why do so many players lack creativity?

@castalethe said in #30:
> Not the original addressee of the comment, but I have an answer.
>
> I play chess because I like problem-solving. You don't necessarily need to be creative to solve problems: it's the reason why pattern recognition is so important in chess (i.e. "I saw this position before, I can use the same solution to solve the problems that it poses").
>
> In this sense, chess is similar to programming. You don't necessarily need to be creative to be a good programmer.

It depends how you define creativity. Each unique position presents unique challenges which require responses specific to that situation. How you choose to respond is a product of your thought process. So in that sense, chess can be considered creative. It's not *absolute* creativity, as we're playing with the same pieces, with the same movements, on the same board, with the same goal, and the same strategic and tactical possibilities. But within those confines, we use our creativity to come up with ideas to achieve our goals.

@Prophiscient said in #31:
> It depends how you define creativity. Each unique position presents unique challenges which require responses specific to that situation. How you choose to respond is a product of your thought process. So in that sense, chess can be considered creative. It's not *absolute* creativity, as we're playing with the same pieces, with the same movements, on the same board, with the same goal, and the same strategic and tactical possibilities. But within those confines, we use our creativity to come up with ideas to achieve our goals.

I partially agree, but this whole discussion has been kicked off by OP in relation to a specific opening. You talk about "unique positions", but in the opening phase you have only have a handful of them, especially when you start following some specific lines (in this case, the French Defense), where only 3-4 moves make sense and the others are subtle or blatant mistakes. And if you know the opening and how to punish those mistakes... well, that's technique and practice, not creativity. Just like in programming, if you know how to use a library/framework to perform a specific task, you will reuse the same solution whenever that task needs to be done.

Opening and endgame (especially the easy ones, depending on your level) are the phases where creativity in chess, however you define it, it's at its lowest.

@Prophiscient said in #31:
> It depends how you define creativity. Each unique position presents unique challenges which require responses specific to that situation. How you choose to respond is a product of your thought process. So in that sense, chess can be considered creative. It's not *absolute* creativity, as we're playing with the same pieces, with the same movements, on the same board, with the same goal, and the same strategic and tactical possibilities. But within those confines, we use our creativity to come up with ideas to achieve our goals.

I agree. Creativity can manifest itself in different ways, it doesn't necessarily have to cause "fireworks". We could then say the triumph of an idea, as long as they are based on logic, is a creative act.

@castalethe said in #32:
> I partially agree, but this whole discussion has been kicked off by OP in relation to a specific opening. You talk about "unique positions", but in the opening phase you have only have a handful of them, especially when you start following some specific lines (in this case, the French Defense), where only 3-4 moves make sense and the others are subtle or blatant mistakes. And if you know the opening and how to punish those mistakes... well, that's technique and practice, not creativity. Just like in programming, if you know how to use a library/framework to perform a specific task, you will reuse the same solution whenever that task needs to be done.
>
> Opening and endgame (especially the easy ones, depending on your level) are the phases where creativity in chess, however you define it, it's at its lowest.

I agree. This is why I support Chess960 over the old chess. It adds creativity back to the opening phase of the game. As for the endgame, there is less creativity. But this is less of an issue since the players control, to some degree, how the endgame positions will turn out.

@castalethe said in #32:
> I partially agree, but this whole discussion has been kicked off by OP in relation to a specific opening. You talk about "unique positions", but in the opening phase you have only have a handful of them, especially when you start following some specific lines (in this case, the French Defense), where only 3-4 moves make sense and the others are subtle or blatant mistakes. And if you know the opening and how to punish those mistakes... well, that's technique and practice, not creativity. Just like in programming, if you know how to use a library/framework to perform a specific task, you will reuse the same solution whenever that task needs to be done.
>
> Opening and endgame (especially the easy ones, depending on your level) are the phases where creativity in chess, however you define it, it's at its lowest.

Perhaps it has been necessary to leave for a moment the matter that has motivated this debate. On the other hand, certainly the deep study of opening and endgame have made these stages the most "predictable", which, according to certain parameters, could make them the least creative.

@CheerUpChess-Youtube said in #23:
> It is your responsibility to play an opening where such a line you hate doesn't exist.

@SD_2709 : (added this as the quotes got messed up so that u know the below part is by me)

Not easy honestly. Every opening has its cons. For e.g: I play sicilian and despise the bowdler attack, but I also don't like to play against the Advanced French, Advanced Caro and Italian Game so I play c5 instead of e5, e6 or c6.

Because among the ones mentioned above playing against the bowdler is relatively easier for me.

There will always be variations you might not like. Against 1.d4, if you don't like slow games then most openings are already not a great option.

Things like the Budapest gambit and benko gambit, while aggressive, can also just go into a losing endgame of you aren't precise with your attacks.

The perfect opening doesn't exist.

@SD_2709 Yes, true to some extend. The difference is - I cannot avoid the Caro-Kann - this kind of setup is playable against ANY starting move from white. You cannot ever avoid c6-d5-Nf6. They will play it if they want to. However when it comes to the french defense, then you should not play the french when you hate the french exchange, as it might happen in half of your games. There is plenty of openings to choose from against e4.

@Brian-E said in #25:
> By failing to play the normal 5.Nxf6+ you may have denied your opponent one of the most interesting (creative if you like) lines of the Caro-Kann 5...gxf6! Anything but drawish, this line accepts serious weaknesses on the kingside in return for strong counter-attacking play.

Thank you for your comment. I played another classical game with Nxf6 now and they of course played exf6 again and not gxf6 - still the game was a lot more interesting! In fact it was so interesting that I decided to create a blog on it instead of just showing you the game as a link. It changed how I look at chess. Thanks :)

lichess.org/@/CheerUpChess-Youtube/blog/draw-no/Ue4bsibH

I think in the initial question the word "creativity" has been misused.

I guess we all have things we love to play against, fear to encounter or get bored to meet. For me it's the sicilian, regarding openings that make me sigh.