From: fsmgs@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Michael Schmahl [Black-Robe Mage])
Subject: Re: Chess psychology
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:08:31 GMT

luis del writes
> 
> 
> 	Is the psychology of a chessman, that of an anti-social? Or at least,      
has  the chessman per se has sacrificed his sociability, for the solace and  
concentration of Chess? I know there shall never be a specific answer, but I was  
struck by the underlying nerdishness of the rec.games.chess

No.  (Puns regarding 'chessman' aside -- although at first I did think you were  
talking about pawns and bishops....  Would've made an interesting piece.)   
Chessplayers are not in general anti-social.  I don't believe I've spotted any such  
'nerdishness' in r.g.chess.

> ..    Do not get me wrong, when it comes to the analysis of chess this newsgroup  
is indispensible. But every so often, I sense a lack of sense of humor and a  
general dryness about the articles--Specially when the articles deviate from strict  
analysis  of the chess board. I am sorry I can't name specifics, but the feeling I  
get is that if these writers were to talk to a woman in a bar, she would turn away.

('a lack of sense of humor'.  Remember this)  Can you really make such broad  
generalizations?  Perhaps some of the articles are indeed a bit dry, but then you  
will find the same thing on any other newsgroup, or any type of public forum, you  
care to read.

>      Ergo we have all these rejected social misfits, making nudity jokes about  
Fischer playing Polgar.These men are just transfering their life's social failure  
which has led then to a feeling of sexual inferiority. Thus in this newsgroup,  
where instead of a performer, one can be the writer and director, the social misfit  
as the director get to order Polgar to disrobe. Thus massive doses of repressed  
sexuality are washed away by a simpl and sphomoric joke.

(ah, but we see here that there is a sense of humor, however misdirected.)  
Perhaps the nudity jokes are out of line, but I think they were making fun of  
Fischer's predilection to make unreasonable demands over the chessboard.  Fischer,  
indeed is a bit spoiled.  I think you are overanalyzing and I take offense.   
Besides, these have nothing to do with the basic psychology of chessplayers.  And I  
certainly don't believe that playing chess causes social rejection, or that social  
rejection causes playing chess.  Chess, in many of its forms, is as much a social  
business as an intellectual one.  So your thesis that chessplayers play chess  
because of social rejection doesn't fit. 

>     It would appear that the match was the issue, but far too often it was her  
sex, not her ability, which led to so much contention. Further Fischer a man known  
for getting away with every anti social antic because he is simply great, becomes  
the alter ego of the anti social: his redemption, his hero.

Fischer has been condemned by the chess world and the world at large for his  
antisocial antics.  He is a great chessplayer, but that doesn't justify him.  Are  
you saying that although chessplayers condemn his antics, they secretly admire them  
and wish to emulate them?  If so, I fear you are sadly mistaken.

>   by bringing all this deductions together we can see that a lot of writers in  
the newsgroup are just masking their sexual and social insecurities. By silently  
injecting  them into the legitimate discussion of chess. In my experience men joke  
about sex when it has become either inadequate or scarce. Therefore my supposition  
is that if these men were having fulfilling sex, maybe even just plain sex, then  
sex itself would not have been injected in to the chess equation.

Deductions?  That is not the word for it.  Induction, maybe, based on  
generalization, and certainly a weak argument.  Men joke about sex whenever and  
wherever -- it has nothing to do with lack thereof.  Take Shakespeare, for  
example....  But I have noticed it's worse among, say, football players than among  
chessplayers.  

> 	
> 	Further I was amazed when I did my satiric piece some time ago, that of all  
the people who wrote me neagtive comment 8/9 were computer majors. And we all know  
of the reputation computer major have. Although frankly it may be ill-founded, for  
it may just be that the layman is scared of the knowledge and power persons who are  
adroit in computers have, I was amazed that all the negative comments demmanded  
from me not only rigity of opinion and creed but of form. I.E. if you want to make  
a point just sa
> 

The reader cut off the rest of the line at this point, so I'm not sure how it  
concludes, but I will respond anyway.  I think the reputation of computer majors  
has changed.  Perhaps you'd like to articulate this?  Perhaps it is ill-founded --  
I believe so.  There is probably some contingency between playing chess and being  
adroit with computers, and some contingency between having access to newsgroups and  
knowing something about computers, so there should be no surprise that many readers  
here are computer majors or have some involvement with computers, and, as someone  
else pointed out earlier, computer majors are more likely to notice a waste of  
bandwidth.

> 
> 
> 
> Thus  the anti social after being subjected to much communicative failure in  
life, has rationalized that the  personality of the individual in which he or she  
wishes to express himself is secondary. This is ofcourse is the first step towards  
sexual inadequacy.

I'm not sure I quite understand this sentence.  It appears to say that the  
anti-social disregards the personality of the person with whom he is dealing.  If  
so, I wholeheartedly agree.  But as I disagree with your thesis that chessplayers  
are as a group antisocial, then this does not apply to chessplayers.

> 
> 	This is my opinion. I know some will get offended. Some will say, " Join  
the Psychology newsgroup and leave me alone." Others will say, " you ar ethe  
sexually represed.  You are the nerd, you are the misfit," And so on and so on.   
But I am reallly interested to find the  answer to my original question. Because if  
I desire to be a good player, then I should follow the proper path to achieve  
mental optimality, with in the game of chess.

You underestimate the intelligence of people, and of chessplayers specifically.  
>  


Should we start crossposting to sci.psychology?  :-)
--
CONFIG.DAT not found.  Reboot universe?
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess