From: swainj@lofn1.acc.stolaf.edu (John Swain)
Subject: Re: Chess psychology
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:37:06 GMT

(Amusing article about how most people who post to this group are nerds deleted
for the sake of saving space).
	
	I'm sorry to say that I have to agree with your opinion that most 
chess players are social misfits.  I decided to join my chess club in High-     
School my junior year and was somewhat surprised to find that all of the 
stereotypes which I had heard of were true.  I walked into the room where we 
had practice every Thursday and low and behold, there they sat, most of them
bespectacled, overweight, or both.  Most of them had carried the burden of 
nerd-dom on their backs for most of their lives.  I was surprised at how well I
did that year, rising up to 1st board almost immediately.  I expected them to be much better(They really weren't that good.  They weren't bad either: some were
almost as good or as good as I was, but the best of them only had a rating of
1350)and was somewhat surprised that all their inverted personalities had not
taken to chess with an obsession that owed to their desire to inflate their 
fragile egos.  I am sorry if this is offensive but it is the truth.  When we 
played other teams they were almost invariably of greater geekdom than our team
was but I think it is interesting to note that the best team in the state of
Minnesota(Burnsville)had, at that time, a few people who I certainly would not
describe as geeks, who had formidable ratings(1800+).  O.K.  Now on to other 
things...
	Another interesting thing to take into consideration when trying to 
decipher why there is such a high geek quotient in the chess world is the change
which occured from the period of La Bourdannais(Probably spelled wrong) to that
of Kasparov.  The older players were often quite cocky and anything but nerds.
La Bourdannais(Or one of those French players)had been a military commander as
well as a very good player of whist.  Many other players had similar social 
standing and I think it was not until chess became more and more specialized 
that the socially inept came out to play seriously.  The reason for this is 
probably because chess became more time-consuming.  If you did not know the 
strategies of the time or the new opening which was in style at the time you
might be eaten alive so you had to pour hour into hour studying only chess.
With such neglect being shown towards any formation of a decent personality
for a game such as chess where losing usually brings no reward it seems        
inevitable that a man would become less than a full man because of his devotion.
Nowadays, when you have to know almost every nuance of end-game and opening 
study it is almost impossible to have a social life, a job, and a good game at 
the same time.  I've noticed that when I'm bored my game improves considerably
because I have time to stare at boring opening books and am not distracted away
by anything more entertaining.  As is I have not looked at a book on chess 
for months.
	I agree with the author of the previous article that a lot of you guys
could use a few mellow pills(i.e. Don't flame me).
             Oh, BTW, if anyone wants to get out a feeling of rising antagonism
brought on by this article I'm always up for a game.
		  Considerably larger than 10 years ago,
                                                     Me