Originally Posted by Al Mirpuri
Do you just think that you did the best you could in the heat of battle and it was better than the other guy's best?
I am not a chess purist. Of course I'd love to play brilliant games, but I realize that my games are pretty weak in terms of "the ideal game of chess" scale. Since the same is true for my opponents, I think it doesn't make much sense to think about this "scale" at all. You don't compare sprinters to cars, do you?
Therefore, I personally evaluate my results on two different scales. First one is the "results" scale, pretty self-explanatory. If I play like crap but score a bunch of points, I will be at least somewhat happy anyway. The second scale is more related to the emotional level, not sure how to exactly call it. "Have fun/play good chess/enjoy the game" scale
That is if I lose some games during which I really had fun, enjoyed it immensely and etc., I will be at least somewhat happy.
So for me, in order to reach the optimal results, I need to somehow try to balance out those two scales.
Was this completely off-topic? :O