Yes, I played Richard Borcherds in the Midland Open Championship in Birmingham 1975 (or was it '76?) MatulovicNick Ivell wrote: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!
won the accompanying masters tournament (in the same hall) to which local player J Ball was invited. I recall
forming a clique with John Ripley and L A Edwards to prepare for games and analyze adjournments together.
I can see how Richard would have been disenchanted with the ugly sides of competitive chess, something that has
often interfered with my own motivation for the game (great alibi, huh?)
Whenever the thought of having to compete put me off playing I turned to the world of studies. In similar cases with mathematicians or musicians they
would return to their purer interests. Mood, motivation, and a host of human foibles, all muddy the notion that there
is some kind of "pure truth" about the result of a game. It is more combat than anything, the only point of which
(that ultimately matters) is to win. Different people emphasize different ways of achieving those wins, but does it
not seem that the one essential element that unifies successful chessplayers is aggression, an enjoyment in crushing
other peoples' egos as an expression of the need to win, as a kind of self vindication? Do not cantankerous personalities
(no matter how well sublimated) have a built in advantage for playing chess?
