Chess is a huge waste of time, here's why.

There's approximately 605 million people playing Chess according to Google, and out of these 605 million there are a select few who are widely known in the Chess community (NOT anywhere else as in common knowledge), these people spend thousands of hours memorizing patterns, getting advice from their coach, playing games, et cetera, et cetera, and they become very strong players because of it, but these players start really, really young, around 6 years old, and dedicate stupid amounts of time into Chess, well into their adult life. These people can then in their adult life or later life live off of playing Chess by winning tournaments. But would you sacrifice thousands upon thousands of hours to play a board game if you knew you had 10 years to live? Hell no.

But we're ignoring millions of other people, what about these people? Some are young, some are old, some have played it for a few months, some have played it since they could read and write. And fact is, some people who have played it since they could read and write still haven't reached any sort of fame or huge status and therefore haven't earned much from Chess at all. A wasteful time-for-money tradeoff. The young people on the other hand usually say this is just a hobby, and it might be, but it's also a crazy stupid hobby if you think in terms of time.

If you like Chess, love it and obsess over it, you'll probably call me bad and then continue playing for a very long time. But Chess only gets worse and worse to play the higher level you play, needing more preparation, analysis and spot on moves to win, and if you find this fun, good! Just don't do it to the point where you're uncomfortable or feel you could be doing something better with your time. The sunk-cost fallacy also comes into play if you've played Chess for a long time, not wanting to have your time over such a long time wasted, and in return wasting more time. Notice this, be a little self-aware, and you'll see what I mean.

Cya.

I like your point " higher level you play, needing more preparation, analysis and spot on moves to win, and if you find this fun, good!" .. I think most people play for fun even if their rating remains same. It's kind of drug that give you satisfaction with either wins or some enjoy trash talk (I've met some such people) and pressuring your opponent. I personally play some day 6-7 hours of chess and also think I'm wasting my time, but can't stop!!

Hobby is fine until it becomes addiction that was the point.

I agree with the OP: the stronger you become, the harder it is to improve, even to gain a few rating points. I do not play chess for "fun"-just to push wood, not caring if I win or lose. I play to win, to improve my rating and understanding of the game OVER TIME. But for years I've been at a plateau, and no matter what I do (slow games, analyzing my losses, studying master games) it has not helped. I will go from 1700-1830, then back down again, and it's not like I got drunk the night before; it is a deep mystery why I get into winning and losing streaks, but one thing always remains the same over time: my average rating (~ 1750). So if I am not improving, I don't really see the joy of playing, because every exciting win will be coupled with a heartbreaking loss, and those losses are very stressful and bitter. I don't mind losing, if I am improving over time. But to lose just as much as you win? If you play "for fun", then of course it does not matter; many 900 players do that. They laugh at their blunders, and keep making the same mistakes. But I wanted to get deeper, to understand more, and sadly, I'm finding out that I'd have to basically throw my entire life away on chess in hopes of making 2200 or even 2000. So it's just not worth it for me, esp. since I'm no spring chicken anymore with time to waste. Of course there are lots of hucksters out there who try and sell you their services, telling you that you CAN do it. But to date, nobody has explained losing or winning streaks. Even if your psychology is the same, from one day to the next, it's a mystery that nobody seems to have an answer for. And for me, losing streaks are too stressful and painful...and too frequent.

i like the last paragraph 423k -- its really made sense to me -- you summed up all my feelings of chess in that one paragraph-- thanks for the great writing to make a point-- i am addicted to this game so even common sense to me like you have stated just won't cut it to make me stop but thanks for putting it out there -- i might even have that paragraph framed so i can see it when iam playing chess -- and realize again and again how totally useless it is in the bigger scheme of things--- but then again i play poker so two addictions are better than one

As you get to higher levels more people wr improving faster and are even more talented it gets harder and harder to be more talented than everyone else I don't think y is exactly "no improvement " but you might be slowing down compared to everyone else and it would be difficult to gain more rating

We are all waiting for our time to end. Chess is one excellent way to pass time. And it cost little.

I agree with OP at the most general level, but I'm not sure it has anything to do with this sunk cost fallacy and spending more and more time to get better being the downfall. I mean you could say that about any pursuit, right? You could say that about almost anything. Getting out of the beginner phase of something not being hard, then it gets harder and harder as you go up the ranks. I can agree with there being a carrot of a stick and maybe in a limited sense sunk cost fallacy and a sort of delusion about it but I'm just not sure OP has quite put it right why chess is generally speaking a huge waste of time.

As someone who's been interested in chess for decades I find it's more like this:

Every activity you do in life has consequences, just like how every chess move has consequences. And there are advantages and disadvantages to all the reasonable ones you'd do.

Further complicating matters for real-life is that while in chess the ultimate goal is clear - to beat or at least draw the opponent, in real life there isn't any clear ultimate goal.

Let's take for example the scenario of an episode of Friends is on tv right now and you want to weigh up whether you will watch it or not. What effects will this have on your life?

1. Causes you to relax and maybe take you back a bit to when you were younger as it's an old show now.

2. Train your humour a little bit. Maybe your dialogue and charisma. Like how watching grandmaster games can help train your chess.

3. Because you may laugh, that causes a real physiological reaction. It can maybe put you in a positive mood for the rest of the day.

That's just a few things it can cause. Now think about how people have different ambitions and different life goals in their lives at different times. If you're working hard on a work project that has to be due tomorrow, maybe the last thing you'll want to do is sit and watch an episode of Friends right now. On the other hand if you're a bit tense after working hard all the time and want to loosen up a bit, and to be a bit more fun to be around for a party later, watching Friends might be just the thing. No guarantees about being more fun to be around obviously, it's all more complicated than that, but still potentially a little bit incrementally better because you did watch it, same as watching a grandmaster game doesn't mean you will win later.

What if you read an autobiography on someone, read their life story, how they perceived things, wouldn't that be better than playing chess? I chose Friends as a bit of a provocative example since watching tv is often considered a mindless waste of time. But what's going to help you more, reading well-written autobiography on someone you're interested in or playing chess? I'm just asking the question, not saying what you should do: many autobiographies are full of seemingly completely irrelevant details.

Now there are certainly some advantages of playing and reading about chess - meeting people, thinking about statistics, thinking about how strategy and tactics work, thinking about what works and what doesn't work for training, stoking a little ego and competitive side of you and watching it play out in others. Sure there are lots of advantages like that. The big difficulty I would say is that the actual thinking part of chess within the game or when analyzing it, doesn't really bear any resemblance to useful thinking in real life. I mean you watch the news or even Friends again, you start thinking about real life issues and concerns. There's no way, in my opinion, that calculating lines in chess transfers in a positive way to thinking and reasoning in real life.

Even me writing this post is something that comes with consequences, I hope of course also it might be some way useful to others. It has me thinking and reasoning things out. Calculating chess lines, especially just going through the motions day after day, I mean how could that have any beneficial consequences on how you reason in general. If that were the case Kramnik and Nakamura and Kasparov and that 10 year old kid that beat Namura recently would be the world's best thinkers.

So chess is a very, very dodgy activity to pour time into.

Probably the best way to describe it is a whimsical game for children, just like snakes and ladders and nim and connect 4. Just because people have taken it seriously doesn't mean it deserves to be taken seriously.

bruh

so lemme get this straight, you guys said chess is a huge waste of time, but still play it.

Online chess is a waste of time and here is why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z-ax8AwrHo&t=75s

Lots of people are improving, because they are cheating, even at bullet.

🤷 Who cares when people cheat they are kinda dumb anyway half the time I beat my friends even when they cheat

You just have a skill issue

Thanks 423k !!

Ah, yes, the classic "Chess is a waste of time" argument—an eternal favorite among those who’ve likely spent equal or greater hours binge-watching Netflix or doom-scrolling social media. The irony is palpable.

Let’s unpack this:

• "Thousands of hours memorizing patterns"—sounds like any skill worth mastering, right? Replace "Chess" with "music," "art," or "sports," and suddenly it’s called "dedication" and "passion." But for Chess? Apparently, it's "crazy stupid."
• "Would you sacrifice thousands of hours if you had 10 years to live?"—Curious argument, because if I only had 10 years left, wasting them debating hobbies on forums wouldn’t make my top 10 list either.
• "Only a few become famous." True, but isn’t that the story of life? Millions write, only a few become bestselling authors. Millions play football, and only a handful go pro. Should we abandon all activities that don’t guarantee fame and fortune? Sounds like a thrilling existence.
• "Sunk-cost fallacy." Oh, absolutely. Because all hobbies should be ruthlessly optimized for ROI. Heaven forbid anyone pursues something for sheer joy or intellectual challenge.

In conclusion, you're not wrong that time is precious. But if some people want to spend their time diving into the endless depths of a 64-square board, let them. After all, it’s not like they’re writing think pieces on why other people’s hobbies are a waste of time. That’d be a real sunk cost.

Technically true i guess. Still enjoy what you wanna enjoy.