If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Well fine Jean, you have your opinion of how the kids did and so do I. We clearly will not agree on what an acceptable result is for the kids that went to the WYCC.
Their result was perfectly acceptable. It just wasn't worth a bunch of posts extolling the exceptional nature of their result. It was just an ok result.
Jean is a chess teacher and his motivation is clear here: he wants business for himself. He wants to be the one to teach these kids how winning titles is everything.
And CFC does not??? I fail to see the point you are trying to make here? It does not make any sense.
Also Jean can probably teach better chess than any one of CFC Executives!
I ask everyone on Chesstalk to help keep Jean from getting into the heads of kids and teaching them this unhealthy perspective. Keep Jean away from these kids! Chess in NOT life, winning is NOT everything, and if it were, then Jean, you really haven't won anything worthwhile because if you take your philosophy to the extreme then only winning the World Championship makes playing chess worthwhile, and by that measure, you're just an also-ran and so you too should be abandoning chess by now.
I want everyone to know, that this statement coming from CFC (directly or indirectly). They probably discuss this on their private forums or through emails.
Don't you mean: 'Keep CFC away from these kids!' lol
With the way CFC recently being treating their top juniors, this statement would be more politically correct!
He does not agree with you. This does not make him 'mentally deluded'. Jean knows more about chess than most people will ever know.
My 2 cents worth.
Michael Yip
Michael, you obviously need to upgrade your debating skills. Where did I say that Jean is mentally deluded because he disagrees with me?
If you want to be giving your 2 cents worth, then answer this question so we know exactly where you stand: Should children be taught chess or coached in chess in a manner that emphasizes winning above all else?
When you think about your answer, think about the fact that chess is a game of pure individual skill, and so if a child is being coached along in chess for a number of years, and finally plateaus at a level that is far short of winning titles, then that child -- coached to think that winning is everything -- is going to go through a period of self-disgust that for some might even result in suicidal thoughts or actions, or at the very least might result in withdrawal from scholastic effort.
Also keep in mind that chess is unlike a team sport like hockey, where even if one is not a great scorer or a great goalie, one could be a great penalty-killer or some other specialty role, and whenever a team fails to win a title, it is a team loss, not an individual loss. A child might feel depressed if, for example, s/he was the goalie that gave up the goal that caused his / her team to lose a big game, but there are teammates and coaches around to let that team know that it was a team loss. The coach should NEVER berate an individual team member in a way that doesn't give that member hope that s/he can improve. In many minor hockey leagues, there are rules in place that prevent a coach from playing only the most talented kids. The less talented kids must get equal ice time, and there are people keeping track. It's not all about winning.
In chess, once one plateaus, one doesn't improve, with only the rarest of exceptions. Book study and coaching may cause some improvement, but generally once one has plateaued even with the most strenuous of study and efforts, only the most miniscule of improvement is achievable. Jean is a perfect example of this. He's not suddenly have an epiphany and be in the World Championshop Candidates cycle.
I've often compared chess to tennis, both being individual games. I would say the same thing about chess coaching as I would to tennis coaching. Do NOT try and teach kids that winning is everything. At least tennis has a physical and mental fitness aspect that can be emphasized to kids. Chess has its own mental and maybe even physical aspects that can be emphasized, but at no time IMO should any child be "taught" that chess is something that should consume their every waking hour. There is so much more to learn in life that what chess can teach.
So, Michael, I hope you will answer the question the proper way. Jean's answer, that kids should be taught that winning is everything, is a delusion he wants to use to enhance his own coaching opportunities. He tries to convince us its in the kids best interest, and if he truly believes that in his heart, that's the most disgusting delusion of all.
Finally, remember that we are talking about kids here. Kids are much more prone to mental / psychological trauma based on failure in chess or in tennis or you name it, than adults are. Thus, we must be much more careful with how we treat kids in coaching and teaching. The physical and mental health of the kids should be above all else, and second to that should be giving kids good life lessons and EXPERIENCE.
If it were up to me, selection of kids to play events such as the WYCC would be based on a child's interest level in chess, with a minimum performance level that isn't up in the stratosphere of ratings. This kind of selection process should probably involve local club organizers interviewing the kid, with no parents present, and then nominating a number of them for further interviewing by a selection committee. Wherever possible, the selection committee should have a psychologist present to try and determine if the kid might be traumatized by going to the event and having a bad result -- or alternatively, might be traumatized by not even being selected to go. The selection committee interviews could be done online to prevent travel requirements.
If the kid is showing a huge interest and playing a lot of games and seems mentally healthy even with a mediocre record, and seems EAGER to play chess, then that is a kid we should send. And if a good candidate kid is not selected, s/he should be encouraged to continue to work and study and reapply the following year.
Anyone who wants the selection to be based only on highest rating or titles won is trying to impose an adult selection system on children, and that ignores the health of the children. At least with American Idol (which I despise), it can be hoped that contestants are no longer naive enough to believe that the opinion of 3 judges is the be-all and end-all of their talent level.
Maybe the child that Michael Egorov is talking about should actually have been sent. I doubt that there was any intentional discrimination, but he does describe the child as being extremely disappointed by not going. That is something that needs to be taken into account, and if anything, I do hope the CFC will take that into consideration in future selections.
Perhaps someone could put a poll on Chesstalk, with the question I asked above:
Should children be taught chess or coached in chess in a manner that emphasizes winning above all else?
P.S. Jean does indeed know more about chess than most people. That would appear to be part of his problem.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Should children be taught chess or coached in chess in a manner that emphasizes winning above all else?
I can not cite where I read: children love to win in chess (and or other activities, even it is a prize for the last place :p) The appreciation of the game comes later. Even adults loose interest when their strength (aka ratings) start to fall.
Michael, you obviously need to upgrade your debating skills. Where did I say that Jean is mentally deluded because he disagrees with me?
If you want to be giving your 2 cents worth, then answer this question so we know exactly where you stand: Should children be taught chess or coached in chess in a manner that emphasizes winning above all else?
When you think about your answer, think about the fact that chess is a game of pure individual skill, and so if a child is being coached along in chess for a number of years, and finally plateaus at a level that is far short of winning titles, then that child -- coached to think that winning is everything -- is going to go through a period of self-disgust that for some might even result in suicidal thoughts or actions, or at the very least might result in withdrawal from scholastic effort.
Also keep in mind that chess is unlike a team sport like hockey, where even if one is not a great scorer or a great goalie, one could be a great penalty-killer or some other specialty role, and whenever a team fails to win a title, it is a team loss, not an individual loss. A child might feel depressed if, for example, s/he was the goalie that gave up the goal that caused his / her team to lose a big game, but there are teammates and coaches around to let that team know that it was a team loss. The coach should NEVER berate an individual team member in a way that doesn't give that member hope that s/he can improve. In many minor hockey leagues, there are rules in place that prevent a coach from playing only the most talented kids. The less talented kids must get equal ice time, and there are people keeping track. It's not all about winning.
In chess, once one plateaus, one doesn't improve, with only the rarest of exceptions. Book study and coaching may cause some improvement, but generally once one has plateaued even with the most strenuous of study and efforts, only the most miniscule of improvement is achievable. Jean is a perfect example of this. He's not suddenly have an epiphany and be in the World Championshop Candidates cycle.
I've often compared chess to tennis, both being individual games. I would say the same thing about chess coaching as I would to tennis coaching. Do NOT try and teach kids that winning is everything. At least tennis has a physical and mental fitness aspect that can be emphasized to kids. Chess has its own mental and maybe even physical aspects that can be emphasized, but at no time IMO should any child be "taught" that chess is something that should consume their every waking hour. There is so much more to learn in life that what chess can teach.
So, Michael, I hope you will answer the question the proper way. Jean's answer, that kids should be taught that winning is everything, is a delusion he wants to use to enhance his own coaching opportunities. He tries to convince us its in the kids best interest, and if he truly believes that in his heart, that's the most disgusting delusion of all.
Finally, remember that we are talking about kids here. Kids are much more prone to mental / psychological trauma based on failure in chess or in tennis or you name it, than adults are. Thus, we must be much more careful with how we treat kids in coaching and teaching. The physical and mental health of the kids should be above all else, and second to that should be giving kids good life lessons and EXPERIENCE.
If it were up to me, selection of kids to play events such as the WYCC would be based on a child's interest level in chess, with a minimum performance level that isn't up in the stratosphere of ratings. This kind of selection process should probably involve local club organizers interviewing the kid, with no parents present, and then nominating a number of them for further interviewing by a selection committee. Wherever possible, the selection committee should have a psychologist present to try and determine if the kid might be traumatized by going to the event and having a bad result -- or alternatively, might be traumatized by not even being selected to go. The selection committee interviews could be done online to prevent travel requirements.
If the kid is showing a huge interest and playing a lot of games and seems mentally healthy even with a mediocre record, and seems EAGER to play chess, then that is a kid we should send. And if a good candidate kid is not selected, s/he should be encouraged to continue to work and study and reapply the following year.
Anyone who wants the selection to be based only on highest rating or titles won is trying to impose an adult selection system on children, and that ignores the health of the children. At least with American Idol (which I despise), it can be hoped that contestants are no longer naive enough to believe that the opinion of 3 judges is the be-all and end-all of their talent level.
Maybe the child that Michael Egorov is talking about should actually have been sent. I doubt that there was any intentional discrimination, but he does describe the child as being extremely disappointed by not going. That is something that needs to be taken into account, and if anything, I do hope the CFC will take that into consideration in future selections.
Perhaps someone could put a poll on Chesstalk, with the question I asked above: Should children be taught chess or coached in chess in a manner that emphasizes winning above all else?P.S. Jean does indeed know more about chess than most people. That would appear to be part of his problem.
The Question Should children be taught chess or coached in chess in a manner that emphasizes winning above all else?
(a)I did not read the whole long and winding thread sorrry. I wish to state I do not believe that Jean is a whiner NOR mentally deluded for whatever reason.
(b)Yes. I teach winning. How to win, the tools for winning, maximizing results, hard work, diligence, effort etc.
I put no pressure on the kids to win and I don't want any kind of pressure from the parents either. I do the teaching and am responsible for the results. The kids/students pay attention and make the best moves they can.
I don't care if the student actually does win, only that they try their absolute best. I tell the parents if they want fun they should get a babysitter/play partner or another teacher. I am not for them.
(c)As for debating skills, thanks for telling me what to think. I didn't read your whole post. sorry.
Perhaps someone could put a poll on Chesstalk, with the question I asked above:
Should children be taught chess or coached in chess in a manner that emphasizes winning above all else?
Should children be taught chess or coached in chess in a manner that emphasizes winning above all else?
Paul, excellent post!
At the Mississauga Junior Club we emphasize that the kids have fun. It is so much more satisfying to see them enjoy the game, rather than seeing them fight to the death. Teaching them good sportsmanship, concentration, patience, and all the other benefits of chess, as well as the ability to lose with grace, are more important life lessons than developing some killer instinct to win.
Just my opinion, others may disagree.
Last edited by Bob Gillanders; Sunday, 4th December, 2011, 07:11 PM.
The Question Should children be taught chess or coached in chess in a manner that emphasizes winning above all else?
(a)I did not read the whole long and winding thread sorrry. I wish to state I do not believe that Jean is a whiner NOR mentally deluded for whatever reason.
(b)Yes. I teach winning. How to win, the tools for winning, maximizing results, hard work, diligence, effort etc.
I put no pressure on the kids to win and I don't want any kind of pressure from the parents either. I do the teaching and am responsible for the results. The kids/students pay attention and make the best moves they can.
I don't care if the student actually does win, only that they try their absolute best. I tell the parents if they want fun they should get a babysitter/play partner or another teacher. I am not for them.
(c)As for debating skills, thanks for telling me what to think. I didn't read your whole post. sorry.
I hope this answers your question
Michael Yip
You hope this answers my question? No you don't. You didn't bother to read because your mind is closed.
I like how in part (B) of your answer you start with "Yes" as if that is your answer to my question, and you proceed to list all the ways you teach children to win. Then you say in the next paragraph that you "put no pressure on the kids to win". What a bunch of crap. If all that you are teaching them has to do with winning, then you are putting pressure on them to win. Period.
Look at Bob Gillanders' response to my question and you will see how someone teaches other aspects of chess besides winning.
Oh, I forgot, you don't read through people's posts (and you're sorry, ha ha). I'll add your name to the list of minds that have gone bad from too much chess.
And hey, Gary Ruben: losing lots of chess games will always be preferable to losing one's mind. Just ask anyone who understands what became of Fischer.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Do you think chess killed Fischer?
He had the same problem with his tournament as with his last before departing for 20 years.
The current champion, Anand, about the former champion
Q You met Fischer in 2006, a couple of years before he died. What was he like?
I found him surprisingly normal. Well, at least not very tense. He seemed to be relieved to be in the company of chess players. He was calm in that sense. He was also a bit worried about people following him, so the paranoia never really went away. But I am really happy I got the chance to meet him before he died in 2008. It was weird as well because I kept having to remind myself that this was Bobby Fischer sitting in front of me!
Someone should tell these teachers of talent that good losers tend to lose often.
First it is not about medals, then it is about being "good losers". What is next down this revealing thread about what we would like our players to achieve?
It should not be about "winning at all cost", it should be about making the kids learn as much as they can (about chess AND themselves) thus helping them to be the best that they can be.
As it is, not too much learning, not too much winning, but still a pretty large amount of money spent, in order to meet low or no expectations at all.
Tweet
Comment