We can compare classical chess and rapid chess with theatre and cinema - some actors don't like the latter and prefer to work in the theatre.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I find that actors who are wanting to pursue tv or films don't seem to have much interest in classical theatre.
The great difference between screen acting and theatre acting is that screen acting is about reacting - 75% of the time, great screen actors are great reactors.
I am still a victim of chess. It has all the beauty of art - and much more. It cannot be commercialized. Chess is much purer than art in its social position.
A powerful studio boss doesn't want to be bested by a woman, even in chess. And a successful agent steps on a lot of toes. You lose actors jobs so you can get them for your own clients.
Chess only appeals to quite a small minority. It does not have the cachet of a mainstream popular sport.
Classical plays require more imagination and more general training to be able to do. That's why I like playing Shakespeare better than anything else.
Chess has given me a lot more than I could ask for. I have been able to feel special, travel the world and do what I truly enjoy. Moreover, chess players love being their own boss and hate having to wake up early!
Theatre demands different muscles and different aspects of one's personality.
Making a film or doing a play are completely different experiences and entirely fulfilling, but completely unique. I also think one complements the other. People often say that theater is about flexing your muscles, and is actually real acting, whereas I sort of disagree.
But theatre is always a difficult experience.
No opposing quotes found.