Chess (Full resolution in first round)

I thank CON for his interesting responses. My first response was directed to be an additional argument, but it appears it will be presented as both an argument and a refutation. “Simply participating in an activity is not good enough, but participants must give their activity everything they have.” The underlying problem is that a chess player must give “EVERYTHING” that they have to become a chess player. They must sacrifice a huge amount of time and money before they reach the required level to become a chess player. Chess has become biggest part of their life, their occupation. Their money comes from chess. Most of their workmates will come from chess. Their life has become chess. Also, it is important to understand that we are talking about chess players, not chess coaches, chess critics, chess book authors etc. This means that the majority of their income would come from playing chess. Most chess players who are good enough to make a living out of playing chess are WGM/GM’s and questionably, WIM/IM’s. This may not sound so bad. However, in comparison to someone who is simply there to appreciate the game of chess, they have not bonded their entire life to chess. If they are frustrated about a loss, it will not affect their income rate like it may for a chess player. As these two sources show [1][2], along with most other sources, most pro chess players make close to nothing, and most of the GMs make a decent source of income, not a spectacular income. As well as this, it points out that the Grandmasters (WGM included) make a reasonable income, whilst most IM’s are completely broke and have to result to teaching, writing etc. to make enough money simply to participate in tournaments. The amount of efforts they must put to acheive a reasonable income is completely absurd. It is evident that CON has misunderstood some parts of my arguments and the misdirected implications he has made from my arguments. In my first argument, in which I was referring to Garry Kasparov’s “irreparable psychological damage”, under no circumstances was I implying that all chess players would be exposed to. The ideas that I proposed with that argument were that chess players will be forced to deal with psychological discomfort and stress (it will, no doubt, happen to all chess players), using Garry Kasparov’s defeat as an example. The second misinterpretation from CON: “… 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”. Once again, I never proposed the idea that losing a chess game will give you “irreparable psychological damage”. The second refutation is that all chess players are aware that frustration from a loss is harmful to their future play. As pointed out by CON, chess players should not allow themselves to become frustrated to such high degrees; however, losses will always affect a chess player and their future play, either for the worse or for the better. At this point, I would like to point out that Garry Kasparov’s loss to Deep Blue was not because of a downfall of his own pride. The video clearly illustrates all the angles as to why they thought there was human intervention in the moves that was “supposedly” played out by the computer. Garry Kasparov had given up on the entire match altogether after that incident because he had excellent reasons to think that his opposition were cheating (as said, a chess player cooperating with a machine (one that can make 3 million calculations per second), is a Killer Combination, in which nothing could possibly be stronger). It was logical that Kasparov gave up at that point because of his suspicions that they were cheating, NOT because of a downfall of his own pride. My high blood pressure argument, is once again, only meant to be an extreme example of what chess players are prone to. If some/a young grandmaster chess player/s can have a heart attack from high blood pressure, it is a good idea that all chess players will deal with a lot of stress in their lives. I am not saying that stress is a bad thing, but put simply, too much stress on a person's life will become harmful. I’d like to note back to the definition of “Chess player” that we was used from R1. “Chess Player: A person who plays chess tournaments for money, fame, sponsorships etc.” As mentioned before, this definition would only be applicable to WGM/GM’s and possibly WIM/IM’s. Therefore, it makes sense why we are not referring to a “common” chess player. We are referring to the best chess players. Only the ones who make enough money from playing. “they're going to be violent whether their coach teaches them to love the game or play competitively” This judgement is flawed as a person who appreciates the game, as a form of art, science (no matter what their viewpoints on chess are), are under no pressure to play well and therefore won’t be prone to violence (at least nowhere near the degree in which a chess player would). It is highly unreasonable to think someone who is simply appreciating the game, just by spectating a game, a commentary of a game etc. would become violent. Most chess players (following the definition provided) would encounter similar levels of stress experienced by Kasparov and Karpov to note, or at least extreme levels of stress. Once again, I never asserted that stress stands as a reason not to work towards that greatness, but am implying that the levels of stress that WGM/GMs or WIM/IMs are exposed to will be damaging to their health and could also pose as a barrier to success. “It would be really sad if one committed so much time and energy to Chess and didn't appreciate it.” I am not so sure what my opponent is implying here, but nevertheless, I am will make a response. The fact he mentions that someone may end up not appreciating it is double-sided in this debate. If someone does not like chess, it they will not end up appreciating the game, but if they don’t appreciate the game, they have close to no potential in becoming a chess player. I need to repeat that we are arguing that we are focussing on whether a chess coach must be focus on making a chess player out of his/her student or teaching/helping their student appreciate the game. “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.” Most chess students do not end up becoming chess players. Does this mean most chess coaches have failed close to every single student that they have had? If a chess student has grown to love the game after being taught by a good chess coach, and loves looking over brilliantly played-out chess games, does this really mean that the coach has failed their student? I think not. Arguments: Competitive chess is not suited for everyone GM-levelled play doesn’t come to everyone. As shown from three of the best players ever, Garry Kasparov, Bobby Fischer, Judit Polgar, their IQ is catergorised within the genius ranged [3]. Although some may comment that the IQ test is not a reliable way to measure a person’s intelligence level, it is a good outline that some people are highly advantaged compared to others, whilst most people are likely to not achieve such abilities to become a chess player. Therefore, it much more beneficial to simply teach their student to appreciate the game, a part that almost anyone is capable of doing. Furthermore, in response to CON, not everyone has a fighting spirit when it comes to chess, but simply prefer the more relaxed way, to just spectate the fight over the board, look over the analysis etc. For these reasons, it more beneficial to appreciate chess. References: 1. http://www.ask.com... 2. http://www.chessvideos.tv... 3. http://www.businessinsider.com...