, having taken it at face value, I stand by my comment. Nothing in the Morphy quote explicitly addresses the technicalities of becoming a world class chess player. In general playing chess well means something else to the general public than to a GM level player. My comment was made having the former interpretation in mind - Morphy was obviously talking from his (very different) point of view.
  - me_me_me 5y ago
    You took a quote out of context, then admitted it later. And yet you still claim that your point is correct if quote is taken out of context. Its shifting goalpost fallacy.
    - leto_ii 5y ago
      I didn't take a quote out of context, the context was not provided. There is no a priori expectation that somebody should read a Wikipedia page to find out the missing context behind a quote. > Its shifting goalpost fallacy. There's no fallacy here. I have my opinion, I stand by it regardless of the quote's context. I understand that Morphy didn't mean what I thought he meant. It's just that my opinion on the usefulness of chess is still the same.
  - manquer 5y ago
    Yes, without knowing the world of chess or morphy it is difficult to understand the quote. In his defense I don't think morphy intended for people outside the chess world as a general statement.
    - leto_ii 5y ago
      Indeed. I didn't mean to attack Morphy, I just interpreted the quote on its own, thinking it was made by some random person (in different places in the thread people had quoted various writers etc. not necessarily great chess players).
- bsder 5y ago
  > That's also why older you grow it is harder to be at the top, understanding is not diminished at 40+, however memorizing abilities are. I'd like to see some evidence of that. However, what does decrease with age is physical stamina. And classical chess tournaments, oddly, take a lot more physical stamina than you might think. Counterintuitively, the whole faster/blitz chess systems have been good for older chess players.
  - manquer 5y ago
    There is evidence of decreasing memory with age, many brain function related diseases like Alzheimer higher risk for older people. Senility and memory loss are commonly related. Also certain types of information is more easier learnt when you are younger like multiple languages. I believe there is research on learning pedagogies for senior citizens having different approaches than children factoring in the ability to learn quickly. Most mathematicans and many other scientists achieve the peek before 40, while there are exceptions like Euler or gauss it is not common. Even in tech you find a lot more younger workers than other more stable technical fields as the learning curve is recurring and steeper than in other fields I wouldn't disagree there is more physical stamina required for tournaments, however I doubt it so difficult for players in their 40s/50s cannot manage it without loosing competitive advantage.
- huachimingo 5y ago
  Tangentially related but in physics, see Ettoe Majorana's case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Majorana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Majorana (see also italian version for a complete bio) From physics genius to dissapearing one day with no known fate.
Scarblac 5y ago
> The second part I think simply denotes a misunderstanding of what playing chess well means. The quote is from Paul Morphy, the best player of the 19th century. He practically invented playing chess well. And he hated it, he felt he should have become a lawyer and did something useful with his life.
- leto_ii 5y ago
  > The quote is from Paul Morphy, the best player of the 19th century. The point was taken, see my comment below. I didn't know the context behind the quote, I understand that Morphy didn't mean it the way I took it. Nevertheless, I think that under the general interpretation of what it means to know chess well (which is surely different from Morphy's), I stand by my idea that knowing chess well can be a positive thing.
  - thomasahle 5y ago
    Sounds like the disagreement is just about what is required for "playing chess well". If we raise the bar to 2500+ maybe you will agree?
    - leto_ii 5y ago
      > Sounds like the disagreement is just about what is required for "playing chess well". I think so. I'm getting a lot of flak over it though :-< > If we raise the bar to 2500+ maybe you will agree? I can't say. I do have an acquaintance who is at ~2600 level who is also a well adapted guy. He's not a full time player anymore, though. I have no opinion on whether chess performance at a GM level is bad for you. All I wanted to say was that you can get pretty far with chess (I think a level of 2000-2300 qualifies as pretty far for the general population) without it affecting your life negatively.
      - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
        There are currently only 267 players who have 2600+ Fide rating. That's extremely high bar. Are you sure your acquaintance is one of them? 2600 rating on sites like lichess or chess24 is much more plausible, it corresponds to roughly 2150-2300 fide rating.
hutrdvnj 5y ago
> In my family I had/have two people who plaid chess well (2000-2300 range) without wasting their lives in any way. Although seemingly not so far away by sheer number, the 2000-2300 elo range is worlds apart from 2500+ (GM) levels, in terms of how much effort (and talent) is required.
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  The quote is attributed to Paul Morphy, World Champion of chess. Playing chess well meant grandmaster level for him. The Wikipedia section about his abandonment of chess is tragic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Morphy#Abandonment_of_chess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Morphy#Abandonment_of_che...).
- leto_ii 5y ago
  > Although seemingly not so far away by sheer number, the 2000-2300 elo range is worlds apart from 2500+ (GM) levels I know that. My point was that a score of 2000-2300 can still qualify as knowing chess well. Didn't know Morphy was a top level player when I made the comment.

manquer 5y ago

The point is it exponentially harder to break the 2500 / 2600/ 2700 barriers . It is hard work. The reason it is hard work is because beyond a point the preparation is a lot about memorizing and remembering a lot of lines variations not improving on your understanding or theory. That's also why older you grow it is harder to be at the top, understanding is not diminished at 40+, however memorizing abilities are. You will have to understand Paul morphy story to understand to why he said something like that. He was the world best by a good distance and he quit playing at 22. He had struggles and was consumed by it. After spending most of your formative years and not finding the meaning in the life despite having won pretty much everything can be life altering. He is known as the pride and sorrow of chess with good reason.

leto_ii 5y ago
It's true I didn't know about Morphy when I made my comment, I read on Wikipedia afterwards. In context the quote has different connotations. However, having taken it at face value, I stand by my comment. Nothing in the Morphy quote explicitly addresses the technicalities of becoming a world class chess player. In general playing chess well means something else to the general public than to a GM level player. My comment was made having the former interpretation in mind - Morphy was obviously talking from his (very different) point of view.
- me_me_me 5y ago
  You took a quote out of context, then admitted it later. And yet you still claim that your point is correct if quote is taken out of context. Its shifting goalpost fallacy.
  - leto_ii 5y ago
    I didn't take a quote out of context, the context was not provided. There is no a priori expectation that somebody should read a Wikipedia page to find out the missing context behind a quote. > Its shifting goalpost fallacy. There's no fallacy here. I have my opinion, I stand by it regardless of the quote's context. I understand that Morphy didn't mean what I thought he meant. It's just that my opinion on the usefulness of chess is still the same.
- manquer 5y ago
  Yes, without knowing the world of chess or morphy it is difficult to understand the quote. In his defense I don't think morphy intended for people outside the chess world as a general statement.
  - leto_ii 5y ago
    Indeed. I didn't mean to attack Morphy, I just interpreted the quote on its own, thinking it was made by some random person (in different places in the thread people had quoted various writers etc. not necessarily great chess players).
bsder 5y ago
> That's also why older you grow it is harder to be at the top, understanding is not diminished at 40+, however memorizing abilities are. I'd like to see some evidence of that. However, what does decrease with age is physical stamina. And classical chess tournaments, oddly, take a lot more physical stamina than you might think. Counterintuitively, the whole faster/blitz chess systems have been good for older chess players.
- manquer 5y ago
  There is evidence of decreasing memory with age, many brain function related diseases like Alzheimer higher risk for older people. Senility and memory loss are commonly related. Also certain types of information is more easier learnt when you are younger like multiple languages. I believe there is research on learning pedagogies for senior citizens having different approaches than children factoring in the ability to learn quickly. Most mathematicans and many other scientists achieve the peek before 40, while there are exceptions like Euler or gauss it is not common. Even in tech you find a lot more younger workers than other more stable technical fields as the learning curve is recurring and steeper than in other fields I wouldn't disagree there is more physical stamina required for tournaments, however I doubt it so difficult for players in their 40s/50s cannot manage it without loosing competitive advantage.
huachimingo 5y ago
Tangentially related but in physics, see Ettoe Majorana's case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Majorana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Majorana (see also italian version for a complete bio) From physics genius to dissapearing one day with no known fate.

Scarblac 5y ago

> The second part I think simply denotes a misunderstanding of what playing chess well means. The quote is from Paul Morphy, the best player of the 19th century. He practically invented playing chess well. And he hated it, he felt he should have become a lawyer and did something useful with his life.

leto_ii 5y ago
> The quote is from Paul Morphy, the best player of the 19th century. The point was taken, see my comment below. I didn't know the context behind the quote, I understand that Morphy didn't mean it the way I took it. Nevertheless, I think that under the general interpretation of what it means to know chess well (which is surely different from Morphy's), I stand by my idea that knowing chess well can be a positive thing.
- thomasahle 5y ago
  Sounds like the disagreement is just about what is required for "playing chess well". If we raise the bar to 2500+ maybe you will agree?
  - leto_ii 5y ago
    > Sounds like the disagreement is just about what is required for "playing chess well". I think so. I'm getting a lot of flak over it though :-< > If we raise the bar to 2500+ maybe you will agree? I can't say. I do have an acquaintance who is at ~2600 level who is also a well adapted guy. He's not a full time player anymore, though. I have no opinion on whether chess performance at a GM level is bad for you. All I wanted to say was that you can get pretty far with chess (I think a level of 2000-2300 qualifies as pretty far for the general population) without it affecting your life negatively.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
      There are currently only 267 players who have 2600+ Fide rating. That's extremely high bar. Are you sure your acquaintance is one of them? 2600 rating on sites like lichess or chess24 is much more plausible, it corresponds to roughly 2150-2300 fide rating.

hutrdvnj 5y ago

> In my family I had/have two people who plaid chess well (2000-2300 range) without wasting their lives in any way. Although seemingly not so far away by sheer number, the 2000-2300 elo range is worlds apart from 2500+ (GM) levels, in terms of how much effort (and talent) is required.

ASalazarMX 5y ago
The quote is attributed to Paul Morphy, World Champion of chess. Playing chess well meant grandmaster level for him. The Wikipedia section about his abandonment of chess is tragic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Morphy#Abandonment_of_chess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Morphy#Abandonment_of_che...).
leto_ii 5y ago
> Although seemingly not so far away by sheer number, the 2000-2300 elo range is worlds apart from 2500+ (GM) levels I know that. My point was that a score of 2000-2300 can still qualify as knowing chess well. Didn't know Morphy was a top level player when I made the comment.