When to start teaching chess to a child?

Originally posted by nimzo5
Something like 150-200 children a year get a cup of coffee in the Majors, maybe 50-100 ever have a major league career of any note.

Meanwhile there has been an explosion in the number of GM's in the last twenty years.

I would guess if you threw in IM's that Chess might be a better bet than Major League Baseball...

unless you know how to teach a lefty how to throw a knuckler.

This is a good point, in that activities like baseball have finite room at the top (25 players per team with 32 teams), while there is not quota or limit to the number of performance-related titles that can be earned, other than population, of course!

Originally posted by vishyanand
My son is 1.5 years old now. I have started to sit with him with a chessboard and pieces. When do you think a child can start learning? Have any one of you taught a young child? Any tips?

My older daughter (now almost 8) could set up the board very quickly before she was 2, and learned how to move the pieces not long after that, but hasn't really had any interest in playing until just recently.

I bought the program Fritz and Chesster Play Chess, and once she found out that was a computer game like what other kids play, she dove in and really enjoys it. I think that is why she is suddenly getting interested in chess.

And I have to say, the game has some very innovative ideas about chess training. The section on opposition is a circle superimposed on a grid, and it has two Sumo wrestlers- one is the computer and one is the player. The Sumo wrestlers can't move next to each other, and the object is to "bump" the other Sumo wrestler out of the circle.

Another section is a "peasant race" where two villages each have a line of four peasants, and the object is to get one of your peasants all the way to the other side, which is a great way for kids to learn the nuances of pawn play.

Definitely worth the money, in my opinion!

Originally posted by nimzo5
Something like 150-200 children a year get a cup of coffee in the Majors, maybe 50-100 ever have a major league career of any note.

Meanwhile there has been an explosion in the number of GM's in the last twenty years.

I would guess if you threw in IM's that Chess might be a better bet than Major League Baseball...

unless you know how to teach a lefty how to throw a knuckler.

Could someone kindly supply a translation of the first, and certainly the fourth sentence of this text. 'Cup of coffee in the Majors'? 'Throw a knuckler'? WTF? Does it have anything to do with the laws concerning LBW?

Originally posted by atticus2
Could someone kindly supply a translation of the first, and certainly the fourth sentence of this text. 'Cup of coffee in the Majors'? 'Throw a knuckler'? WTF? Does it have anything to do with the laws concerning LBW?

"Cup of Coffee in the Majors" this is the term for when a Minor Leaguer gets a 15 day call up to the Major League Roster. The meaning is that they are barely there long enough to have a cup of coffee.

"Knuckler"- is a specialty pitch where the ball is thrown without any spin, causing the ball to make random movements. Knuckleball pitchers are extremely rare, because if a pitch doesn't knuckle it is absolutely crushed by a hitter.

Also left hand pitchers are rare enough that a very marginal pro will be able to hang around years after their right handed colleagues have been retired.

Originally posted by caissad4
A child who learns to love the game of chess (like most here do),regardless of skill level, should be the goal in teaching chess to kids.

I fully agree. a hobby that's no fun, is just wasting precious time.

Originally posted by aquatabby
True .. but as far as my children are concerned, would I *want* them to be chess prodigies? I think I'd vote for 'normal' myself. I'm not sure. I'll think about it for a bit.

yeah, absolutely. what laszlo did with his daughters was not practical. it was a planned out experiment, which proved the psychological hypothesis it set out to prove. but it also required full daily commitment from the whole family over 10-20 years. a huge sacrifice.

and for what, a board game? I'm the first to recommend chess for its secondary benefits, the development of work ethic, confidence, planning, strategical thinking etc which all can be applied to most things in life. but there are easier, and arguably healthier ways to achieve those things than 'wasting' your childhood and adolescence on chess.

let's face it, a lot of us here are obsessive addicts. it's not entirely a good thing.

Originally posted by wormwood
ah, now that's where you're wrong gp. the polgar sisters were perfectly normal. and laszlo proved that prodigies are made, not born. 🙂

Hi WW.

You are right, but I never mentioned prodigies, just 'gifted'.

The gift in this case was execeptional family who created prodigies.

But you are right they were not a Reshevsky, Capa or Morphy.

Originally posted by wormwood
yeah, absolutely. what laszlo did with his daughters was not practical. it was a planned out experiment, which proved the psychological hypothesis it set out to prove. but it also required full daily commitment from the whole family over 10-20 years. a huge sacrifice.

and for what, a board game? I'm the first to recommend chess for its secondary benefits ...[text shortened]...

let's face it, a lot of us here are obsessive addicts. it's not entirely a good thing.

i would say its an obsession, definitely. Morphy himself termed it, 'chess fever'.

Originally posted by wormwood
I fully agree. a hobby that's no fun, is just wasting precious time.

agree!!