Chess is a wonderful game. It is because the final outcome largely depends little on luck and if it does, rather, on the expertise of the two contenders. The winner knows that he could have lost and that the difference has marked what he has done, the loser knows that he could have won and also that the difference has marked his movements. Thus, in chess, as in many other challenges, there is error, but not failure and much less failures.
There are mistakes because there are always strategies that can be improved, especially if we look at it from the perspective of the one who has finished delivering the head of his king. I could have played better. However, his defeat is far from being a failure, since the next game takes a lot of moves to learn, to improve. Good elements for reflection. In this sense, your investment of time has been profitable, probably much more than that of the winner.
This is hardly going to go home thinking about the game. His strategies have been reinforced and therefore it is more complicated that he has found anchoring points (reasons) to question them. Thus, most likely, he will repeat them until someone wins. In this sense, victory tends to perpetuate the cycle, to reduce investment, which is why it is so sweet. Our brain wants to save energy and victory is usually a deceptive support in this regard.
Failure comes when what has happened, in addition to the taste of defeat, leaves us nothing. It happens especially in the games in which chance rules, that's why humanly they are so poor. Because whoever loses - which is often and many times, since the bank has the probability in its favor: that implacable law when we speak of large numbers (many plays and many players) - little learns, rather than sticking to some disturbing superstition.
"It has been not to enter before nine that has made me lose ...", "It was this shirt, that my luck ...", "I do not come back with Juan because with him I do not win one" (Juan probably has not either won and do not want to return with you ...).
Leaving irony aside. Luck little else has to teach us / remember, beyond that is present. That always, protagonist or actress of distribution, plays its role.
The unsuccessful is not the one who collects one failure after another, nor the one who has just failed. Failed is an adjective (label) that has connotations that go much further. To say that someone is a failure or to think that we are failures permeates the being, the being. It becomes part of the nature of being, of being. Therefore we would speak of something immutable.
That will not change and that therefore supposes a sentence for the future. Eliminates the motivation for learning. He sends us the following message: "It does not matter what you learn, you will never win". The one who feels a failure plays to be unjustly deterministic with his future, just as he is the one who places this label on another and unfairly tries to be one.
Because yes, perhaps the past is the best predictor of the future, but never the voice that dictates to the writer his lines. There is no determinism, but rather the possibility of overcoming rooted in the change. For that reason, the same overcoming that scares us attracts us. That is why that attraction is broken in the person who feels a failure in himself. As if the thought was water, it was porous, and this one had sneaked to the depths of his being.
Hence, this thought serves as trigger and sustenance for many depressions. A depression that appears when hope is broken (Abramson et al., 1997) and not that the future is different, but rather that we can do something (control capacity) to design it. Therefore, there are mental problems, such as phobias, which lead to a depression: in them, anxiety is what drowns this hope of control, stressing that we are undoubtedly vulnerable beings.
Source youtube ( dotConverse )
