23 Jan 08
Originally posted by Evil Pawn 666My answer is that chess is an activity I have taken an interest in, and it is both entertaining and mentally challenging/developing to play AND to improve one's performance in. I do crosswords and much the same is true; and though "ego" (self-image, self-respect) do play a part in such activities, crosswords are not competitive, so there is generally nobody to show-off to. The point, I think, is that if you like doing something, and you have any personal standards, you like to do it well. The question then becomes how much effort need one apply to do it well, and do you like it enough to expend that much effort? I think self-development is a natural trait and a positive one, and whether one chooses to channel this into chess, athletics, or any variety or combination of things, is simply a matter of personal preferences as well as practicality.
After reading these posts, it all sounds familiar. None the less true and expert, but stuff most of us have read at some point in our evolution to the present. I would pose a question. Why is it important to reach 2000?
I for one would like to reach 2000. But the reason....I will never be able to make any money playing chess. Also, I will never reach ...[text shortened]... reach that level, but I am enjoying the struggle and look foreward to every new game. Good luck
After you do enough supermarket crossword magazine collections, and have pretty much mastered them, the question is do you want to go on doing something easy, and will this provide the entertainment, personal challenge, and personal development that you seek, or do you want to take it to the next level. My answer is the latter. Eventually you find yourself seeking out more difficult puzzles. The same is true with chess so far. And chess is an extremely rich and complex game, so the potential for both continued interest and personal growth is very high, even after years of experience.
23 Jan 08
Reaching 2000 is a realistic goal and a gratifying achievement for almost any player who is willing to put in the necessary study and play in a lot of tournaments.
I (barely) went over the 2000 mark (I was rated 2002 in the May 1987 USCF Rating Supplement) and to this day I am proud of that achievement. (These days my rating is almost always on my floor of 1800, so because of age and mental problems I don't ever expect to see 1900 again, let alone 2000.)
23 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by gaychessplayerAge is a negative factor for me as well. I probably have to work twice as hard to see the kind of improvement younger players can achieve almost naturally, and with much less work or the competing obligations of work and personal commitments that can deter the best of intentions and plans.
Reaching 2000 is a realistic goal and a gratifying achievement for almost any player who is willing to put in the necessary study and play in a lot of tournaments.
I (barely) went over the 2000 mark (I was rated 2002 in the May 1987 USCF Rating Supplement) and to this day I am proud of that achievement. (These days my rating is almost always on my ...[text shortened]... , so because of age and mental problems I don't ever expect to see 1900 again, let alone 2000.)
Still, like any mountain half the fun is in the challenge of trying to reach the peak your aiming for. And should I ever hit that 2000 then, as with your own 2002 rating achievement, its a milestone made that only a tiny fraction of chess players ever achieve. Of course I'd be happy to hit any of the interim ones along the way too, but that will always be my own Everest.