TN wrote on 04/24/10 at 04:30:28:

Blasphemy! 

(Note which ones I didn't complain about! )

I sometimes wonder why I play chess. I spend alot of time at tournaments, traveling to tournaments correspondence and my opening preparation... but outside of this I can't seem to make myself study anymore to improve. I don't enjoy most of the games I play (I would estimate 1%)... and its been this way for at least a year. There was a point then when I was so excited that my mouth watered for the start of the next game be it otb or correspondence... and not only was it not difficult for me to study but I did it for hours a day without losing enthusiasm.

I wonder is it burnout? A parting of the ways with chess? Or some kind of midlife chess crisis for lack of a better word. The thing is I just want to break this attitude and get back to enjoying this game and studying again. I just don't know how.

I have seen many players stop playing but i think it was often for non chess reasons : studies, work, children, other passion like theatre or other game like poker etc. In my case i had many fascinating activities before chess : football, tennis table, tennis, cards and sometimes regret that i only learn the chess rules at 16, maybe too late to be really good but i still love the game at 45 years.

Thread split?

[quote author=3F3C3630510 link=1270818931/37#37 date=1271288733]@ Antillian
I suggest your amusement is misplaced. It was MNb who introduced the 'admire' term, seemingly as some sort of proxy for Markovich's original 'revere' or 'worship'. Markovich will speak for himself, but [i]in this context[/i] I sense a real distinction between the terms, the difference being that 'admire' may be the thought morally tinged. Isn't that the point?[/quote]

I was not laughing at Markovich or making fun of him in anyway. Yes, I do appreciate the nuanced difference. But still, the depth of the conviction of the statement on the absurdity of admiring the great WDT, while of course being in awe of it struck my funny bone. Perhaps others don't share my sense of amusement on this . Ah well, nevermind.  :-X

@ Antillian
I suggest your amusement is misplaced. It was MNb who introduced the 'admire' term, seemingly as some sort of proxy for Markovich's original 'revere' or 'worship'. Markovich will speak for himself, but [i]in this context[/i] I sense a real distinction between the terms, the difference being that 'admire' may be thought morally tinged. Isn't that the point?

MNb wrote on 04/14/10 at 16:07:48:


I dunno that admiration involves a pejorative element.  I don't think it does, actually.  But admiration implies that the thing admired ranks highly in relation to other things of its kind.  Since there is no other thing of the WDT kind, admiration is not really appropriate.  Equally, nobody would say (in English anyway), that he admired God. 

As to the actual argument, I don't require the authority of the Cosmos to take the point of view that certain actions are good and certain ones are evil, or that life lived in certain ways is worthwhile, and in others less so.  There are many who do think that if there is no such Cosmic authority, then life loses its significance and all ethical questions become insignificant.  They must have their fictitious Ten Commandments or whatnot.  I disagree of course.  It would seem from your words that you do not, but that is something that I respectfully doubt.  I doubt that it is merely your pleasure that your children live and prosper, for example, but I believe instead that in fact, it is your fervent desire, and that it is a desire you would pursue even if doing so brought you some considerable pain.

Is value subjective?  Well, it doesn't originate entirely with me, but it is wholly internal to the human project.  That project, not the collision of two galaxies or some star being sucked into a black hole, or a host of other things of greater terribleness and grandeur, is my little part of the Whole Damn Thing.  Yes, it's my part because I make it so, and so do you, in actual fact.  The WDT doesn't notice us or care about us, and probably it is not the sort of thing that is capable of noticing or caring, but so what?  

We are what we are.  To me it seems pointless to deny that we do indeed care about ourselves and about each other.  If that does not invest life with significance, then fine, life has no significance.  But that seems to me to be a very torturous use of words.