I have 2000 DWZ/ELO, I have quit chess now,
because I want to have more time for other things, e.g. education with good results (master)  and playing the piano (started one year ago), but I still play some blitz on icc, I just won't play competetive otb chess in the next years, but I might return some day ...

nimzo5 wrote on 04/14/10 at 16:12:08:


I suppose you mean the mythical Salieri. The historical Salieri stood in awe of Mozart ...

nimzo5 wrote on 04/14/10 at 16:05:01:


Weird - for a Dutchman. In Dutch it certainly has not. I guess I have learned something again.
For those interested in etymology: the Dutch word for admiration is "bewondering", derived from "wonder". That has two elements: miracle and wonder. Nothing pejorative here and that is how I used the word.
Sorry again for implying something I did not intend to imply.

Markovich wrote on 04/14/10 at 15:35:03:


That's a non-sequitur. Some hermits in the past have been indifferent to the survival and welfare of themselves and their relatives etcetera. Still they did not think life pointless at all. At the other hand caring for those who I belove (nice phrase) doesn't imply I think it has a point. It makes me feel better. Which is a point of life I insert myself.

Markovich wrote on 04/14/10 at 15:35:03:


What it means is that saying life has a point is utterly subjective. There is no goal or source or whatever outside the human individual and its instinct to survive. So a priori playing chess is not better than not playing chess. At the other hand playing chess is a priori not a waste of time either, or at least not more than any other human activity.

Markovich wrote on 04/14/10 at 15:35:03:


Sorry. In Dutch the two are more or less synonymous.

No, I'm not really trying to refute anything that you say.  But I submit that you are far from indifferent to the survival of, and welfare of, yourself and those beloved by you.  Therefore you may say that life is pointless, but you do not act as if it is.

Indeed I am not sure what it means to say that life is pointless other than to say that it is of no concern to anyone, and yet clearly, it is of concern to us ourselves.  If you point is that the Cosmos itself does not share our concerns, this is just a different way of saying that there is no God, a point with which I agree.

I do not admire the WDT, which would be absurd.  I merely stand in awe of it, and am happy for the chance to have beheld it.

MNb wrote on 04/13/10 at 21:27:27:


Being an atheist, I recognize the indifference of the Cosmos to humanity and its concerns, and that considered from a Cosmic perspective (not that I believe the Cosmos itself is capable of taking a perspective), life here is just one ramification of the Whole Damn Thing.  

But that doesn't imply that life is pointless.  For one thing, this life is part of the WDT, and it is one's opportunity to behold the WDT its incredible grandeur and chaotic complexity.  However incapable the WDT is of being explained, it is a most awe-inspiring and wondrous thing.  This is not to say that I revere it or worship it, which would be absurd.  But I do stand in awe of it and I am happy to have beheld it. 

The little spark that I am will soon enough wink out, but that can't change that I was here and I did see all this and engage myself in it.

But I suppose that all of that is less important than the experience of being human and participating in the human project.  The WDT is not the sort of thing that cares whether we become great contributors to human welfare or devote ourselves to raping little boys, but we ourselves care about our effects among our fellow-humans, and that concern gives our lives significance.  I merely state the obvious, but it is in reaction to your statement that life is pointless, which is not quite the way I see things.

So there, I've gone and said it in this thread and not another one.

Intersting topic...
I had and have those crisis time and again. I am (or better was) quite good in correspondence chess (at best over 2300). My feeling is, that my chess abilities and knowledge are significantly better than what I produce over the board (1950 DWZ nearly 2000 Elo). My practical experience is too limited and I'm lacking gears to shift up my concentration in the desirable ways. In more than one of my latest games I blundered pawns (or even kings ) after decent and even skillful play.
All to often I asked myself "What the hell am I doing here?" Toying with wooden or plastic pieces. It is like achieving nothing even if you achieve something (a full point, a hard fought half point). What disappointed me quite often was that I only won after the opponent's mistakes - and it was quite often easy to detect them; mostly not more than two- or three-movers. At much lower stage the Alekhine-phenomenon - the former WC disliked it, when his opponents lost without fight and beauty.
The sad truth is: Successful perfection isn't possible in chess. You need those devaluating mistakes...  
That's the difference to art - painting, drawing, making music, acting. In chess you battle your opponent. And he only disturbs (til you loose). 
I haven't played more then say five games that really satisfied me. Even if I take the deep CC-games into account. That's a meager cut.
And from time to time I get bored with this cut. It is a enormeous waste of time. So many books wait to be read and I stumble chess. Aargh.
On the other hand: It is big fun to work on analysis. To brush up an underestimated opening variation, to save a bad ending.  Which offers the connection to correspondence chess.
But actually the crisis has reached my area of relative excellence. CC (and what is remarkable: it doesn't touch me... Never knew that before). For the first time since, well ever, I was smashed to the floor with a significant minus in two tournaments. I never got infected with the analyisis-virus and so dropped one game after the other, believe it or not: even on time. I don't know why. I wasn't caught by the games.
I don't want to blame computer usage on every side. That's normal and I had no problem with it earlier on. 
But infact now I'm bored with the modern CC. It is very sterile. Creativity is possible, but it hides between secret sidelines. And that requires too much devotion.
And on the other hand I'm not satisfied with over the board play - much to far away from halfway perfection, not enough reflection time.
Right now I'm teaching the aspiring youth of my club. They are very interested. You can infect them with gambit play to get things going, to get some joy of attacking play. Under this circumstances I know that chess is quite useful for concentration, planing, learning etc. 
But for me it is not clear what chess is really good for. It is food for thought, yes, but what is that good for? Sudoku isn't bad either, and no one disturbs you .
Perhaps gardening is best, at least it is thought for food.
And when all seems too depressing I think: "What about digging deepest? What is life for?" We don't know. Ah, it resembles chess in some way: Avoiding mate as long as possible
motörhead

@alias: thanks for the info - we may try it..