Checkmate…Or Not
Chess is one oflife’s true conundrums — easy to learn, difficult to master
Although you may not have spent much, if any, time contemplating it, chess is one of life’s true conundrums — easy to learn, difficult to master. Given how many people play or have played chess at some level, this is a widely shared reality. All games are meant to be fun and enjoyable, but invariably require knowing enough about rules and tactics first. The ratio of effort needed to reach sufficient competence and skill varies with the game being played, but with chess the path is quite steep.
The basics of chess seem simple enough, but the combinations of multitudes of strategies and tactics all while being able to think far enough ahead can be overwhelming. There are hundreds of books, many websites and endless amounts of advice — none of which make certain any meaningful degree of competence. Those who are truly good at this game have devoted countless hours to attain it. This explains why over decades I have abandoned and returned to chess numerous times.
Despite my ability to handle layers and compartments of information simultaneously, chess demonstrates how difficult it can be to see several moves ahead among potential choices, and then choose one knowing the opponent is doing the same. The numbers of players who are truly accomplished is very small relative to the numbers who engage in this popular activity. The highly skilled make it look easy, the average often wonder if it’s worth all the effort.
I bring this up because as a pragmatist I am rationally programed to think about issues such as this, and seek the observations of others who have contemplated the same thing. I recently read an article in which the author noted there are many ways to enjoy chess, such as clicking (or autoplaying) through matches between between truly gifted players on a digital chess board or spending less time playing and more time on the history of chess over the centuries. Some people enjoy correspondence chess via email rather than live games because the pace is much, much slower. Here was my pragmatic lesson regarding chess.
There is no right or wrong way to enjoy any activity or hobby. It’s a pragmatic lesson, however, that isn’t necessarily obvious. My interests and activities tend to follow the same pattern I use in general to navigate life. I find what works for me and don’t concern myself with how that compares to others. I also typically align myself with Confucius in this: moderation in all things. Sometimes it takes a while to find where that space is, but in the end I invariably locate it. I inherently realize when I’m outside that comfort zone — not too much, not too little: the Goldilocks zone.
Some might claim this is a lack of commitment and/or enthusiasm, but I’ve rarely taken my cues from others unless they offer an insight I find intriging…and pragmatic. So, if I want to relax and enjoy chess, I can watch matches among the greatest players the world has ever known — from the past and from right now — on a digital chessboard on computer or mobile device. There are literally millions of these matches available to be played online or downloaded.
I’m sure some would observe that I’m not actually playing chess and thus not really a participant, but I would note that I have also never played football (soccer in US, Australia, Japan) either, yet watch “my” team in Serie A (Italy) on television every week, and I have never ridden a motorcycle but watch MotoGP races more than a dozen times each year. Participation comes in many forms, not just in sports and games but any area of interest.
The theory that it takes 10,000 hours of practice to become really good at something is not without merit, but it’s also dependent on ability, skills and motivation (as in having or not having them). Being really smart, while helpful, isn’t going to overcome the reality that it doesn’t apply equally to any and all things that can be learned. Those who are amazingly gifted (such as chess prodigy Magnus Carlsen from Norway) are rare in any field of endeavor. For most of us, even if more intelligent than average, some things will just not be what we might wish they were when it comes to doing something well.
Finally, casual chess is very, very different from serious chess. Casual is fun, serious is work. The latter requires endless practice, analysis and memorization. That simply does not appeal to me…or anyone with a life beyond chess (or whatever one might substitute for it). This may well be a trait thing — see reference to Confucius above. It’s probably why I have an innate proportionality response to most things most of the time. My wife and pragmatism are the primary exceptions.
My wife, a very successful, intelligent, attractive and funny senior executive, has reminded me several times that in addition to achieving very good grades in high school while being a cheerleader and dating quarterbacks, she also hung out with the geeks. They taught her how to play chess, and after a while she told them to stop letting her win. They were shocked, telling her they were actually losing to her. She has suggested that she and I play chess. I don’t think so.
