Win, lose or draw, battle is beneficial
Saturday, February 19, 2011 02:51 AM
The Columbus Dispatch
Struggle is everything.
There are those who argue that the meek will inherit the earth. In some sense, that might be.
But they will rarely, if ever, compose great works of fiction, art or music; become scientists or CEOs; or win chess championships.
Struggle is, of course, dialectical. Even Bobby Fischer, who famously detested losing, acknowledged that you win some, you lose some – that’s the way it is. The trick is to win more – much more – than you lose, in chess and everything else.
Most great performers in life, including chess players, quietly suffer their defeats, but not all.
Three times I have watched with amazement as famous grandmasters wiped the board of chess pieces after losing. Each hated to lose and, on occasion, didn’t conceal the fact.
We struggle with nature and life itself – as well as with others.
But losing and winning against our fellow humans is a shared experience. Very often, it will enhance the lives of both loser and winner.
Competition needn’t be a zero-sum game.
Garry Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov fought through five title matches from 1984 to 1990 – sometimes hatefully, it seemed.
But the chess skills, status and historical importance of each were enhanced and transformed as a result. Today, their relationship is amicable.
Source: Columbus Dispatch
http://www.dispatch.com
What an unnecessary, cliche, and uninsightful article.
Chess ratings definitely isn’t “zero sum”, because you’re not pushing out anyone else from getting a high rating in chess since it’s all relative to the chances you have of beating someone else. Everyone could get to 2000 without pushing anyone else out.
On the other hand in school, not everyone can get As and Bs because then they will just make the tests harder to make sure some kids get Cs, Ds and even fails.