in parcheesi you have an element of luck which can help you win games.
In chess its about who plays the best and yea, EGO.
Why is chess taken so seriously?
Sort:
aRgPlaying wrote:
in parcheesi you have an element of luck which can help you win games.
In chess its about who plays the best and yea, EGO.
Yes, I totally agree. It is all about EGO. That is why chess is taken too serious and moves a lot of money.
I like to show my brilliant victories in the thread below and a lot of users just criticize me because they think I have a BIG EGO.
I do not have a big ego, it is just a normal ego for a person who like to play chess.
The most interesting game of chess was played here in chess.com !!!!
because I don't Have to! because its my hobby and it irks my wife! and lastly because I , lose, frequently- and I can't blame the dice, the alignment of stars, of the lack of magical talents.
Ego? no I don't think so. I know I'm not the smartest person. and It doesn't hurt my feelings to lose to good technique. I don't like the moment where it was clear I did something totally silly - and treating chess unseriously tends to make that happen.
Doesn't seem to me that chess is being taken "so seriously" or any more seriously than it "should be". Certainly not by the vast majority of the online demographics where one can see nothing but a healthy appreciation for the game. One can find a few paranoid/obsessive outliers here and there, but they hardly represent the whole demographic.
So I don't think that this question makes any sense, except maybe for those who actually live by it - chess professionals, theorists, etc. These would probably answer that it is for the same reasons that any other competitive sport is taken seriously + the huge body of chess knowledge created throughout history has become a "culture" which, just like any other culture, is naturally nurtured, preserved and developed in light of the competitive nature of the game + it has intrinsic scientific value for a number of reasons.
Nov 16, 2015
0
#6
Your ego is what you take so seriously. Not chess. When you set aside your ego you will markedly improve. Trust me.
Sadly, most people will never figure that out. And even if they do ?....they won't be able to put together a plan and help themselves get over it. They are too emotional.
Nov 16, 2015
0
#8
....and the reason why is 'cuz people don't learn very much when they win. Learning from a win is there, but they think that they were successful 'cuz they won so they go over the game reminding themselves that this move or that move was really good. This may or may not be true.
Yes, their rating goes up some when they win. But they learn when they lose - if they can evaluate without their ego clouding everything up.
....just what I've found. Now, go and do likewise or forever stay stuck.
Nov 16, 2015
0
#9
I think in games that include chance, like backgammon or poker, its easier to blame bad luck or say " i play bad ". With chess it seams to be alot more pride involved, and ofcourse there is no chance or luck to blame.
It can't just be luck. Contract bridge was once taken very seriously, and though they tried to remove the element of luck in tournaments, ordinary people played the game with random shuffles. In my father's time, normal suburban couples took the game quite as seriously as club players of chess do today.
Nov 16, 2015
0
#11
paretobox wrote:
It can't just be luck. Contract bridge was once taken very seriously, and though they tried to remove the element of luck in tournaments, ordinary people played the game with random shuffles. In my father's time, normal suburban couples took the game quite as seriously as club players of chess do today.
I play contract bridge (ACBL) along with chess (USCF/FIDE).
The only luck in contract bridge is the same as the only luck there is in chess. The luck of your opponent screwing up. You could have a totally lost game after 43 moves, but your opponent blunders on move 44. That's luck. You did nothing to make your opponent screw up.
Contract bridge is the same way. Nobody made your opponents mis-defend and give you an extra trick, so instead of the rest of the room in 4 Spades in the East making 5, you, sitting East, are in 4 Spades making 6 for 30 extra points and a top board.
Now "Rubber Bridge" that 4 old ladies playin their kitchen with above the line and below the line scoring? Yeah, that's all luck. Luck in terms of who gets the good cards. But in Duplicate Bridge, the only way it's played in organized events, it's a game of Skill. If you are sitting East for a session (your partner of course being West), and North/South gets all the cards for the majority of the session, guess what? It's not about whether they make contracts. It's about how you do compared to all the other pairs sitting East/West. If you defend well, and allow North/South on board 1 to take 10 Tricks in 4 Hearts in the North, neither side is Vulnerable on Board 1, and North/South Scores 420. However, assuming it's a 9-table game, in Round 2, when 9 North/South plays board 1 against 8 East/West, and North makes 11 tricks in 4 Hearts North because the Defense made the wrong lead and gave up a trick (East open leads a Club with the King of clubs in his hand, declarer had AQ of Clubs, you gave a trick to the declarer), while you scored -420 for Board 1, Pair 8 East/West scored -450. The other 7 pairs all do the same thing and score -450. Guess what? Your negative score results in a top board!
So contract bridge (Duplicate Bridge) and chess are both complete games of skill, and the only luck is the luck of your opponent making a bone-head move, whether it be open leading a club away from the King instead of a Spade in 4 Hearts, or walking into a 5-move tactical combination that leads to a Royal fork. Otherwise, both are complete games of Skill, unlike say, Scrabble, where one player can't make words because he never has any vowels, and another player can't score points because all he gets are 1-point tiles, while the 3rd player is getting the right mix of vowels, S's, and high point letters, and is able to win easily, or Backgammon where you win the faceoff with one of the worst starting combinations, like 6-3, 6-2, or 5-1, and the whole game goes down hill from there!
The single, biggest mistake made is equating chess with intelligence. As if somehow winning a chess game makes someone "smarter" than the opponent Nothing us further from the truth... if you believe otherwise, put on the dunce hat, and repeat after me ... I am a dummy....I am a dummy
Speaking of card games.... I enjoy playing cribbage, gin and partner spades. A good deal of skill is required. Over 100 games I think the better player will prevail, as the luck of the shuffle balances out. Poker is a whole other subject when gambling for $. It reguires several skill sets independent of the deal.
@ThrillerFan...How much "cheating" do you encounter at contract bridge? I have sparsely played but read of big scandals at major tournaments. It is so easy to "send signals" ... even at the club level. What measures do arbitrators utilize? Just kinda curious.
Question posed by the thread and your bridge expertise reminded me of my experiances with contract bridge. I thought chess players have nothing on bridge players when it comes to seriousness.
Ego probably has a lot to do with it and self esteem. I won't say the majority of players are physical weaklings, romantic losers and social cripples but they are over represented among chess players. If you can't make the football team then maybe you can make the chess team. If you can't beat him with your fists maybe you can with your mind.
It doesn't take much to be relatively good at chess. Someone with a 1000 rating isn't very impressive among active chess players but they can pound the 98 percent who don't play at all. A couple of years of casual play and a smattering of incomplete opening knowledge can get you on most high school chess teams. In some schools you only have to know how the pieces move and show up for the matches. A cheap varsity letter for an awkward misfit.
Chess offers the only kind of success that some people will ever know.
Obvious red flag not deserving of response.
I did agree that contract bridge removed the element of luck. But I referred to casual players who still took it seriously. Couples playing bridge in the 40s or 50s did not use tournament rules but could be quite serious about their bridge playing. Unlike chess where even casual players can simulate tournament conditions with clock timing and touch move, I doubt that one in a thousand couples in the 40s played in a way to remove luck.
Someone needs to send Joe Mantegna after the OP.
Nov 16, 2015
0
#18
paretobox wrote:
I did agree that contract bridge removed the element of luck. But I referred to casual players who still took it seriously. Couples playing bridge in the 40s or 50s did not use tournament rules but could be quite serious about their bridge playing. Unlike chess where even casual players can simulate tournament conditions with clock timing and touch move, I doubt that one in a thousand couples in the 40s played in a way to remove luck.
It's funny you talk about players in their 40s. I started playing duplicate bridge in March of 2000 when I was a couple of months shy of 25.
I actually happen to be 40 right now.
There are 2 players I play with more than most others. One is 67, the other is also 40. There is another guy I play with occasionally in his late 20s or early 30s. One thing I can say about us younger guys and the 67 year old that is vastly different than the older people in their 60s (excluding my bridge partner), 70s, and 80s.
People in their 60s, 70s, and 80s are all about following rules and principals. You have 12 and 2 quick tricks or 13, you open. You don't? Well, you pass in first or second seat (third seat a different story).
Younger people tend to bid more with air (lack of points). More gambling, more 50/50 contracts. Slams that depend on a finesse or guessing a finesse in the right direction tend to be found more by younger players. The older guys want the sure thing.
I'll open with 11, 6 hearts to the Jack, 4 Clubs. Most older people wouldn't because their argument is their hearts stink, so why stretch the hand?
I'll open a weak 2 (2 spades) with xxxxxx/Ax/Qxx/xx, most wouldn't, again, because they play "diciplined" weak 2s, meaning 2 of the top 3 or 3 of the top 5 cards in the 6-card suit, like AQxxxx/Jx/xxx/xx.
I make an overcall of 1 spade, I might have Jxxxx/AK/Qx/xxx. An 80-year old overcalls 1 Spade, more likely is something like AKxxx/x/QJxx/Qxx.
As for cheating, there are some I have questioned at times. Gestures when they bid. The way they put the bidding card down, like straight vs with an arch (inconsistently with the same player that is, not from one player to the next) when moving from the bid box to the table. Stuff like that.
Of course, one of the most famous scandals where the guys got caught was before I started playing. They would hold their hand with 1 finger being the cards (that their partner sees), 4 fingers in frong of the cards, to indicate 1 or no Hearts. 2 fingers meant 2 hearts. 3 fingers meant 3 hearts. 4 fingers (So only their thumb would be on their side of the cards, probably considered the normal way to hold the cards) meant 4 or more hearts!
Nov 16, 2015
0
#19
I take games seriously. Including chess, backgammon, duplicate bridge, rubber bridge, Monopoly, Risk, poker, foosball, hearts, spades, pitch, go, ping pong, Scrabble.
Ok there are some games I don't take seriously. Candyland, craps, roulette, slot machines.
As the title says, why is it looked on as such as seruous game?
My opinion is that its no different than Parcheesi.