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.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
Calling Mr Glen Lee(Jonah Lee's dad) or any parent or former student of Mine
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.
..(more)
Michael Yip
Previously stated(as part of a long discussion) was
"...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."-Paul Bonham
May I ask you to speak on my behalf on what/how I teach and pressure from me?
Re: Calling Mr Glen Lee(Jonah Lee's dad) or any parent or former student of Mine
I worked with Michael many years ago for CMA in Montreal. I never got the sense that he was obsessed with his students' results or became upset if they did poorly. He was a serious teacher and did demand that the students put in the effort, which is what I also do. Otherwise I am wasting both the parents' money and my time.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Re: Calling Mr Glen Lee(Jonah Lee's dad) or any parent or former student of Mine
I am not totally sure what this is all about [too lazy to read all posts ] but in the 90s was at maybe 50 tournaments with Mike [as coaches ] and never ,not once did i see any evidence that he placed an unreasonable emphasis on winning . What i remember is Mike valued study and analysis and an honest effort to improve .
I worked with Michael many years ago for CMA in Montreal. I never got the sense that he was obsessed with his students' results or became upset if they did poorly. He was a serious teacher and did demand that the students put in the effort, which is what I also do. Otherwise I am wasting both the parents' money and my time.
First Tom, a question for you: if you are teaching a young kid, and the kid is putting in serious effort, lots of study and so on, but there is no improvement and the kid continues to make either outright blunders or just fails to ever put a plan together, do you go to the parents and tell them their kid is not suited to chess? If not, then what do you do?
Michael's own words were that "I teach winning. How to win, the tools for winning, maximizing results, hard work, diligence, effort etc."
No where there do I see words like "fun" or "good sportsmanship" or "creativity", nor anything about how to handle the kids that don't have an affinity for chess. No, it's all about maximizing results. And not all kids can maximize results in chess.
It's a dangerous game, because kids egos can become very fragile if they are old enough to realize that they aren't "smart enough" for chess. What a chess teacher needs to do with kids like this is help the kid realize that there are other things besides chess, and get the parents to realize that their kid is in trouble and needs some other outlet: art, music, hockey, something totally different from chess.
Being a chess teacher to kids is a very high level of responsibility, for the very reason that chess is a pure skill game and failure at chess can do damage to ego. Some kids can, but other kids can't handle that without help. Teaching chess skills alone is not enough. Who knows how many people have been damaged by chess at a very young age and are now adults in severe depression or other mental health problems such as addictions.
IMO, chess is the most dangerous activity of all for kids to take seriously. At least we do have Bob Gillanders teaching the fun aspect.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
First Tom, a question for you: if you are teaching a young kid, and the kid is putting in serious effort, lots of study and so on, but there is no improvement and the kid continues to make either outright blunders or just fails to ever put a plan together, do you go to the parents and tell them their kid is not suited to chess? If not, then what do you do?
It's like in real school. Some kids progress faster than other and a one on one teacher is bringing the student along at his own pace. Some kids don't catch on as well as others and the rating system will reflect that.
Kids can figure out pretty fast how they stack up against their peers.
Over the years I've told lots of players they weren't good enough to play in events they wanted. Chess isn't a democracy. When it's time to invite players for an event the best players get the invite and the others get to watch.
Some teachers are quite successful at teaching winning. They have the ability to bring the player to the next level.
Of course, chess is a game where some talent and smarts is required.
It's like in real school. Some kids progress faster than other and a one on one teacher is bringing the student along at his own pace. Some kids don't catch on as well as others and the rating system will reflect that.
Kids can figure out pretty fast how they stack up against their peers.
Over the years I've told lots of players they weren't good enough to play in events they wanted. Chess isn't a democracy. When it's time to invite players for an event the best players get the invite and the others get to watch.
Some teachers are quite successful at teaching winning. They have the ability to bring the player to the next level.
Of course, chess is a game where some talent and smarts is required.
There is too much emphasis on winning at too young of an age. These kids are fragile! Would you like it on your conscience if you select a kid to play because his/her rating is great, the kid has a terrible result, and the kid never recovers and ends up being a mental case? Or alternatively, the kid loves chess, is totally devoted to the game, but his/her rating isn't quite up to "medal" level and you don't select the kid, and the kid becomes a mental case?
I'll say it again: the mental health of the children has to override medals! And this comes into the coaching too. Stop emphasizing winning and emphasize fun and creativity. Recognize that you aren't dealing with adults. I'm really glad to hear that Bob Gillanders is going in this direction.
I know Gary that it is ingrained in you to think about performance and winning. That's fine for yourself, but don't impose it on kids.
Finally, let's be real about one thing: if it's all about winning, we can all go home and give it up to the computers. Even a human World Chess Championshop doesn't mean anything anymore. If all we're going to teach is winning and maximizing results, just have kids play against computer engines, and see how much fun they have and how long they stick with the game.
For kids at least, chess is supposed to be FUN.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
There are many other activities with a lot of fun like curling, volleyball, soccer, hockey. However these activities can be competitive sports too, where fun goes to the second plan, and EXCEL becomes a driving force. Chess is not an exception.
Michael Yip works with one group, R.Gillanders entertains others. Everybody is his zen.
There is more fun in after-the-game double-chess parties than in the tournament :D
I'll say it again: the mental health of the children has to override medals! And this comes into the coaching too. Stop emphasizing winning and emphasize fun and creativity. Recognize that you aren't dealing with adults. I'm really glad to hear that Bob Gillanders is going in this direction.
I love the way you leap from position to position. Why parents allow kids with these kind of problems to do competitive sports is not the problem of the opponents or the federations who probably don't even know the situation.
I take it you have qualifications in the mental health field and you'll tell us what they are.
Is Bob Gillanders running CFC rated events for the kids? Any time you run an event and one child comes first and wins while another ends up in last place there has been a competition where one child has tasted the fun of first place and another has tasted the fun of being last. I'd assume parents pay chess teachers to teach their children enough chess to taste the fun of first place.
Would you find a situation where a chess teacher provided a sandbox for the children to play preferable?
Do you know music lessons and competitions are competitive?
In any case, it's up to the parents what they want.
There is too much emphasis on winning at too young of an age. These kids are fragile! Would you like it on your conscience if you select a kid to play because his/her rating is great, the kid has a terrible result, and the kid never recovers and ends up being a mental case? Or alternatively, the kid loves chess, is totally devoted to the game, but his/her rating isn't quite up to "medal" level and you don't select the kid, and the kid becomes a mental case?
I'll say it again: the mental health of the children has to override medals! And this comes into the coaching too. Stop emphasizing winning and emphasize fun and creativity. Recognize that you aren't dealing with adults. I'm really glad to hear that Bob Gillanders is going in this direction.
I know Gary that it is ingrained in you to think about performance and winning. That's fine for yourself, but don't impose it on kids.
Finally, let's be real about one thing: if it's all about winning, we can all go home and give it up to the computers. Even a human World Chess Championshop doesn't mean anything anymore. If all we're going to teach is winning and maximizing results, just have kids play against computer engines, and see how much fun they have and how long they stick with the game.
For kids at least, chess is supposed to be FUN.
I've always thought chess was about losing, and my ego doesn't like losing. No matter how strong one's will and ego is, one will always lose a chessgame at some point. A kid should never be sent to a chess tournament if they haven't experienced losing. Knowing that's there's always stronger players (and now computers) out there helps to keep one's ego in check, recognizing one's limits, recognizing that other people can see different things in the same position, can understand better, have more experience with. We can never know everything. Chess is a struggle, every game presents different decisions to be made -- it's not a rubik's cube where only memorization works. Kids have to be taught to handle losses with dignity, to still enjoy the struggle and appreciate their opponent's knowledge and work. Chess is a dance, a social interaction, I can't learn chess by myself. I need others to confirm my ideas or straightened me out and challenge my foolishness.
Shake hands when you lose. Kids have to be taught to take responsibility for their moves, flawed decision making and bounce back. To ask the question 'What did I do wrong?' and learn something new.
And yet there needs to be enough winning going on to feel that there is some talent, some accomplishment, some lessons learned, some growth in ability. My ego loves winning, but winning is best when it is a struggle, a two-sided game, some new exploration and testing of ideas, not a routine system requiring no thinking, or gross blunder.
First Tom, a question for you: if you are teaching a young kid, and the kid is putting in serious effort, lots of study and so on, but there is no improvement and the kid continues to make either outright blunders or just fails to ever put a plan together, do you go to the parents and tell them their kid is not suited to chess? If not, then what do you do? ...
I have never experienced a situation where a student puts in the effort, has the interest and the time, and yet doesn't improve, let's say at least to 1800. I have experienced situations where the child is interested in goofing off or is easily distracted during lessons, refusing to think but rather playing impulsively during games, not doing work, not showing interest, etc. With those kids I tell the parents that I don't think my teaching them is suitable, I explain why, and tell them that they are wasting their money and my time. And that's the end of the lessons. This is not a criticism of the student. Not every person is suited to sitting and thinking.
You grossly over-estimate the "mental problems" aspect of this. You do realize that throughout their lives they will be competing for grades, places on teams, scholarships, acceptance to schools, jobs, promotions, and partners, right? Shouldn't they learn to deal with failure when the stakes are merely a chess game and not something important?
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
I have never experienced a situation where a student puts in the effort, has the interest and the time, and yet doesn't improve, let's say at least to 1800. I have experienced situations where the child is interested in goofing off or is easily distracted during lessons, refusing to think but rather playing impulsively during games, not doing work, not showing interest, etc. With those kids I tell the parents that I don't think my teaching them is suitable, I explain why, and tell them that they are wasting their money and my time. And that's the end of the lessons. This is not a criticism of the student. Not every person is suited to sitting and thinking.
You grossly over-estimate the "mental problems" aspect of this. You do realize that throughout their lives they will be competing for grades, places on teams, scholarships, acceptance to schools, jobs, promotions, and partners, right? Shouldn't they learn to deal with failure when the stakes are merely a chess game and not something important?
YES!!!! And if you've been paying attention, that is exactly what I'm stressing.
I didn't say let's take all winning and losing out of chess. I didn't say let's just declare every game a draw. I'm saying the chess coaches need to pay attention to the losers, and as you wrote, help them deal with failure.
As long as there is one kid who might become a mental derelict due to failure in chess -- and there will always be that one kid -- there is NO over-estimating the mental problems aspect of this. I find the fact that you would state otherwise very disturbing. Even if you haven't seen a case of this, you have to acknowledge that such cases can and most likely do exist. Which means you, as a chess teacher, incorporate that into your sense of responsibility.
Otherwise... don't be a chess teacher. Unless, of course, the money overrides any concern for the kids.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
First Tom, a question for you: if you are teaching a young kid, and the kid is putting in serious effort, lots of study and so on, but there is no improvement and the kid continues to make either outright blunders or just fails to ever put a plan together, do you go to the parents and tell them their kid is not suited to chess? If not, then what do you do?
Michael's own words were that "I teach winning. How to win, the tools for winning, maximizing results, hard work, diligence, effort etc."
No where there do I see words like "fun" or "good sportsmanship" or "creativity", nor anything about how to handle the kids that don't have an affinity for chess. No, it's all about maximizing results. And not all kids can maximize results in chess.
It's a dangerous game, because kids egos can become very fragile if they are old enough to realize that they aren't "smart enough" for chess. What a chess teacher needs to do with kids like this is help the kid realize that there are other things besides chess, and get the parents to realize that their kid is in trouble and needs some other outlet: art, music, hockey, something totally different from chess.
Being a chess teacher to kids is a very high level of responsibility, for the very reason that chess is a pure skill game and failure at chess can do damage to ego. Some kids can, but other kids can't handle that without help. Teaching chess skills alone is not enough. Who knows how many people have been damaged by chess at a very young age and are now adults in severe depression or other mental health problems such as addictions.
IMO, chess is the most dangerous activity of all for kids to take seriously. At least we do have Bob Gillanders teaching the fun aspect.
Tweet
Comment