Admitting one is wrong is needed more often than not in chess as in life.
With the analogy to life, does chess provide some insight into or benefit that connects with life?
Chess makes this point easier to understand, because mistakes are often clearly identifiable in retrospect and not learning from them will lead to the same pattern being repeated in future games. In life sometimes "mistakes" can be harder to quantify and therefore easier to deny.
I find it difficult to get excited about mastering chess. All that effort and for what gain?
What motivates chess players? As I see from this game example that with enough brain power, you essentially duel to a near draw (both black and white have the same number of pieces) probably with random outcome.
Motivation is different for every player. For some it is about the enjoyment of competition, others see chess as a type of art and express their creativity by harmoniously directing their pieces.
Btw, according to chess master insights, which has a stronger position right now, black or white? And why? Is there any science to it?
I think the position is about equal. In general I agree with ArticMine that in an endgame with pawns on both sides of the board a bishop is usually preferable to a knight. However with strong outpost on d4 for the knight and an active king black is doing just fine here. Blacks biggest weakness (backwards pawn on d6) cannot be easily attacked. Winning material or creating a dangerous passed pawn will be difficult for both sides.
The bishop is stronger than the knight in that ending. What I do not like about that line is the centralized black king. I am voting for 28. Bd5.
Speed chess is more interesting. But I seem to lose as well. Yet at least it is more thrilling and might see some motivation in that, because it more mimics the challenge of life which is that we can't calculate all the possibilities (nor would I want to, as then life wouldn't be unique and we wouldn't exist).
I like speed chess too. Many players prefer longer time controls but most would agree faster games are better suited for marketing chess as a form of entertainment to a broader market.
I remember when I was in Davao in 1994 for the first time, there was a older man who wanted me to play chess with him around the clock. And he won 95+% of the games against me and even with his eyes blindfolded!
Playing blindfolded is actually less difficult than it sounds for experienced chess players. I have no problems playing an entire game blindfolded. I suspect that close to 100% of all chess masters (and many lower rated players) are capable of doing so. Difficulty is much harder if asked to play multiple games at once. The record below is extremely impressive:
http://www.blindfoldchess.net/blog/2011/12/after_64_years_new_world_blindfold_record_set_by_marc_lang_playing_46_games/ Being timed and hearing moves in random order also makes things much more difficult. Some of the timed blindfold simultaneous exhibitions I have seen have been unfair IMHO because the clock is not pushed by the announcers until after the spoken move (by Magnus in the case below) is physically made by his assistant (which could be several seconds after the move is vocalized). It is also essential that all commentators speak with perfect chess notation so there is never any confusion (and wasted time) about castling long vs. castling short or which piece is making a capture (Rcxd1 vs Rfxd1, etc).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqmzadHNSLsWatch a few blindfold exhibitions to see what I mean.
scenario 1:
Announcer says "On board four white plays knight capture bishop"
Players says "Ncxd5 or Nexd5"
Announcer says "White captures on d5 with the Knight currently on c3"
scenario 2 :
Announcer says "Board four, Ncxd5"
When playing multiple timed games at once scenario 2 is obviously far superior. Skilled announcers and perfect algebraic descriptions are key.
