Chess (Full resolution in first round)

My arguments therefore will be both constructive as well as serve to refute the Pro's constructive arguments. The overarching thesis behind Con's negation will be that anything one works towards, they should work towards with intentions of greatness. Simply participating in an activity is not good enough, but participants must give their activity everything they have. However, in that same vein of thought, one must not allow their pride to get the better of them. Going on to my opponent's constructive, 1. The downsides of becoming a Chess Player- Garry Kasparov, considered by many the greatest Chess Player in history is not an accurate assessment of the stress felt by all Chess players. As for the article by Natalia Pogonina, it explicitly speaks on how chess players should not allow their losses to frustrate them to such high degree, not that losing could have that the irreparable psychological damage that Pro Posits it would[1]. The given article even gives suggestions to use the psychological frustration to the player's advantage; As Vladimir Akopian stated "[2]Losses and defeats are a part of a professional chess player's life just like upheavals and victories. Of course I'd like to have fewer defeats. For me losing a game or an overall tournament failure is not a tragedy. " and Wang Yue "[2] Life is life, chess is chess. OK. I lost. So what? " [1] . http://www.chess.com... [2] . http://elista2008.fide.com... So onto the loss of Garry Kasparov to Deep Blue in my opponent's cited video, it is apparent that Kasparov's frustration comes as the result of his pride being shattered - not an implicit effect of being a Chess Player. Kasparov outright forfeited one of his six rounds against Deep Blue after because computer made a move he wasn't expecting, and towards the end of the documentary states in so many words the he wished he hadn't made such a big deal out of his loss. Kasparov didn't like being humbled, especially after making fun of the notion that a computer could play Chess; his downfall was by his own pride. As for the high blood pressure argument[3], the only Grandmaster to die of a heart attacks at a young ages were Gyula Brewer and 28 and Leonid Stein at 38. Furthermore these were grandmaster players, not typical players; this argument is not an accurate illustration of a common chess player. [3] . http://www.chess.com... Finally on the issue of violence, the two examples my opponent offers are from a list that details a large number of deaths related to Chess; not all of them were even from chess players. One of the examples on the given list[4] talks about a prisoner killing another prisoner for refusing to stop commenting on his game with another inmate. If one is prone to violence they're going to be violent whether their coach teaches them to love the game or play competitively. [4] . http://blog.chess.com... That said stress is a natural thing for anyone doing something difficult. You don't get to the same level as Kaspov or Kasparov without being a little stressed at times. To assert that this stress stands as a reason not to work towards that greatness is to say that anything challenging isn't worthwhile. 2. Benefits of appreciating the game- As my opponent clearly states in her opening remarks, one who becomes a chess player is more than likely going to appreciate the game. It would be really sad if one committed so much time and energy to Chess and didn't appreciate it. So the first refutation here is simply that these benefits aren't unique to my opponent's advocacy. Bobby Fischer was once cited with saying, "[5]I like the moment I break a man's ego. "; this is an appreciation of not just the game, but of competition. And while I agree a good game of Chess is an art, it's more than just that. Chess is a competition, a game, a challenge -- for a coach not to equip their pupil with the necessary tools to excel at this challenge is for the coach to fail their student. [5] . http://www.chessquotes.com... Keeping this in mind, paying a coach isn't a cheap ordeal[6]. Victor Mikhalevski of Isreal charges $75 an hour to coach, Rakhmanov Aleksandr charges $400 for ten hours of private training[7] and Sam Shankland charges $85 and hour for person lessons[8]. The were just the top three listed coaches on Chess. com who listed their hourly price. clicking any of these coaches profile's mirrors the same sentiment; that paying for a Chess coach isn't cheap. [6] www. chess. com/coach/victor-mikhalevski [7] . http://www.chess.com... [8] . http://www.chess.com... The question at this point is one of justification; if the coach is only teaching a student to appreciate the game, something they already appreciate if they're paying this much for lessons, they're wasting their money. As much as chess is an art, competition is also an art. When Chess coaches teach their students only to appreciate the game, the art of competition suffers damage possibly beyond the point of repair. However when Chess coaches teach their students to be Chess Players, there is a benefit to both of the aforementioned arts; neither is forced to suffer. In conclusion, nourishing effective competition should be the goal of a Chess coach. If they fail to stimulate this competitive spirit then they've done their students no good. Back to you Famer!