Does anyone want to be a titled player???

do any of you want to be a titled player??? i know that i do

defiantly man! so true

[COMMENT DELETED]

Why? To get all the chicks?

If I ever reach 2000 I'll be happy.

I just wanted to be better than Frank Simpson and I thought I would be happy .   When I got better than him I thought I would be happy if I could just reach A class .... I wasnt .  Then I set my sights on 2000 and thought I would be content with that .... guess what ?    

No. I'm just in it for the babes. Babes love guys who play the Smith-Morra gambit.

You're right, we tend to want more and more.

No...to much work.  I would rather enjoy the game.

I would not mind earning a title, but I am with I_am_second on this one. The important thing is enjoying the game. If I never make title, oh well!

I have grown to appreciate players that make it to 2200.  I know what it took me to make A class, a whole lotta hard work.  But at the same time, i didnt enjoy the game as much.  Chess is a great game, and i want it to be fun, not work. 

My head would explode thinking about what the worlds best go through to get there and stay there.  No way...

No thanks, I'll just have a chicken satay.

No.

I wanna be titled but can't consistently visualize 10 moves ahead, it takes too much out of me so I'm too burned out by the time things calm down and don't have the inborn ability to do it far more rapidly to save on time. 

You dont need to see 10 moves ahead.  I generally never see more than 3 moves ahead, unless its a forced line.  Seeing 10 mves ahead is rediculous, so keep it realistic. 

It depends on the time control.  We're given six hours per side in some tournaments, which is more than enough time to look as far as you possibly can before the chances of retained image errors show themselves. The ability to accurately evaluate a position reliably decreases the further we calculate after a certain point and it seems like a reasonable training policy to push that threshold further back.

  So one day we can only accurately calculate three moves ahead and evaluate without fear of retained image errors or overlooking an important nuance, but train calculation and positional assessment (because you have to know how good the ending positions of various lines and subvariations are somehow, which is where imbalances like center type, pawn structure, and piece types come into play) to see five moves later (doesn't seem like a big leap from three but it really is factoring in all the possibilities)

Also it varies, calculating 8 moves ahead is far easier if it's a narrow forcing variation whereas a quiet position without much contact will result in countless lines and variations checking the accuracy of one's candidate moves. 

I tend to do much better with time controls between 20 minutes through an hour, when you're aware of a clock but the opponent has less time to think in such formats so less time is needed whereas a mistake in longer controls is easier to identify as a mistake due to the extra time to find out why.   

6 hours each?  Good Lord, i owuld be done after 1 game.  You could give me a week and i still wouldnt tr yand calculate 10 moves ahead, it seems a bit extreme to me.  But then again at my level i dont need to look that far ahead. 

Meant three hours per side (120 minutes for the first 40 moves, an hour for the rest of the game, sometimes 90 minutes for the first 40 moves)

Now that makes much more sense :-)  That is my favorite time control.