#chess nerd

(Which may sound very romantic, but lads, I should be writing about you, not trying to improve my endgame)

I changed my sole objective in this chess game to capturing the rook on A8 and honestly I'm not doing too badly overall because my app doesn't know what the fuck's going on

Those forum types on Chess.com could stand to be a bit more generous.

I learnt to play chess when I was eight. I enjoyed playing up until 13, when I could find no one to play with casually and school got really hectic. I was never overly ambitious, but I held my own during school tournaments.

Now, after two decades I'm getting into it again, and was quite chuffed when I broke the 1200 ELO, playing both colours.

I wondered what that signified, so I went to chess.com.

Anyone asking the same thing was met with derision. "That's the bare minimum to enter tournaments!" they scoffed. "You haven't been studying any theory, I hope!"

Indeed I had not, not in the last two decades. On a bell curve, that made me just about ' weak average', apparently.

This surprised me, it really did. Weak average doesn't win chess prizes, even at 11.

Apparently they were all assuming people to be regular players working, in theory, to become grandmasters, as one does.

Here I am, thinking I've rediscovered a nice hobby, but there were comments upon comments ridiculing those with 1200 or lower ratings, wishing to improve. "If you're still there after three months, I don't know what to tell you..." That's not very welcoming! Especially since playing chess is something you can do, and might enjoy doing, your whole life. But if you feel scoffed at, would you? That's no way to help anyone improve or even enjoy themselves. It's like ridiculing a casual jogger because they're nowhere near Usain Bolt and never going to be.

Well - no? But they're exercising, aren't they...? Making them feel like complete idiots in the run up to their first marathon - who does that help?