Skip to main content

The Value of Winning -- Invitation to Write #41

For Writers:

Thirty guys move as one to the wall where the Tournament Director has posted a pairing sheet. It's the opening round of your average local chess tournament, and everyone is anxious to find out who their opponent will be, and what color they've been assigned, and what their rating is.

Chess has a rating system, and the better you are, the higher your rating. In simple terms, beating a player of equal strength adds 16 points to your rating; and the most points you can win from defeating a player with a much higher rating is 32. Rating classifications change every 200 points. Someone rated 1200 is considered a novice; 1600 is considered an average player; 2000 is considered an expert; and 2400 is considered a Grandmaster. A person with an 800 point advantage has a better than 99% statistical chance of winning the match.

For tournament chess players, there’s absolutely no joy in playing someone that has a vastly inferior rating. You’re expected to win, so the joy of winning is limited; moreover, losing has severe consequences to your rating. Playing someone with a stronger rating is much more fun for two reasons: First, when you win, you feel the high of beating someone “better” than you; second, your rating has the potential of increasing by as many as 32 points.

Even in non-tournament play when nothing is on the line, I’d rather play someone who is my equal or slightly better. It’s difficult to learn as much playing someone with less skill. And in the end, it’s really true that you’re only as good as your opponent. When you play someone inferior, the quality of your own play tends to go down.

Think of a competitive sport or activity that you are involved in. Would you rather compete against someone that is below, at, or above your level? Why?

“Why must I lose to this idiot?” -- Aron Nimzovich

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"Digging for the Truth" Experiment #4 -- The Federalist Radio Hour

I first heard of Sean Davis last week. He created an online magazine called The Federalist in 2011, and he currently has about 500,000 followers on X.  It was about last week that he posted something amazing. He suggested if the Supreme Court doesn't rule the way they should, not only should Trump just ignore the ruling, if they keep obstructing the administration, he should just dissolve the Court altogether.  And I thought, wow. This guy is saying outrageous stuff like that, and there's an audience for it.  So, I decided I'd listen to an episode of The Federalist podcast: April 17, 2025 -- Deportation, Due Process, and Deference to the American People (40 minutes) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/deportation-due-process-and-deference-to-the/id983782306?i=1000703904873 In the 40-minute conversation, the host and guest discussed why due process wasn't required for illegal immigrants.  The case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was mentioned for a brief second, but...

"Digging for the Truth" Experiment #1 - Real Coffee with Scott Adams

I've been curious about how others perceive reality. What is "true" and "real" to me is not necessarily "true" and "real" to others.  First stop: Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert.  He's currently 67, does a daily podcast called "Real Coffee with Scott Adams" which draws about 30,000 listeners on YouTube, with 172,000 total subscribers to the channel. Podcast is also available on all the usual places, with a 4.4 rating on Apple Podcasts. Each episode is about an hour long, or a little less.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15SFbr2vj8c 1. Basic format: Just runs through news articles that drew his interest. On the April 15 episode (link above), he ran through 28 articles. Often he'd laugh at something, sometimes to show his disbelief.  2. Adams is not a big fan of science. He's open to conspiracy theories. Believes that the government doesn't tell us the truth (although he seems to think the Trump administration is an e...

In Utero

  In 1994, I wore my In Utero shirt to college. I’d walk down the hall, and people would look at the shirt. I still remember a professor looking at it, not apparently hip to the scene. She asked, “Bret, is there something you’re trying to tell us?” I had no idea what I was trying to say. Kurt Cobain had just shot his head off with a shotgun. Before that life-changing event, I hadn’t been the biggest fan of Nirvana, but I did recognize the immediate impact “Smells Like Teen Spirit” had on music, or at least on MTV. Nirvana had seemingly killed and buried Hair Metal, and they had done it single-handedly. What exactly was this “Alternative” sound? It was weird, because soon it felt like everything was “alternative,” and that didn’t make any sense. Once everything is the same, how can it be anything but standard, normal? Nirvana was okay, but at least at the time I was wearing the merch, I was much more into Offspring and Green Day and Tool. And that’s about as far as I went into...