I think its rough being LOW RATED…

In a massive search for similar minds in the Blogosphere of chess; I am struck by the webs of dusty and inactive blogs.  A Great deal of people who have enthusiastically blogged in pursuit of higher ratings seem to have left their efforts; while there games, there thoughts and strivings remained preserved; like ancient creatures in amber....

With allowances to the possibility that these people have merely blogged elsewhere and the idea that a new generation of chess improvers isn’t as taken on chess bloggers as the “Knights errant”-  I wonder if in face some of these people have been daunted and even beaten by the feeling that they could NOT achieve they chess improvement they sought. 
 

And yet we must emphatically ask, what is exactly WRONG with being at the chess level we are at, or at least satisfied with a small rise?   Lots of chess greats linger on competitively.  We don’t think bad of Nunn and he’s increasingly large library as an accomplished author even though its been years, decades since he was the great English Grandmaster sensation and what of , old names like Karpov and Shirov that still play a few great games in the occasional tournament, though both have long ago stopped improving. 

So in FACT, Is it really the lack of Chess improvement that is SO embarrassing?
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I remember finding Facebook’s chess app about 6 months ago.  At the time I had a stable score at chess.com, and playing like rated opponents I rarely encountered comment.  But Facebook of course was a different animal, and as I often do on blitz games I feel into an early losing streak.  Of course, facebook reads initial losses rather harshly and my number dropped well into the three digit numbers.

Facing another opponent who went for a bizarre and crazy opening I was out of my element; and not doing so well.  But he had shown some weakness too and I felt like in each succeeding game, I felt like it was inevitable to play someone that was pretty tactically weak.  I suppose this is, at least, as good of an excuse as any other too explain the mistake.

 One of the attack the guard problems, with his queen dangling in a jangle of uncoordinated pieces.   But I was wrong!  As it happens, I’d only seen about half of the solution and my opponent , I think, didn’t even see my attempted combination.  No doubt he pigeon-holed me as a very low rated indeed.

“boy are you dumb” he writes.  I resign. :(

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So here’s the Point.  I think its real rough being ‘low rated’.  Maybe we shouldn’t care.  Maybe we should just arbitrarily make up higher numbers to make us feel better (actually not far from my answer to the dilemma).  But the fact is , perhaps, short of 1500 we really feel pretty dumb and untalented.  There is the daydream- that a major amount of interest ‘entitles’ us to something decent –say 1500 (a number of your choice).

I don’t think it’s a good daydream.  For one the Question of the number is Significant.  No doubt, some feel like that number OUGHT to be ‘expert’ 2000.  and maybe others yearn for master.  But the reality out there in blogoland and in the tournaments I see- is that quite a few people aren’t rising hardly at all.  Or at least if they rise, they only do so briefly.   Fact is more often than not, you going to play lots of games and lots of tournaments with little added number to your game

Am I , by my own feelings and others,  “too dumb” to be ‘good’ at chess?

 So desperate to gain the points! So, That you can rid yourself of the insecurities.

  You have to wonder when you see 10 blogs, 7 of which were class players and all of them inactive, and 2 of the 3 that are left are expert strength.   Of course, so goes the logic.  These guys ought to blog since they are clearly good chess.

But I’m sneakily suspicious, that the 2 guys left have in fact just saw through the game entirely.  I mean that, they have learned to enjoy where they are at.  They could pick bigger numbers too!   But they Blog despite the fact that they are playing against competitors that beat them too.

 I think they  are on an exploration of the mind and they avoid big insecurities about their chess.  And anyway, chess is hard enough- I think getting over the whole insecurity thing is part of the cure, of actually accomplishing the rarely achieved chess improvement.

I also wonder, a lot, whether the high rating, in fact reinforces involvement in chess;  With a high rating you become a commodity of sorts; someone who has insight into this difficult game called chess;  mild accomplishment gives one the opportunity to teach- which reinforces your role as a learner which deepens you whole interest in the subject.  but to be obsessed AND low rated.  That's devotion!