Has anyone ever given up chess?

[Joey Stewart]

Yeah, if you think chess is too expensive try playing warhammer - that costs you in the regeion of thousands of pounds of models and then hundreds to enter the tournaments.

[Mark Howitt]

Andrew, you'll probably find other areas of your life improve if you play less chess... they did for me! I think chess is great for learning the traits to get a good mind... but there's so much more you can do with those traits than just play chess!

I haven't played an OTB 'serious' game for like.... 2 and a half years although I still follow some chess news and have met some interesting people through chess since then. Good luck with your goals.

[John Jenkins]

This thread has inspired me to register as I am an expert at giving up chess, having given up twice . I gave up for the second time in 1986 for over twenty years (in fact until I retired) because I felt it was too difficult to devote enough time and effort to chess to keep up with much more talented players in my local team. I was living in Switzerland at the time and as can be seen from the score sheet below, to which I added 1986 Elo ratings, I was the weakest player in our team.

Basel - Biel 1986 Nationalliga A 5-3
Trepp (2413) - Hort 0-1
Franzoni (2423) – Kortschnoi 1/2-1/2
Ekstroem (2433) - Partos 1/2-1/2
Kaenel (2329) - Costa 1-0
Silva (2386) - Hofmann 1/2-1/2
Lurje (2154) - Leuba 1-0
Nekora (2094) - Robert 1/2-1/2
Jenkins (2052) – Probst 1-0

It was even worse in earlier years as there were not strict rules about the order of the team and I had ended up being quickly crushed by Charles Partos in a previous meeting.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

One of the reasons I think some people give up chess is that they realise they can't go any further in their chess development, and are not really content to plateau at the level they are at. To expand on this further, there are times when chess seems easy (when you see all your opponents' mistakes and take advantage of them) and other times when it seems impossibly difficult (when your opponents beat you really easily, or you collapse under the pressure of a complicated position).

Also, as someone develops as a chess player, they will learn from playing higher rated players, but at some point (unless they are really good) they will come up against some sort of barrier to further progress, usually an inability to accurately calculate long forcing variations, or failing to come up with correct middlegame plans, or incorrectly assessing the transition to endgames, or some other failure point somewhere in the chess armoury.

Some of these points can be rectified by learning from mistakes, and training and analysis, but being able to reproduce some of these abilities over the board with the clock ticking can be mentally taxing and some people realise that there is something in the position, but frustratingly realise they are not quite good enough to cope with what is being asked of them. Unless the player can rationalise this to some extent ("my opponent will face the same problems"; "its only a game"; "it's not possible to play perfect chess, let's just see what happens"), or the player takes more enjoyment from the social and competitive aspects of the game than the 'analytical' side of things, then they might well be discouraged enough to give up the game.

I think this desire to deeply analyse a position and try and play perfect chess (as sometimes revealed in computer analysis after an over-the-board game) is one of the reasons people switch to correspondence chess. Titled players seem to be able to ally innate talent with pragmatism, both correctly selecting moves to analyse (and not getting distracted by irrelevant lines), and analysing them to a high degree of accuracy.

Still, even titled players must experience the unsettling prospect of facing a stronger player and being crushed. That is one of the things that fascinates me about chess. That (excluding the very top players) no matter how strong the player facing you is, there will almost certainly be someone stronger who could crush them as easily as they crushed you.

[Mark Howitt]

It's an even simpler thought process for a lot of people- especially younger people.

Thought process: "Chess is pretty hard... if I put less effort into something else I'll get more financial or social reward... let's do that then." And to a degree even GMs feel that to an extent- look at Sadler.

Personally I feel it pretty unlikely that chess in England will become popular with all the other options available for smart people...

[George Szaszvari]

Does anyone here know anyone who's given up chess for good? I mean players of at least club strength. I recall an acquaintance of mine here in Minneapolis storming out of the playing hall over ten years back after being trounced by a couple of low-rated juniors; his face beetroot red, his eyes valiantly holding back tears of self-pity, and his voice in falsetto pitch as he announced, "I'm never playing again; that's it." Yet I see that after a lengthy hiatus he's just recently taken part in another tournament.

Yep, I've given it up, several times in the past, currently in limbo, but it will always be there if I ever "need" to go
back to it. However, I do confess to looking at a published game now and again, so perhaps I haven't really given
it up at all? My plan is to return to playing chess when I get older and less physically active. Recalling some seniors
who kept going well into their eighties and nineties (and the pleasure they derived from chess) makes me believe
that active participation in chess, music, and certain other "hobbies", can help slow down Alzheimers and the general
"going ga-ga" process in old age. The important thing seems to be attitude, enjoying the game as an amateur from
game to game without any pretensions, playing as well as one can without concern for ratings or status. When
I coached back in the 80s and 90s Bob Wade said a lot of pertinent things about promoting amateur chess at grass
roots level and that wisdom seems to become more relevant every day.

[Arshad Ali]

The important thing seems to be attitude, enjoying the game as an amateur from
game to game without any pretensions, playing as well as one can without concern for ratings or status. When
I coached back in the 80s and 90s Bob Wade said a lot of pertinent things about promoting amateur chess at grass
roots level and that wisdom seems to become more relevant every day.

Have to agree with you there. There's simply too much emphasis on the competitive angle, on winning, on ratings. And too little on the inherent enjoyment of the game, regardless of result.

[Nick Ivell]

Anyone remember Richard Borcherds? He was a promising junior in the 1970s, who gave up chess and became a distinguished mathematician. His Wikipedia entry gives his reason for giving up: he disliked the competitive element in chess.

I imagine a lot of people are in the same boat. I wonder if Richard would go so far as to say that its competitive element demeans chess as an object of study?

Well, as a newcomer to the forum I thought I would resurrect this interesting thread!

[Arshad Ali]

Anyone remember Richard Borcherds? He was a promising junior in the 1970s, who gave up chess and became a distinguished mathematician. His Wikipedia entry gives his reason for giving up: he disliked the competitive element in chess.

I imagine a lot of people are in the same boat. I wonder if Richard would go so far as to say that its competitive element demeans chess as an object of study?

I knew him personally but he never told me he used to play chess (though I have heard it mentioned).

[Simon Brown]

I played Richard in the early 1970s. So many good players from back then seem to have disappeared from the chess scene, so it is nice to hear when they resurface with success in another sphere!

[Peter Sharpe]

James Howell got the GM title and then gave up completely, not just competitive chess, but anything associated with chess.

I had wondered what had happened to him. Saw him in the Romiley, Harrogate and BCF congresses in 1984. He seemed to have a very high concentration level when playing his games. Apart from making his moves and writing the chess moves he would have both hands holding his head tightly and his body rocking forwards and backwards slightly

[Peter Sharpe]

Several of us have virtually given up on chess to play bridge e.g Peter Lee, Jonathan Mestel, myself and intriguingly, Jonathan Penrose, who plays at my bridge club at Welwyn.....although it is very much a pastime for him whilst Jonathan and Peter take it very seriously and do extremely well at National level.

I asked in another thread about your Uncle Michael who was a strong player in the Sheffield area and wondered what had happened to him as i dont think he has been playing active chess for about 20 years

[Reg Clucas]

I gave up in 1984 (according to the most recent score sheet I can find). I played pretty regularly in the 1970s & 1980s in weekend congresses and evening league matches and represented the county (Cheshire) a few times. My highest ever grade was 163.

I stopped because I was spending an increasing amount of time playing sport and going on mountaineering trips, and I decided I just didn't have time for chess any more. I reasoned that I could take it up again later when I was too old and decrepit for sporting activities.

At the start of this year at age 58 I decided to take it up again. Thankfully I am still fit enough to go running, cycling and mountaineering, but have more time on my hands due to being (semi) retired. It took me a while to get back into the swing of things, losing my first four league games, and as I only played the bare minimum of games to qualify for a grade, my grade is somewhat lower than I had hoped (127) due to those early losses. Hopefully this will improve, though I think it unlikely I will get back to the level I was before. But it will be interesting trying!

[Louise Sinclair]

I stopped playing active chess because my Ehlers Danlos Syndrome and scoliosis would no longer allow me to sit at the board and often the lighting wasn't adequate for my dreadful vision. However I play the occasional blitz on the internet but mainly play online poker both cash games and tourneys.
Louise

[John Clarke]

Two major factors in my case. Firstly the "plateau" effect: I'd peaked at around 160-plus in '73 but despite a statistically good season in '75/6 had drifted steadily down to 150 by '77. But the real push was emigrating to a country (New Zealand) with a low level of chess activity relative to the UK. Plus simultaneously changing my whole lifestyle: getting married, owning a house and garden, learning to drive, the lot. Something had to go, and I was more than ready for it to be chess.

It wasn't a total break to begin with. Subscribed to the local magazine, but gave that up in '84 when they made a disastrous choice of new editor. Tried correspondence play for a couple of years, till I realised I could end up spending as much time on it as OTB. Played a few one-day tournaments (5 rounds at 40-40), more out of curiosity than anything, but the last of those was 1986. Since then - nix. I enjoy browsing and occasionally contributing to various chess-related websites but the urge to return to active play is easily resisted. For now, anyway.