The instinctive answer many people give is no. Comparison is often blamed for ego, frustration, or unnecessary pressure. But the full picture is more nuanced. In reality, comparison is a natural part of competition, and when understood correctly, it can serve a useful purpose.
We compare ourselves with others because comparison provides information. If we observe ourselves performing better than another player, it reinforces that our training is effective and motivates us to remain consistent. If we see someone performing better than us, it can signal a gap that pushes us to improve. In both cases, comparison can function as feedback rather than something inherently harmful.
Sports psychology explains this dynamic through Achievement Goal Theory. The theory suggests that performers tend to approach achievement with two broad goal orientations: mastery orientation and performance orientation. These orientations describe how people define success and evaluate competence.
The Mastery Orientation
A mastery orientation focuses on developing skills and improving over time. Success is defined through learning, effort, and personal progress. A chess player harboring a mastery orientation might ask questions like, “Did I understand this position better than before?”, “Did I calculate more accurately?” or “Did I apply what I studied?”. In this orientation, comparison with others is not the main reference point. Instead, the comparison is primarily internal: today’s performance versus yesterday’s.
Research consistently shows that mastery goals are associated with greater internal motivation, persistence, and deeper learning. Players with a mastery focus tend to analyze their mistakes more carefully, remain engaged during setbacks, and develop stronger long-term skills.
For a chess player, this might look like spending time studying endgames, solving tactics daily, and carefully analyzing losses - not worrying too much about rating fluctuations. The emphasis is on understanding the game better, move by move. Over time, this approach builds the core abilities that strong players rely on: pattern recognition, calculation, and strategic understanding.
The Performance Orientation
The second orientation is performance orientation. Here, success is defined in relation to others. The central question becomes, “Did I perform better than my competitors?” Winning games, achieving higher ratings, and outperforming competitors become the primary indicators of competence. Social comparison is therefore central in this orientation.
While performance goals sometimes get a negative reputation, research does not suggest they are inherently harmful. In competitive environments, especially when athletes already possess a solid skill base, performance goals can increase competitive drive, focus, and effort during competition. They push players to test themselves against others and to perform under pressure.
In chess terms, this is the mindset that fuels the desire to beat a higher-rated opponent, prepare seriously for tournaments, or push toward rating milestones and titles. Competition sharpens performance in ways that practice alone cannot.
Importantly, modern research in achievement goal theory does not treat mastery and performance orientations as opposites. They are independent motivational systems, meaning a player can hold both simultaneously. In fact, it is seen that performers who combine strong mastery goals with healthy performance goals demonstrate high motivation and persistence.
What matters most is how these orientations are used!
Early in a player’s development, mastery orientation should dominate. Skill acquisition requires patience, curiosity, and a willingness to learn from mistakes. If a player becomes overly focused on rating or comparison too early, the result is often anxiety, avoidance of challenging games, or shallow learning.
Once a strong foundation of skill is built, performance goals can play a larger role. Competition then becomes a way to apply and sharpen those skills. Comparison shifts from being threatening to being informative. Stronger opponents become benchmarks rather than discouragements.
Seen through this lens, comparison itself is not the problem. The problem is when comparison replaces learning rather than supporting it.
Training should largely be driven by mastery - understanding positions, correcting mistakes, and strengthening weaknesses. Competition can then activate the performance side - pushing you to perform at your highest level against others.
Used wisely, both orientations serve a purpose. Mastery develops the strength of your chess. Performance reveals how strong your chess skills have become!