That's part of my point. If we were talking about painting then the skills might well be useful for other stuff, but everything I've read says that it's just a game. It doesn't build other useful skills.

At no point did I seek to judge it objectively.

That was exactly the reason for my response. :)

Your subjective opinion that "chess is unfun for you" ignores the objective lack of knowledge of what chess even is. I believe something is unfun for you, I just disagree that it's the game of chess you're describing.

What you are calling "chess" here is the basics. It's not the game Magnus Carlson plays.

I have played some chess at various points throughout my life. My subjective judgement is that it didn't grab me, unlike many, many other games. It might well have some divine beauty to it but the subjective barrier to entry is far too high. I also don't bother with TV shows that "get good in the second season" or endure multiple chapters of tedium before bailing on a book.

Fair!

Once again I'm not here to convince you to play it or that it even would be fun if you did. Watch and play what you want. Just also recognize everything has a learning curve and that it is an error to misattribute frustrations in general along the learning curve with frustrstion towards the actual thing once it's been learnt.

You're now putting words in my mouth.

At what point did I state anything other than a subjective opinion?

"Chess doesn't feel like a gateway to other, more fun games, and if it's not a fun game for me, why would I pursue it?"

Right in here. You don't actually know if it's a fun game for you or not. You just know it's unfun to learn at your current level and don't see it getting more fun any time soon to he worth sticking with.

Happens to me with countless games and hobbies. I used the book analogy to explain how someone learning to pronounce and sound out words complaining that "reading isn't fun for me" isn't actually complaining about reading, they're complaining about learning to read. Those are different things.

In fact I went out of my way to make it abundantly clear that these are my opinions and not a judgement on the game as a whole.

You did. But there's an objectiveness hidden in the subjective opinion.

As an analogy, if I saw a child in a burning building I could say as a subjective opinion "I will save that child".

The problem is under pressure and actual flames of a fire, I can't know how I would act. Maybe I'd panic and wouldn't actually be able to do it, or maybe some switch would go off and I'd rush in.

The point is I don't know because I've never been in that emergency situation. I'm unqualified to make subjective statements about how I'd react to completely unfamiliar states of mind.

Maybe chess is unfun for you, maybe it's not. Insert ANY hobby in that statement, it's not about chess specifically.

Until you've learned the thing you can't even make subjective statements about yourself and how you'd act with knowledge you DONT HAVE.

If this thread is anything to go by, I wish I'd played even less chess than I already have. Sorry that I'm enjoying my hobbies wrong?

Why are apologizing lol?

You aren't enjoying your hobbies wrong, I just think you're thinking about them in the wrong way.

I think you mean "X is unfun to learn" instead of "X is unfun".

I think you admitted you don't know enough about X to say if it's fun one way or the other.

I have not enjoyed my limited experiences with chess. They have turned me off pursuing it further. The same is not true of many other games I've played. To me that makes chess subjectively worse than those other games.

That's okay I guess.

I could spend a few hours with no tutorial failing to learn Dwarf Fortress and just conclude the game is unfun and live my life that way perfectly fine.

Does it actually mean the games unfun for me? No, of course. It just means I'm preventing myself from giving a chance to things I misjudged.