I've discovered why I don't like chess

[hypernormie]

Now I've been dabbling in Chess the past few months because I don't have much else to do.

One thing however has been bothering me about the game and I've had a hard time putting my finger on what exactly it was.

Well I've figured it out.

Chess is a game that penalizes aggression, ambition and active efforts to undermine your opponent. It's a game that fundamentally rewards passivity, defensive behavior and stagnation.

In chess the better player is not the player who tried to win the hardest, it's the player who tries the hardest to not lose.

This creates a dynamic where the best approach to every game in chess is to simply sit back and wait for your opponent to make a mistake. Now this may be obvious to you chess players out there but it wasn't to me and now that I'm aware of it, I don't like it.

I made a post a while back about how chess felt super autistic and now I understand what exactly is autistic about it. It's the fact that to be very good at chess is mostly about being autistically focused on minimizing risks and error prevention rather than on maximizing strength and leverage.

Idk what this says about me, well actually I do, it's pretty obvious. My disposition is too active to really enjoy this style of game. Being patient, waiting around, refusing to act is super foreign to me and while chess has taught that there is some power/virtue to the negative action or the refusal to do anything, and that there are more ways to win in life than simply going directly for the victory, this is fundamentally not something I enjoy.

So I will be looking for other board games now that reward my disposition.

I already have a few in mind...

 

[DxstZ]

dnr but chess looks so fucking confusing fuck that shit it's fucking you need big fucking IQ for to play that fucking game

 

[lnceIs]

You can play bullet or speed chess. I prefer 3:00 chess for this particular reason too!

 

[Nectar]

Low iq take

 

[hypernormie]

You can play bullet or speed chess. I prefer 3:00 chess for this particular reason too!

Yes this is good advice and what I was considering in the meantime until I find a substitute game

 

[hypernormie]

Low iq take

It's literally the truth about the game

 

[Pony]

it’s just hard for low iq

 

[Pony]

brutal iqpill

 

[unstable]

except that is not what chess is
it penalizes early agression
agression after achieving a position is encouraged fool

 

[mr007]

Me too low iq people don't like chess .
I a m high iq tho

 

[hypernormie]

dnr but chess looks so fucking confusing fuck that shit it's fucking you need big fucking IQ for to play that fucking game

Chess is really not a very complicated game

There is a positive correlation with IQ from beginner to intermediate that disappears the better players get meaning smart people are more likely to get into chess but the best chess players aren't necessarily the smartest people and that is for the reasons I mentioned in this post.

This is because the game is very "solved" in a sense and doesn't necessarily reward creative dynamic problem solving (such that would reflect IQ) at the highest levels.
The best chess player is someone who is really good at remembering patterns (past games) and avoiding risk, not necessarily the person who is engaging in the most creative and dynamic problem solving.

Not saying chess GM's are low IQ but the research shows that high IQ isn't required to be a chess GM.

There are much higher IQ board games out there than chess.

 

[hypernormie]

Me too low iq people don't like chess .
I a m high iq tho

Research shows that chess performance is not significantly correlated with IQ beyond the initial stages.

So this is just massive cope.

 

[hypernormie]

except that is not what chess is
it penalizes early agression
agression after achieving a position is encouraged fool

It fundamentally is what the game is though

I knew there would a bunch of chess fanboys out there who would get their panties in a bunch when they can no longer larp as high IQ by "being into chess" but unfortunately the facts contradict you

 

[hypernormie]

except that is not what chess is
it penalizes early agression
agression after achieving a position is encouraged fool

What is funny however is I clearly state in my post that the main reason I don't want to continue playing is that it doesn't suit my temperament not that the game itself is flawed

I'm sure there are plenty of people who have temperaments that are suited for chess

The fact that you react so emotionally despite my subjective explanation is giving you away

 

[unstable]

It fundamentally is what the game is though

I knew there would a bunch of chess fanboys out there who would get their panties in a bunch when they can no longer larp as high IQ by "being into chess" but unfortunately the facts contradict you

the greatest chess player was also the most agressive chess player get what you get from it
i am shit at chess actually

 

[unstable]

What is funny however is I clearly state in my post that the main reason I don't want to continue playing is that it doesn't suit my temperament not that the game itself is flawed

I'm sure there are plenty of people who have temperaments that are suited for chess

The fact that you react so emotionally despite my subjective explanation is giving you away

what is funny is that your analysis of game is flawed it self is what i said
and nigga what the fuck is emotional that is just how it type
and i just pointed out your mistake

 

[hypernormie]

it’s just hard for low iq

Chess is not a high IQ game

But I'm not surprised at this comment, I was expecting the chess IQ copers to come out the woodworks

 

[hypernormie]

what is funny is that your analysis of game is flawed it self is what i said
and nigga what the fuck is emotional that is just how it type
and i just pointed out your mistake

It's not though but I don't expect you to understand

 

[hypernormie]

brutal iqpill

My IQ is not low I know this as a verified fact

 

[unstable]

It's not though but I don't expect you to understand

first of all majority of chess games are statistically won by the one who launches the first attack atleast at higher levels if it was about not losing instead of winning it wouldn't be the case

 

[fantasea]

My IQ is not low I know this as a verified fact

did you get it tested?

 

[hypernormie]

except that is not what chess is
it penalizes early agression
agression after achieving a position is encouraged fool

It's interesting you don't realize how this proves my point

 

[Prøphet]

Not really I mean you’re partly right but there are many aggressive and risky tactics you can use

 

[hypernormie]

first of all majority of chess games are statistically won by the one who launches the first attack atleast at higher levels if it was about not losing instead of winning it wouldn't be the case

This is actually not true, attacking first in chess is generally a disadvantage

White moves first and therefore has the advantage, but moving first is not the same as attacking first. Moving first allows you to defend first, which is the exact opposite. Games are usually won by whoever can avoid making the first mistake and then capitalize on further mistakes if possible. Attacking is always riskier than waiting for your opponent to attack

This is how draws occur and perfect chess will always end in a draw because no player will overextend or attack unnecessarily.

 

[unstable]

This is actually not true, attacking first in chess is generally a disadvantage

White moves first and therefore has the advantage, but moving first is not the same as attacking first. Moving first allows you to defend first, which is the exact opposite. Games are usually won by whoever can avoid making the first mistake and then capitalize on further mistakes if possible. Attacking is always riskier than waiting for your opponent to attack

This is how draws occur and perfect chess will always end in a draw because no player will overextend or attack unnecessarily.

and usually you have to first induce them into making blunders and in gm chess we rarely see the first attack launcher loosing

 

[hypernormie]

Not really I mean you’re partly right but there are many aggressive and risky tactics you can use

I'm not talking about the fundamental nature of the game obviously this doesn't apply to every game 100% in every situation but there will be a trend towards defensive play. You can be creatively defensive and at the highest levels it will be hard to comprehend defensive behavior as such but that still will be what it is.

I'm not making an indictment of chess or chess players as a whole, I'm saying that it's not a game I find very amusing because it requires a skill set I'm not interested in developing. That is, deep memory of previous games and positions, as well as a tolerance for caution and slow pace.

 

[N.N]

Now I've been dabbling in Chess the past few months because I don't have much else to do.

One thing however has been bothering me about the game and I've had a hard time putting my finger on what exactly it was.

Well I've figured it out.

Chess is a game that penalizes aggression, ambition and active efforts to undermine your opponent. It's a game that fundamentally rewards passivity, defensive behavior and stagnation.

In chess the better player is not the player who tried to win the hardest, it's the player who tries the hardest to not lose.

This creates a dynamic where the best approach to every game in chess is to simply sit back and wait for your opponent to make a mistake. Now this may be obvious to you chess players out there but it wasn't to me and now that I'm aware of it, I don't like it.

I made a post a while back about how chess felt super autistic and now I understand what exactly is autistic about it. It's the fact that to be very good at chess is mostly about being autistically focused on minimizing risks and error prevention rather than on maximizing strength and leverage.

Idk what this says about me, well actually I do, it's pretty obvious. My disposition is too active to really enjoy this style of game. Being patient, waiting around, refusing to act is super foreign to me and while chess has taught that there is some power/virtue to the negative action or the refusal to do anything, and that there are more ways to win in life than simply going directly for the victory, this is fundamentally not something I enjoy.

So I will be looking for other board games now that reward my disposition.

I already have a few in mind...

i've went from 300-1000 elo in 3 months and i don't agree with your thinking. Sounds like you're a moron tbh. Have you not thought about forcing your opponent's to make mistakes with a good attack?
The only "autistic" part of the game would be hyper-fixating on chess as autistic people usually hyper-fixate on stuff

 

[Ibohammed Eshakt’ur]

You can play bullet or speed chess. I prefer 3:00 chess for this particular reason too!

Bullet makes me want to cut my cock off

 

[hypernormie]

did you get it tested?

Not officially but I have indirect measures

Mensa.dk 119

CAIT I got

VSI - 119
VCI - 119
FRI - skipped because my injury just made this task feel impossible
PSI - 124

Also did a online block design task which is identical to the real one and scored 129±3.9

All while suffering from significant cogntitive impairment and stress due to my neck injury

So can probably score higher on all of these if I was healthy

Also got tested in school and got a 122 on something but it actually wasn't an official IQ test sort of a proxy test to determine if I was special needs. Nonetheless they said it was above average but idk how directly it translates to IQ norms

 

[sergdying]

Now I've been dabbling in Chess the past few months because I don't have much else to do.

One thing however has been bothering me about the game and I've had a hard time putting my finger on what exactly it was.

Well I've figured it out.

Chess is a game that penalizes aggression, ambition and active efforts to undermine your opponent. It's a game that fundamentally rewards passivity, defensive behavior and stagnation.

In chess the better player is not the player who tried to win the hardest, it's the player who tries the hardest to not lose.

This creates a dynamic where the best approach to every game in chess is to simply sit back and wait for your opponent to make a mistake. Now this may be obvious to you chess players out there but it wasn't to me and now that I'm aware of it, I don't like it.

I made a post a while back about how chess felt super autistic and now I understand what exactly is autistic about it. It's the fact that to be very good at chess is mostly about being autistically focused on minimizing risks and error prevention rather than on maximizing strength and leverage.

Idk what this says about me, well actually I do, it's pretty obvious. My disposition is too active to really enjoy this style of game. Being patient, waiting around, refusing to act is super foreign to me and while chess has taught that there is some power/virtue to the negative action or the refusal to do anything, and that there are more ways to win in life than simply going directly for the victory, this is fundamentally not something I enjoy.

So I will be looking for other board games now that reward my disposition.

I already have a few in mind...

fuck chess it's retarded. just play clash

 

[hypernormie]

and usually you have to first induce them into making blunders and in gm chess we rarely see the first attack launcher loosing

As much as they may or may not be true (i'm not gonna check) what I do know is draws are extremely common among GM's because perfect play looks a lot like nobody making mistakes

 

[nvr3noug6]

everything you said is simply wrong, being passive and defensive is strategy that might be useful in some times, but chess is mostly about attacking, you dont wait until your opp makes mistake you create conditions where he is forced to make mistake, i could already tell you are below rating of 700, once you get better and reach 1500+ chess is about meaningful sacrafices making tactics and strategies. overall chess is another imitation of hunting because ability to strategize is masculine high T trait that helped us survive and dominate others.

 

[KKamikaze]

dnr but chess looks so fucking confusing fuck that shit it's fucking you need big fucking IQ for to play that fucking game

Chess isn't that hard if you're open to learn it

 

[Kainep]

Chess is only fun past 2000 elo

 

[hypernormie]

i've went from 300-1000 elo in 3 months and i don't agree with your thinking. Sounds like you're a moron tbh. Have you not thought about forcing your opponent's to make mistakes with a good attack?
The only "autistic" part of the game would be hyper-fixating on chess as autistic people usually hyper-fixate on stuff

I'm sure there are times where that works just like I'm sure there are times when doing the opposite of what is ideal works in any environment

But nonetheless if you could understand that you wouldn't have made this comment

 

[hypernormie]

Chess isn't that hard if you're open to learn it

It's not hard at all

 

[MyDreamIsToBe183CM]

I’m

Now I've been dabbling in Chess the past few months because I don't have much else to do.

One thing however has been bothering me about the game and I've had a hard time putting my finger on what exactly it was.

Well I've figured it out.

Chess is a game that penalizes aggression, ambition and active efforts to undermine your opponent. It's a game that fundamentally rewards passivity, defensive behavior and stagnation.

In chess the better player is not the player who tried to win the hardest, it's the player who tries the hardest to not lose.

This creates a dynamic where the best approach to every game in chess is to simply sit back and wait for your opponent to make a mistake. Now this may be obvious to you chess players out there but it wasn't to me and now that I'm aware of it, I don't like it.

I made a post a while back about how chess felt super autistic and now I understand what exactly is autistic about it. It's the fact that to be very good at chess is mostly about being autistically focused on minimizing risks and error prevention rather than on maximizing strength and leverage.

Idk what this says about me, well actually I do, it's pretty obvious. My disposition is too active to really enjoy this style of game. Being patient, waiting around, refusing to act is super foreign to me and while chess has taught that there is some power/virtue to the negative action or the refusal to do anything, and that there are more ways to win in life than simply going directly for the victory, this is fundamentally not something I enjoy.

So I will be looking for other board games now that reward my disposition.

I already have a few in mind...

phnmy God im gonna veer to up

 

[hypernormie]

Chess is only fun past 2000 elo

This is also my intuition but this not accessible for most people

 

[hypernormie]

fuck chess it's retarded. just play clash

Might actually

 

[KKamikaze]

It's not hard at all

I don't agree on that however the difficulty faced in chess is different for everyone

 

[Kainep]

It's not hard at all

Yeah when you are past master FMs and CMs enjoy chess more than GMs who grind candidates and also better than hardstuck 1500s

 

[hypernormie]

everything you said is simply wrong, being passive and defensive is strategy that might be useful in some times, but chess is mostly about attacking, you dont wait until your opp makes mistake you create conditions where he is forced to make mistake, i could already tell you are below rating of 700, once you get better and reach 1500+ chess is about meaningful sacrafices making tactics and strategies. overall chess is another imitation of hunting because ability to strategize is masculine high T trait that helped us survive and dominate others.

You may be right but why on earth would I care to become 1500+ at chess? At the rating I'm at what you're saying is certainly not true and I would have to surpass this rating to reach that one, which I don't find the game engaging enough to do.

Chess is not about high T anything. It's about who can calculate the deepest and be patient the longest. If you try to be a "high T hunter" while learning chess you will make a lot of unnecessary mistakes and lose a lot of games, even if the games somehow rewards that later. I'm saying I don't find the game engaging enough to see if that's true later on.

There are other board games which place greater pressure on fluid intelligence than chess does. I've come to the point where I realize that to get better it's not going to be about fluid intelligence but about pattern memory and I don't have any interest in that. I don't fault you however if you do.

 

[hypernormie]

I don't agree on that however the difficulty faced in chess is different for everyone

Not hard to learn I mean it's a simple game the basic ideas are simple, the real barrier is do you want to sit down and memorize a bunch of openings and lines. That's going to make the biggest difference when starting out.

 

[nvr3noug6]

You may be right but why on earth would I care to become 1500+ at chess? At the rating I'm at what you're saying is certainly not true and I would have to surpass this rating to reach that one, which I don't find the game engaging enough to do.

Chess is not about high T anything. It's about who can calculate the deepest and be patient the longest. If you try to be a "high T hunter" while learning chess you will make a lot of unnecessary mistakes and lose a lot of games, even if the games somehow rewards that later. I'm saying I don't find the game engaging enough to see if that's true later on.

There are other board games which place greater pressure on fluid intelligence than chess does. I've come to the point where I realize that to get better it's not going to be about fluid intelligence but about pattern memory and I don't have any interest in that. I don't fault you however if you do.

well okay, thats your personal experience about chess.

my point is that chess is not one fixed thing it involves lots of different tactics and strategies (e.g. attack, defense, risk-taking, will to dominate your opp, strong Competitiveness, etc.) these things are present throughout the game.

but its okay if u dont enjoy, not everyone has to.

 

[Slayer]

The Sicilian is extremely popular at the master level specifically because it creates dynamic and unbalanced attacking positions

 

[hypernormie]

The Sicilian is extremely popular at the master level specifically because it creates dynamic and unbalanced attacking positions

Yes but why are there openings anyway you know? That feels a little lame to me. Why should I have to memorize something to play the game?

Now if you've already memorized it and are playing against others who have memorized an equally large amount of stuff than I can see that being interesting

But I've seen some other board games like Arimaa, or Tak or Shobu which don't have this need for memorization problem going on. The game can get much more dynamic much earlier and there is no advantage to starting off with a previously acquired knowledge base

Now I've only dabbled in those games so maybe they also have their flaws too but that's kinda where I'm getting at

 

[hypernormie]

well okay, thats your personal experience about chess.

my point is that chess is not one fixed thing it involves lots of different tactics and strategies (e.g. attack, defense, risk-taking, will to dominate your opp, strong Competitiveness, etc.) these things are present throughout the game.

but its okay if u dont enjoy, not everyone has to.

No I don't mean to criticize chess I know it can be a very fun and exciting game, I watch a bunch of chess and play it all the time but it's just not been as satisfying as I would have hoped and I was wondering why, and I think the stuff I spoke about in my post is the reason

 

[Slayer]

Yes but why are there openings anyway you know? That feels a little lame to me. Why should I have to memorize something to play the game?

Now if you've already memorized it and are playing against others who have memorized an equally large amount of stuff than I can see that being interesting

But I've seen some other board games like Arimaa, or Tak or Shobu which don't have this need for memorization problem going on. The game can get much more dynamic much earlier and there is no advantage to starting off with a previously acquired knowledge base

Now I've only dabbled in those games so maybe they also have their flaws too but that's kinda where I'm getting at

Magnus is the goat because he can play suboptimal/offbeat moves to take his opponent out of the book and still win, and this is at the absolute highest levels of the game.

Openings are just fun tools under 1600, you can play almost anything that doesn’t immediately lose and still have fun games. And you can always play Fischer random if you really hate theory.

 

[Amphisbaena]

Yes but why are there openings anyway you know? That feels a little lame to me. Why should I have to memorize something to play the game?

Now if you've already memorized it and are playing against others who have memorized an equally large amount of stuff than I can see that being interesting

But I've seen some other board games like Arimaa, or Tak or Shobu which don't have this need for memorization problem going on. The game can get much more dynamic much earlier and there is no advantage to starting off with a previously acquired knowledge base

Now I've only dabbled in those games so maybe they also have their flaws too but that's kinda where I'm getting at

try Chess960 on chess.com (also referred to as fischer random or freestyle). No opening prep and early attacks are much more common as the opponent can start with an extremely weak king position. Basically a version of chess where IQ and gamesense (tactical play) matter more than principle.

And you can always play Fischer random if you really hate theory.

this ^

 

[hypernormie]

Magnus is the goat because he can play suboptimal/offbeat moves to take his opponent out of the book and still win, and this is at the absolute highest levels of the game.

Openings are just fun tools under 1600, you can play almost anything that doesn’t immediately lose and still have fun games. And you can always play Fischer random if you really hate theory.

That's what I've been doing recently is playing fischer random

Maybe I'm wrong idk I didn't put massive thought into this post

But someone like Magnus being able to break all the rules and still dominate may not be the best counter however I will agree there are some very prominent aggressive players in fact iirc I think the generally agreed upon best players are have been pretty "aggressive"