The Instigator
famer
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Chess (Full resolution in first round)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
famer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,875 times Debate No: 28517
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

famer

Pro

Full Resolution: As a chess coach, you should not teach your student to become a chess player, but to teach them to appreciate the game.


I am PRO, therefore arguing to that given resolution. My opponent (CON) will be arguing against that resolution.


BOP is shared.

Rules of this debate:
First round is ACCEPTANCE ONLY
No new arguments in last round. Last round for final rebuttals, defence and summarisation.

Definitions:

Chess player: A person who plays chess tournaments for money, fame, sponsorships etc.

Chess coach: A person who teaches an adult or a child to improve their ability to play the game of chess.

Appreciate: To be grateful, to recognise the beauty of etc. (definition should be clear in the context of this debate).

Other definitions should be common sense.

And of course, no semantics and trolling.

I hope both my opponent and I will gain something from this debate after it is finished.

Good Luck!

RationalMadman

Con

I accept.

I want this to focus on that the efficiency of a player matters more than their love for the game.
Debate Round No. 1
famer

Pro

I thank RationalMadman for accepting my challenge to this debate.

Unfortunately, it appears that my opponent has made a slight misunderstanding of the topic resolution. His goal is to convince that as a coach, your main purpose is to produce a chess master out of your student. Efficiency is not accurate enough, as it is difficult to appreciate games and/or aspects of chess without a decent level of competence in the game.

As the resolution states, I am proving why you should NOT teach your student to become a chess player, but to appreciate the game. It should then be clear why I am making arguments regarding the disadvantages of being a chess player along with the advantages of being a person who is simply appreciating the game.

Without further ado, I will now begin with my arguments.

“Chess is mental torture” – Garry Kasparov [1]

“Chess is a war over the board. The object is to crush the opponent’s mind” Bobby Fischer [2]

“Chess is life” Bobby Fischer [2]

“I learnt an enormous amount, but there came a point where I found there was too much stress. It was no fun anymore. Outside of the chessboard I avoid conflict, so I thought this wasn’t worth it. (On training sessions with Kasparov)” – Magnus Carlsen [3]

These quotes came from the mouths of the best of the best chess players that have ever existed, which gives a good introduction to my arguments. As you can witness, the life of a professional chess player (not necessarily those as competitive as them) is incredibly difficult.

Argument 1: Downsides of becoming a chess player

Sub – Argument 1: Stress in the lives of competitive chess players

The level of stress experienced by those of competitive chess players are considerably higher than those of an average person out there in the workforce. For example [1], the following player, who identifies himself to be a competitive player, but isn’t a full-time chess player manages to feel quite a lot of stress.

Psychological stress is also a major factor in all chess players and a difficult barrier for many to overcome. As outlined by WGM Natalia Pogonina [4] within the high-class chess players, a simple loss or draw against a player, you could “end up in trouble again and waste a lot of nervous energy along the way”. It distracts you from your future games, makes you hate your opponent, wastes a lot of your energy.

For example, an interesting documentary on Garry Kasparov’s [5] loss against Deep Blue (A chess engine) during the peak of his chess abilities tells us how after his first loss to the machine, “it wasn’t simply a loss of the game. It was a loss of the entire match” says Garry Kasparov. After his first loss (details too complicated to explain here. Watch entire documentary for the full idea), he was psychologically destroyed.

The “cognitive” psychology within chess has been studied through by Dr Fernand Gobet [6] and as his information shows, not all players are suitable to become great chess players. Quoting for that article:

“ It took an average of 11, 000 hours to reach 2200. One player needed around 3, 000 hours to reach 2200, while another player spent more than 23, 000 hours to achieve the same level.”

Another interesting factor that I would like to take note of is, with a high level of stress would usually result in high blood pressure. High blood pressure usually leads to higher chances of heart attacks. A good look at the deaths of famous chess players may be of interest. [7]

Referring back to the resolution, IF you were a chess coach, would you want to subject your student to such things? Allowing them to suffer intense levels of psychological distress from their failures? (Unless you can expect them to become perfect chess players).

Sub – Argument 2: Violence amongst different players

The pressure to improve your own game as a competitive chess player appears to be too difficult for some to cope with. As shown here, chess players have been murdered or have been involved with violent activities during the peak of their playing career.

On this page [8], a well-detailed page describes the many cases of violence that has occurred during the lives of chess players (not all of these are competent players!). For example, the famous Garry Kasparov:

On April 15, 2005, former world chess champion Garry Kasparov was attacked by a man posing as a chess fan who wanted his wooden chess board signed. Instead, he hit Kasparov in the head very hard with the chess board.

To something as serious as this:

In February 2009, a man killed a friend with a sword after a chess game in Alameda, California. An argument broke out during their game, and the two started wrestling. Joseph Groom retreated to his bedroom and returned with a sword, which he used to stab Kelly Kjersem once. Kjersem later died.

Majority of chess players become too emotional after a loss in very important tournaments and end up holding grudges against the victor.

Argument 2: Benefits of appreciating the game of chess

Sub – Argument 1: Chess is an art

Many of you may be wondering, how do you “appreciate” a game of chess? To put simply, chess games or moves can be witnessed like a movie or a good book. A geek with books is able to tell what makes a book good or bad, and a movie critic understands to a great deal what movies are categorised as good for the market. Chess is very much the same. A person educated in chess is able to witness great games of chess.

Next question, what is chess? To the beginner, it is merely a board game with random pieces that run around on the board with the aim to capture the king. However, to professionals, it is much more than that. Some regard chess to be a type of science, war, psychological warfare, and lastly, a lot of people regard chess to be art.

In the movie “Searching for Bobby Fischer”, Bruce (the chess coach), mentions how Fischer regards chess to be art.

“Bobby Fischer got underneath it, like no one before him and found at its centre, art”.

There are many things in chess that makes it art. There are many types of games that are beautiful to witness and certainly many different beautiful moves that have been played out. For example, in the following position, it first appears that white is completely lost, yet, a move as crazy as that (shown in green arrow), secures a win.

I will briefly outline how this move wins for the white pieces. After the rook moves to that destined square, if the pawn captures the rook, the white pawn moves on square forward to secure a win (with checkmate) and if the black bishop moves, the rook simply captures the black pawn with a win (Checkmate).

The move was very unexpected, yet is so powerful, which makes the game of chess so beautiful. There have been many chess games that have caught great attention to chess critics to spend hours on end providing a concise yet thorough analysis of a well-played game.

Some of the most famous game ever played have been given the following titles:

- The “Immortal” Game (Between Adolf Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky)

- The “Evergreen“ Game (Between Adolf Anderssen and Jean Dufresne)

- Bobby Fischer’s Game of the Century (Bobby Fischer and Donald Byrne)

Conclusion:

I have spent most of this round arguing why it is not a good idea to coach a student to become a chess player while touching on why it is more beneficial to coach them to appreciate the game. I will spend most of R3 elaborating on why you should teach them to appreciate the game.

References:

  1. 1. http://www.chessquotes.com...
  2. 2. http://www.chessquotes.com...
  3. 3. http://www.chessquotes.com...
  4. 4. http://www.chess.com...
  5. 5. ;(Video is shown on top)
  6. 6. http://www.chess.com...
  7. 7. http://www.chess.com...
  8. 8. http://blog.chess.com...

And, to you, RationalMadman…

RationalMadman

Con

Here's the brutal truth: if Michael Jordan hated basketball, he'd still be just as good. Want to know why? Michael Jordan isn't particularly gifted at basketball in particular, he is (even in his famous quotes) merely a man of hard work for success. He could have succeeded at anything had he worked just as hard and stayed focused.

A chess player needn't have an ounce of love for the game of chess and a chess coach has no duty whatsoever to instill this.

A quote that's relevant here is as follows:

"Better to be the best and hate the game than be the worst and love it" - Me

As for the example of the Kasparov 'wild move' you showed, a player trained vigorously to see any and all victory strategies in the blink of an eye would have been able to think that move through (I don't mean to show off but even I would have realised that move).

Think of it this way: No matter how much a student loves a subject the ones who get A*'s were always the ones who trained to be at their full efficiency for the exam, not the ones who spent their time fulfilling their love for examinations.
Debate Round No. 2
famer

Pro

It appears rather evident from CON's response that he hasn't even read my arguments properly. Nonetheless, I will begin by responding to his arguments.

"Here's the brutal truth: if Michael Jordan hated basketball, he'd still be just as good. Want to know why? Michael Jordan isn't particularly gifted at basketball in particular, he is (even in his famous quotes) merely a man of hard work for success. He could have succeeded at anything had he worked just as hard and stayed focused."

CON argues that "IF" Michael Jordan (although I find it barely related to the topic itself) hated basketball, he'd still be just as good. Looking at it from a wider angle, common sense would tell you that if a man actually hated something, he would be rather stupid to try and aim for it.

"A chess player needn't have an ounce of love for the game of chess and a chess coach has no duty whatsoever to instill this."

This point is more or less a copy of his previous. Therefore I would have the same responses. If you hated something, makes no sense why you would do it.

"Better to be the best and hate the game than be the worst and love it" - Me"

Just your opinion. Doesn't make it right.

"As for the example of the Kasparov 'wild move' you showed, a player trained vigorously to see any and all victory strategies in the blink of an eye would have been able to think that move through (I don't mean to show off but even I would have realised that move)"

My opponent has clearly not read my arguments properly. Allow me to briefly go over the documentary as it is clear that CON has not understood the full extent of that argument.

Garry Kasparov, a Russian chess GM (Grandmaster) was challenged to a match against the strongest chess machine during that time (Named Deep Blue). The first time he smashed the computer gaining victory. He was later on rematched to a "New and improved" Deep Blue.

During the match, he smashed the computer in the first game, like he did during the first match. However, in the second game, he believed there was human intervention during the game, so his "anti-computer" strategy costed him the entire game. It was also not part of the rules that a human can intervene with the game, so he believed it was cheating.

His opponents were not able to compromise. With this in mind, he was always thinking of his loss (where he believed human intervention was invovled). That costed him the entire match.

There was no such thing as a "wild" move, as outlined by CON.

"Think of it this way: No matter how much a student loves a subject the ones who get A*'s were always the ones who trained to be at their full efficiency for the exam, not the ones who spent their time fulfilling their love for examinations."

Although this point may hold some substance, it is not directly related to the topic.

Another point, CON has not responded to most of arguments. Most importantly, he has not responded to my points on why it is more beneficial to appreciate the game over being a chess player.

He has not responded to my points about pyschological stress and violence that chess players are obliged to deal with.

Over to CON...
RationalMadman

Con

My opponent's entire resolution seems have fallen one one, purely opinion-based, concept that "If you don't love something, there's no point in mastering it." Now, I am going to tear her cute little adorable baby of an argument and then shall reinstate everything that I said (which will be awfully easy considering her single comeback to absolutely all that I said was "If you don't love something, there is no point mastering it."

The concept my opponent proposes is this: First love something, then you will have reason to master it.
The concept I propose is this: Love only begins after full understanding is achieved. Thus, making a student love chess is inferior to making them master it intellectually.

Now I shall tear my opponent's proposal apart.

Tell me something you love to do. Do you like to masturbate? Do you like to run? Do you like to kiss? Do you like to play chess?...

If you have something in mind, I now would like you to subjectively, and objectively, observe and understand the mechanism of firstly yours, and later everyone's, love. The mechanism of love is something my opponent has erroneously interpreted.

No baby loves to masturbate, run, kiss nor play chess. In fact most of baby-life is spent pooping and crying. Then child-life is spent in fantasy land, adolescence is that moody phase (like the phase of a rookie chess player desperately trying to get amazing at the game while constantly losing to masters) and then comes adulthood, the phase where we finally fully grasp what life has granted us great talent at, and thus fall in love with it. Sure we can love football and be an obese father cheering at the sidelines with his family but ultimately that does not better one's ability at the game whatsoever, no more than playing COD makes one an SAS Cadet in the slightest.

What love for something originates from, even a person, is when we delve into it without loving at all, when circumstances force us to master it (whether it be running because that's the only thing you seem to have the money to pay good coaching for, whether it's masturbating because that's the you could sufficiently teach yourself to master or chess because you had one of the harshest coaches of all time who made you a god at it. In fact let me abuse DDO itself and ask why RoyLatham and Danielle love debating so much, because their hard work and discipline have made them virtual GODS at the art/activity. People automatically will love whatever they have worked their A$$ off to achieve.

you think Usain bolt loved sprinting his whole life? Of course not. It hurts like hell and rips your thigh and upper leg muscles. Sprinting is pure pain and agony intensified to the maximum level and reached at the highest rate possible AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN until you can go at that rate for a little LONGER before that pain kicks in. The drug isn't in sprinting itself, I even would go as far as to say that Usain Bolt still doesn't love to sprint, what he loves is seeing his hard work pay off plain and simple. Whether he was the Michael Jordan of basketball, the Muhammad Ali of boxing, the Stephen Hawking of physics, the Bruce Lee of martial arts, the Christopher Nolan of movie directing or the Michael Zuckerberg of social networking is really irrelevant. The love came after the blood sweat and tears which came without any love or mercy at all.

To make a beast at chess, a coach needn't give two sh*ts about their student's love for the game. They must raise the number one chess player, not the number one chess fan. Coaching isn't a fairy-tale and only a few of the human race qualify to be professional coaches at anything BECAUSE it requires brutal harshness.

Here is another quote by me:

"A coach that is loved should do their job."

Plain and simple, you need that motto for life.
Debate Round No. 3
famer

Pro

"My opponent's entire resolution seems have fallen one one, purely opinion-based, concept that "If you don't love something, there's no point in mastering it." Now, I am going to tear her cute little adorable baby of an argument and then shall reinstate everything that I said (which will be awfully easy considering her single comeback to absolutely all that I said was "If you don't love something, there is no point mastering it.""

I am rather offended by CON's attitude towards me during this debate. Second thing to note of, my arguments are fact-based arguments, supported with references provided by experts in their fields, unlike my opponent, who's arguments are entirely opinion-based supported by his own little quotes. My so-called "single comeback" of "If you don't love something, there is not point mastering it" was, as I believe, suffice for the only argument provided by my opposition.

"To make a beast at chess, a coach needn't give two sh*ts about their student's love for the game. They must raise the number one chess player, not the number one chess fan. Coaching isn't a fairy-tale and only a few of the human race qualify to be professional coaches at anything BECAUSE it requires brutal harshness."

The above short paragraph is the only argument presented by the opposition that is directly related to the topic of the resolution.

Readers, please do not become distracted by his previous biffle and baffle on how you can only master something before you find your love to that thing.

It is evident that all he has been able to say to support his resolution are the following two things:

1. As a coach, you must care about the student's love for the game. They must make them the number one chess player, not the number one chess fan.
2. You must become good at something before you can love it.

My responses to these two and only arguments are simple:

The first argument proposed by CON is majorly flawed and therefore simply refutable. If a chess coach doesn't care about his/her student's feelings to the game, only focussed on forcing them to improve in their ability to play the game, chances are, the student will end up holding a grudge to both his/her coach and the game itself. With that, the student (if they at least have normal parents) will, with approval from their parents, quit being coached in chess.

The second argument by CON is, first off, not directly related to the topic, making it a considerably weak argument. I have already refuted that argument by saying "If you do not love the game, there is not point in mastering it" as I believe that is sufficient. However, I made add a little more to that argument considering I have the chance. Would you have any potential to succeed if you did not have the passion in the game? Compare a chess geek to a regular person on the street. Which person would have more potential to succeed in chess?

I'm getting off topic as well now...

Back to the point:


Things to take note of:
- Most of my arguments provided in R2 have been CONCEDED. As the last round is for refutations, defence and conclusion, CON still has chances of winning this debate if he successfully refutes them in the final round.
- All of my opposition's arguments have been based on weak opinions specifically made for this debate.
- The quotes provided by my opponent are his OWN quotes. Chances are, made just for this debate.
- CON has drifted off topic during this debate a fair few times.


Conclusion:

My opponent still needs to refute my arguments based on psychological stress experienced by chess players and the violence they may be subjected to. I will allow the readers to decide on the results of this debate at the very end.
RationalMadman

Con

Comes down to this: IS love reason to do it or do you love what you're the best at?

I love what I'm the best at, and that's doing your mother.

Thanks and bye.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by famer 4 years ago
famer
Hey Zaradi, I'm already doing this debate again DoctorDeku and one of my other friends. If, for some reason, I still haven't lost a debate on this resolution, I'll challenge you to this debate if you are still interested.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Hey famer if you wanna actually debate this topic I can send you a challenge over this.
Posted by famer 4 years ago
famer
Please note, first round is acceptance only.
Posted by Firewolfman 4 years ago
Firewolfman
@Streetlogician-notice how "Etc." is listed in her personal definition of chess player. I hope, that etc., applies to people who just want to play chess with their friends for fun, or just want to become a better player so they practice playing chess-as a majority of chess players play with friends for fun, and a another percent of chess players play to become better, as chess requires intelligence, tactics, and hard thinking which if you play and become successful enough, you can actually boost your IQ, and become a more tactical-smart chess player, and basically be able to apply some of the intelligence that it requires to competitively play chess to real life.

@Stubs-Really? A nerd debate? Not only 'nerds' play chess, pretty much you could classify EVERY USER ON DEBATE.ORG, as 'nerd', for this website requires lots of time, thinking, and lots of effort to debate, converse, and is required for all uses of this website, pretty much-and this is a computer website, and sometimes people consider people who use computers excessively as 'nerds', so therefore theres no need to be discriminative and posting that comment just to insult famer, her friend, and/or anyone else who actively participates in any debates similar to this, or anyone who might point things out in comments, (like me,) or even someone else who might get the debate if famer's friend doesn't accept the debate or can't for some reason...
Posted by Firewolfman 4 years ago
Firewolfman
Of course, only if your friend doesn't want to accept, or that you have some problems that pop up that somehow stop your friend from accepting, then just know that I would love to take any arguments in this sort of "Area" as, I have gotten some very troll arguments and have been debating idiots, spammers, trolls, forefeiters, or just people who don't know how to not include opinion, and use it as 'evidence' to back up literally everything they use/say for arguments, rebuttals, and ect.

I just noticed the last bit about your friend, so sorry bout my previous post as I thought you only wanted experienced people on this website to debate this topic with you, so sorry xD

Thanks in advance.
Posted by Firewolfman 4 years ago
Firewolfman
I would love to accept-but I cannot meat the criteria but I automatically see some excellent points and see a rather interesting, and very fun argument that this would be.

Could you please change the settings of this debate, and either change the criteria for me, or a more safe way for me to accept this, challenge me to this debate, as I would love to argue this topic from the view of con.

Thanks, and I hope you accept this request :)
Posted by stubs 4 years ago
stubs
The ultimate nerd debate
Posted by StreetLogician 4 years ago
StreetLogician
If a chess player is someone who plays for money, what is someone who plays for love of the game?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
famerRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Troll
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
famerRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Dumbass.....
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
famerRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: RM = Troll
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
famerRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con drops basically everything in the debate. Not just in the last round either, but all throughout the debate.
Vote Placed by Wishing4Winter 4 years ago
Wishing4Winter
famerRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro as Con made a mockery of this debate Arguments go to Pro as Con did not directly respond to most, if any, of Pro's arguments Sources go to Pro as Pro used sources