Sometimes, I play chess. Yet, I don’t play a lot with people I know, I’m not motivated by this. In primary school, I and most of my friends had similar opportunities with being good in school. Most pupils preferred not to learn, I preferred to learn. I think genetics and parents also play a huge role, but I attribute a big part of my success in school to the time I put in learning, reading, educating myself.
So, if I were to be better than someone else in school, I would have been proud.
Yet, I never compared with top athletes. They also wouldn’t want to compare with me, as winning against a beginner would bring them no glory, while a potential (although very improbable) loss would bring them shame. It seems natural to compare yourself with people who have the same opportunities as yourself.
Yet, in the modern-day, this is not the case. I may play much more than others, or much less than others. Generally, there’s a big discrepancy in the time invested in the game.
I know one person who really wanted to beat me at chess, claimed to have trained a lot and won 3-1 (something in that area). But I hadn’t played, during that time, for a long time, while he claimed to have trained a lot.
If we compare professional players, they go “all in”. If they choose to spend 10 or 1 hour per day training, it’s their choice, and they’ll get results based on that. If one player decides to only train a little, while others invest in mental and physical education, that’s fair game.
But, in amateur chess, my one hour of training is not the same as others.
Citește mai departe
