Age Affects Courage? Are Older Players More Cowardly Than Younger Players?

I was reading a chess.com Silman article and one of the commenters said that age affects courage, i.e., the older you get, the less courage you have.  (A general remark, not an absolute, blanket remark.)

It caused me to reflect on my own situation.  Older fellow, returning to the game after decades long hiatus.  Trying to figure out whether to start 1. e4 or 1. d4.  Reading all sorts of stuff about "styles" and what you're comfortable with.  Don't know my style, but taking the approach like I'm starting from scratch.  Tactical is 1. e4 and open games.  Positional is 1. d4 and closed games.  It's recommended that beginners start with 1. e4.

But me! being the older comeback kid am leaning towards 1. d4.   Why?  Because 1. e4 is tactical fireworks.  And I'm thinking that I'm slower and less deep in my calculations than the young guns.  So best go with 1. d4.  

Which goes with the thesis of the commenter:  Age affects courage!  I don't want to go toe-to-toe with a young gun in a tactical fireworks battle.  I fear I may get crunched.  Who wants to be on the losing side of some brilliant miniature by a young up-and-comer?  LOL.  Not me, said the senior patzer!

As an aside, I recently met an older gentlemen while kibitzing a local tourney for 15 minutes last month.  He was repeatedly looking at my 8-year old who was just kibitzing too.  I spoke with him briefly, and he said that he doesn't like playing kids because they beat him (and he was a solid Class B player).

So, in thinking about the thesis, perhaps age does affect courage?  On a related tangent, what about Kasparov retiring and many older GM's exiting the competitive stage, either gradually or suddenly?  They recognize the erosion or decline, and handling the competitive loss of both games and rating points affects the courage to even play anymore?

Thoughts?

"With age comes wisdom"

I dont think its a lack of courage, I think its reaching a maturity level where you pick and choose your battles.  

I like it!  "That's not cowardice!  That's, now say it with me, ...  MATURITY!!  Got that young gun?  That's maturity!"

I have noticed that opening traps and unsound sacrifices (of the sort of Bxh3) are often a sign for a lack of confidence. Weaker players often cannot bear the tension and don't trust in their ability to outplay their opponents by "normal" moves.

I may be in denial, but I don't think of my "more mature style" to be cowardly.  I prefer to call it playing with a conscience.  30 years ago, I used to get away with unsound attacks and plans that had huge holes--even against a few players rated over 2000.  But when I bought Fritz back in 1998, I reviewed many of these "brilliancies" and realized just how horribly flawed they really were.

On second though, I guess I'm more afraid to make a mistake.  Sounds a lot like "cowardly."

Hmmm...interesting. I wonder if there are any clubs here on CC devoted to "seniors" or any tourneys? If not, maybe we should start one? Just checked. There are several.

No.

I'm young (15) and I won't look for fireworks. I'm not "courageous" in that sense.

But I will look for the best move, the best plan, no matter whether it is tactical or positional. I think "style" is not something that should influence play, but I don't know, I might develop one (I've only been playing for a year, so there's that).

For instance, I dislike the Open Sicilian, not because I don't like the aggressive nature of it, but because I believe it's a fundamentally flawed choice for white.

There is a club for older players here. It's called "The Geezers."

I'm switching from 1. e4 to 1. d4, just to learn something new, and I turn 60 this year. Even at my age, I like tactics. I've found I need to play slower time controls (daily chess) but I've recently returned to rapid chess (10 minutes) and won my last three. I don't think, at my age, I'll play anything faster than 10 minute rapid chess. Have fun.

Uncle Bent, ya know, it may be worth it for me to go with 1. e4.  Why?  Because of what you said and because of past discussion about Rapid being the New Classical.

It's hard to play defense.  Attack is easier than defense.  With faster time controls, it favors the aggressive attacking player.   Maybe us old guys should say to hell with mistakes, let's turn the tables, and play attacking chess!  Get the other guy in time trouble and living in the land of Unforced Blunders.

i think younger players are more aggressive

I believe that it is more of a case of experience than anything else.  A new player, regardless of age, looks at the game like, "If I go there, he is forced to defend, then I take, he takes back...." because that's all they have to work with.  They use tactics to begin variations.  Experienced players tend to think more like, "Well, he has an isolated pawn on an open file, and I can get three attackers on it, he can get three defenders, but his back rank is vulnerable at the end" so their tactics come at the end of variations.  They have experienced more positions and know how to play without massive calculations.  To me it's more a question of experience than, say, courage or age.

Aggression can backfire if you don't know what you're doing. I played black against 1. d4 and my opponent just started pushing pawns. I set up a solid, developing defense and took advantage of my opponents unsupported pawns.

@SeniorPatzer  If you have reliable opening systems against the main replies to 1.e4, I think it's a good idea to stick with it.  Having black vs an e4 player is still the toughest game and against which I have the lowest percentage of wins.   As white, why do your opponents a favor and play something else than e4?

And about the second point--think of all the time, effort, energy, dedication Kasparov put into being a World Champion.  He dominated everyone.  Then, along comes Kramnik to take the title and Garri doesn't even win one game.  The blow to his ego must have been as huge as his ego itself.  I think it was just too much to take, so he left the competitions but not the game.  Probably something similar with the other GMs.  When you realize you will not be the best, what do you do?  The old expression is, "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach."  Just throwing in my two cents.

You callin' me yella, SeniorPatzer? Let's take this outside and find out who's yella!

Talking about emotions in chess is pretty irrelevant since chess is an intellectual game. The guy with more knowledge and more skill will normally win, and since seniors typically have both of those, as well as better judgment, they're in particularly good shape to win. Of course there exist extremes where such generalities no longer hold, but I'll assume you're not talking about those.

There are 2 types of younger players:

Those that are simply better and will win most of the time no matter what.

Those that will eventually crack.  I find that playing slow, methodical, "boring" chess eventually forces them to lose patience and blunder.

You da Man, Squod!  I don't want no part of you, buddy!  

Just laughin', what part of California are you in?  I might have to tangle with you over the board though.

FWIW, when I see your username, I think of this commentator for the World Series of Poker.  Norman something.  Anyways, he always says something like, "That guy has squaaa-dooosh!"  Which means that the guy is bluffing and has no cards.  So when I see "Sqod" I think of Norman yelling, "Squaaaa-dooosh!"

I "choke" much more than I did 30 years ago.  A bad game brings me down, much more than a good game lifts me up, so a bad game in the first round of a tournament affects my play in subsequent rounds.

When I was young and trounced an opponent, I felt like I was on my way to master, even if my opponent played poorly and missed numerous chances to save the game.  I used to just tell myself that I posed too many problems for my opponent to deal with -- just like Tal!