Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Genius Kids

  • webmaster
  • | Apr 20, 2010
  • | 8933 views
  • | 44 comments

Before I get into today's column, I'd like once again to thank Grandmaster Bhat for his excellent contributions to this site for over a year. His articles have been uniformly excellent, and he took the time to come up with thought-provoking questions to improve the readers' abilities, and put every game in multiple times, so that we could conveniently think about those questions without accidentally seeing the answers; a level of excellence, which I will not work hard enough to emulate in today's article.

At the same time as we can appreciate everything he brought to chess.com, we can also be happy to hear that his replacement will be WGM Pogonina, who should not need an introduction on this site at this point. The column was in excellent hands when she covered for GM Bhat during one of his recent tournament binges, and I think we can look forward to a lot more education and entertainment from her.

And now, for today's paltry morsel from myself.

Genius Kids

geniusbaby.jpg

It happens younger and younger these days, and no tournament player can avoid it. They used to talk of clashes of generations. Top players facing the challenge of a new generation, with new chess ideas as well as fire in their bellies. But with an acceleration in the growth of young, talented chess players, the turnover is too quick to speak of "generations." Really, you can only be up-and-coming for a year or two tops. Soon enough, you are recognized as being strong, and are contending with challenges from younger players.

Magnus Carlsen pushed his way to the top of the chess world in 2009. But before he even had half a chance to try to wrest the title of "best chess player" from the Anand-Kramnik-Topalov triumvirate, he already had to defend himself against other surging rivals like Hikaru Nakamura. Carlsen's rise has been so meteoric, that Nakamura is a comparative "late-bloomer." But Fabiano Caruana, who almost denied him the title in the last round at Corus in January is younger than him. And in 2010 or 2011 at the latest, I think we will see Carlsen forced to play plenty of serious games against players younger than himself.

So, even as improving players carry their ambitions to tournaments, they must also be prepared to defend what they have achieved so far against newer players thirsty for their... defeat. A couple years ago, I held the Samford Fellowship, and travelled around to tournaments, pursuing greater glory. Tournament victories, brilliant games, GM norms, rating points. Although nowadays many prodigies are established by the age of 12, I in many ways imagined myself a "young" player, having started late and taken time out for college. In any case, I was looking "up."

But so were those younger than I. And in a flash, they had caught up to me, and I had to defend myself against the fierce onslaught of the Genius Kids. One memory is of reading the news of Sergey Karjakin becoming a Grandmaster at age 12, and realizing there was a 12 year old who could best me in a match. Another big moment came in a tournament in Moscow when an 11 or 12 year old Ukrainian boy beat me badly. At the time it was quite painful.

At the recent Far West Open in Reno, there were a plethora of terrific young American talents participating in the top section. Already in round 1, half of the players in the "stage" area were high school age or younger. En route to winning the event (so you can extrapolate, he was being paired with the top players in the swiss system event), my friend GM Jesse Kraai played 4 youngsters in 6 rounds (average age about 13). As I arrived in the hall for round 5, he informed me that I was paired with "Genius Kid." "Which one?" I asked, referencing the fact that there were plenty of them about. "Your Genius Kid," he replied, referencing that I had spoken very well to him of a certain David Adelberg.

DavidAdelberg.jpg

A lot of chess players are looking for good results, and would rather not face an improving 12 year-old master like David. Having to a large extent given up on such dreams, I was instead thrilled to play him. I had been hoping to get paired with him or Kayden Troff for example. I feel that at this point, one of the best things I can do in chess is provide kids of their level with another interesting opponent to test their chess.

Last year, I played David twice. I think he was in the 2100s. Our first game was at the exact same tournament, the Far West Open. It's round 2 in this blog: http://blog.chess.com/dpruess/reno-rd-1 if you want to see it. After that game I thought to myself "that's the last time you'll ever beat this kid." 2 months later, we played to a tough draw at the Copper State International (http://americanchess.net/events/complete-schedule/copper-state-international/). At that time I chose an opening that played to what I thought his strengths were to make the game most interesting (I often do this, and it has nothing to do with arrogance). By now he had acquired the National Master title, I'd watched his excellent play in several events including the US Chess League where he was a key part of the Arizona Scorpions, and I figured he'd gotten so good that to make a good game of it, I should play towards his weaknesses. But even with an aggressive 1.e4 opening, I was defeated convincingly.

Here is the game; play through it once first without comments, and see if you can figure out where white went wrong.

 

Here is my take on what happened. David surprised me a little by playing b5. Often black chooses to castle queenside when they have this gf pawn structure in the Sicilian, and b5 makes that far less appealing, so it seems a bit strange to give white that info so soon. However, I probably made a big mistake in response with Bh5, a move aimed against queenside castling. If b5 made it less likely that black would castle queenside, why hurry to make it even harder for him. Instead I should simply have castled, and adapted my development based on black's next move, probably trying to bring the a1 rook to d1 before committing the e2 bishop. How David responded to Bh5 is very instructive. Typically, the bishop would be required for the defense of the pawn on d6 against which white can make some pressure on the d-file. Therefore, it is either placed on e7 or f8, making it unlikely that black would castle kingside. However, David astutely recognized that the bishop on h5 would be horribly misplaced if he castled kingside, getting in the way of a possible kingside attack, and not helping to control any vital points (since f7 would be amply defended). Therefore he trusted in the importance of his counterplay in case of white piling up on the d6-pawn and rushed to castle. Another extremely important link in this plan is to play f5 at some point, releasing a potential monster on g7. Hopefully that explains the main strategic strand of this game. Here it is again with some further notes:

 

After this, David was visibly thrilled. I was happy for him too, because he's a great guy. But despite that, and despite my prediction, I'm still going to try to beat him again one day.

To return to my theme: this past weekend, I attended the Northern California State Scholastic Championships. Most of the top-rated kids did not attend. Though they are themselves only 12 or 14 or 16 years old, they have already established themselves as serious masters, and could legitimately fear that some fresh, dangerous 1900 would be there to unseat them. In a sense, the nine-year old who was seeded first in the high school section (!!) was already an established player by virtue of his tournament successes in the past year; and for whom up-and-coming rivals were gunning. He ceded a few draws and had to be content with third place.

And before publishing this column, I checked on the results of last week's National Junior High Championships. David Adelberg had tied for first place (taking the title on tiebreaks). David is now a strong master, the youngest ever in Arizona, with a national title. While he may be aiming for IMs like myself at tournaments, it is also time that he starts preparing for the ten-year-olds who will soon be coming to get him! And that ten-year old may need to watch his own back: Nikolai may be coming for him in a matter of months. And on and on it goes...

Comments


  • 3 years ago

    IM dpruess

    nah, no rambling, that was a nice comment!

  • 3 years ago

    David_Spencer

    I'm very far from being a genius kid, but I don't think most scholastic players are excessively pushed by their parents. I'm referring to those who are class B and above, not the geniuses who are NMs at age seven - I know the >=B players aren't the subject of the article, but it may still prove relevant. Of course, there are cases of overreaching parents, but I don't think they represent the majority of scholastic players. There are perhaps twenty scholastic players B or greater in my area and eight or nine that are class A or above, but I don't remember hearing anything from any of them about "I didn't want to come to this tournament" or "My parents keep making me study chess...". In fact, it's quite easy to see that many of us have almost too much fun with chess tournaments - some parents express dismay that we want to play still more bughouse and blitz after a seven-round G120 Nationals at a rest stop at 11:00 at night during an eight-hour bus ride. Those who want to study do, and there are also some who don't study.

    I suppose I started rambling a bit there, but I figured I'd just provide a little perspective on sub-genius kids.

  • 3 years ago

    laith28

    the idea of training a kid and placing him in a box from outside world is a horrible idea. let the kids be kids and stop trying to create chess machines out of humans. i am sure the kids would like to use chess peices as toys and have imaginary battles they can enjoy. However, if you try to teach them and ruin their childhood, its ur fault as a parent, especially if the kid ends up with depression or isolation.

  • 3 years ago

    IM dpruess

    i've known a couple child prodigies who reached master level while preteens who did not have 2. they were definitely pushed by their parents, and quit chess about the time they finished high school and transitioned towards being independent.

    but certainly 2. is ideal, and an extremely important component.

  • 3 years ago

    NM fpawn

    Working with master rated preteens is quite a unique experience.  On one hand, they're strong enough to whipe the floor with a NM like me.  Yet they often have holes in the understanding so large that you can drive a Mack truck through them.  Case in point: Carlsen suffered a painful loss against Aronian in a basic R+P vs R endgame.

    Two characteristics of all of the elite kids that I've worked with:

    1. The ability to learn new information on their own at a young age.

    2. They have fun in chess (playing, studying) without parental intervention.

    Michael Aigner

  • 3 years ago

    scomer17

    That kid needs to teach me, because I suck

  • 3 years ago

    ebere_xx

    I've seen many very good young chess players and even watched some of their games but knowing that a 12 year old can become a grand master is really inspiring and this has made me know that i can be great in chess no matter how old i am....nice article by dpruess..Cool

  • 3 years ago

    IM dpruess

    i think they do it by accident, but i don't know.

  • 3 years ago

    IM KaydenTroff

    That's interesting!  Ultimifier is right the chess board is set up wrong with the baby.  Here's another chess picture where the board is set up wrong also:  http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Q0lTtPVTG40/S8YepwATfqI/AAAAAAABQ3c/8TlMibatcOA/s1600/chess+sisters.jpg  I would guess the artists did that on purpose...

  • 3 years ago

    IM dpruess

    yeah, chessgod, that kid was refered to in my article: he's my first ever loss to a little kid that i can recall, about 2 years ago.

  • 3 years ago

    Chessgod123

    American youngsters may soon prove a challenge to the Russian U12s. When that happens, you'll get some interesting matches. But if you thought your opponent was good, take a look at this guy. He's got a GM norm and an ELO of above 2500, and he's 13.

  • 3 years ago

    Progressive_Groove

    ah! .. correction .. Queen to g4 at move 13. Then White can use the e and f pawns to fortifiy the g6 square .. then move the rook to f3 and then g3.

    If Black threatens White's Queen by opening their white Bishop by playing ... e5 ... white covers with f5. With this pawn here, Black's Knight to e7 then g6 .. will be ineffective.

    Good notes on the second example of the same game. 

  • 3 years ago

    Progressive_Groove

    First game, move 15 ... White Queen to g4.

    White's Bishop will have to take Black's Knight at g6 ... but then move the Queen and Rook over to the h-file and then work your way up.

    With Rook at h3 and Queen on h4 .. Black will have to move their f-file Rook over to allow the King to move to e7, but White comes up a piece after taking Black's Black-Bishop at g7. After that, the King is on the run and pretty much vulrnerable.

    Oh, somewhere amid all that, probably after calling check ... White needs to save the threatened Knight at c3, or else consider it an even trade since White gets Black's Bishop at g7 anyways. Mostly, you want the opponent to waste moves in order to save his King or else put the King in a safe place while White spends their moves on coordinating a decisive attack. 

    Otherwise, move #17 for Black should've been BxQ at d4.

    Good article. The younger generation is always a viable opponent ! After all ... ...

     

     

     

    ... ... ... ... they're only human.

    Peace

  • 3 years ago

    eXecute

    You're probably right dpruess. With a lot of kids I think determination is a factor. Some kids even when given GM training, may simply not enjoy the game and not care/pay-attention. That's very hard to do for kids, as many of them either have ADD or simply are normally just distracted by video games and other activities.

    Imagine, being a kid, coming home from school and feeling horrible, then here comes your parents with a coach to give you more stress. It's possible most kids reject it or can't handle it and this is why only a minority make it to those master-levels.

    On the other hand, I believe that someone as a kid, who is absolutely hard working and determined can achieve master status with a GM coach. I don't believe there would be a kid who can tell me "no no, I had a GM chess coach since I was 6, and he trained me for years and I worked really hard, but simply could not get past 1600 until I was 16"--- I simply find it hard to believe, but maybe you know better.

  • 3 years ago

    elpreciado

    Chess is comparable to language pick up abilities, earlier you start the better (in most cases)..

    Certainly, well imo, a 15 yo GM has no clue about life anymore than a regular kid, possibly even less so.. The specific IQ might be a little bit more tunned in, but you don't get your WQ (wizdom quotient) up by being a chess 'genius'.. Quite possibly there is a danger of some complex developing (fear of failure as an eg).. We seldom hear from the talented young ones that didn't make it, and the effect that carries, and Magnus saying "Im ok as a person" might be just a tip of an iceberg, literally..

    Sure, I'm gonna roll out the chess pieces few years after the stork decides to come around, but in no way will I push.. I'm aware of the benefits, plus I love the game.. One day I'm still planning to learn an opening, maybe the kid will teach me.. But even if the 'Worlds smartest man' becomes as lucritive as the "World fastest man' (odd how there is no real public interest in that), I wouldn't let my kids down that path in any serious manner.. Provide variety of mental stimulation, but let the kids be kids.. Each of us got only one childhood, and the oldies amongst us know how fleeting it is :)

  • 3 years ago

    IM dpruess

    interesting comment execute.

    i actually think it's totally wrong to ascribe their success to their training, parental investment, etc. that's because i've seen hundreds of kids with those benefits who do not enjoy the success of these top kids. and there are probably thousands of them out there. out of all those kids who have access to gm-coaching, databases, training programs, tournaments... a handful do outstrip others by miles. some have chess talent. some have a talent for hard work. some have a well-suited fighting psychology. some have all of these.

    it's not the case that adelberg or troff have outstripped a bunch of un-armed adversaries borrowing outdated books from their library. and so i extrapolate that they are endowed with some other advantages.

    it will be interesting to have articles that give an insight into the training and lives of such "kid geniuses." and info on coaching and teaching. that genre of material is planned for our chesskid.com site. you might also be able to glean something on the subject from Kayden Troff's blog here on chess.com http://blog.chess.com/KaydenTroff . you could also post some questions in the comments section, and he might be able to provide some answers, or blog about a topic you suggest.

  • 3 years ago

    eXecute

    Well there are kids that are scary good at chess but we can't ignore the fact that they have resources that many simply don't have. Any kid with a GM coach is going to be a very strong player - period. I mean sure these kids do have a lot of talent and natural ability but they weren't born doing rook endings. There was some serious training going on while they were kids. It's the same for kid pianists or those 14 year-olds in college. If they are trained by the best then they can only go up.

    The average kid just doesn't have a chance when little Timmy has Kasparov teaching him and the kid is randomly searching the internet for chess info. It's obvious that Timmy will pwn the others easily and he won't even need the talent part.

    Absolutely +1 !!!

    I think people put these kids on a throne like as if they are truly truly geniuses with over-the-top IQs and if you're a scientist and they put this kid next to you, they'd be outperforming you within a month. These kids are all trained by experts, and their success is the ability of their parents to find them good coaches and keep them motivated.

    If I had a GM coach as a tiny kid, I too would be at a high rating as well. This is the same reason why a lot of celebrities have great bodies, they have the time and the money to get proper trainers.

    How about an article looking INTO the secret world of a genius-kid? Heck, even a youtube video in a documentary form would be cool. How do they train daily? Who trains them? What is their daily life? How about an article on chess coaching/training? This is a great article IM dpruess, I appreciate it, the games were interesting, but I didn't learn too much.

  • 3 years ago

    IM dpruess

    thanks, Jeremy!

  • 3 years ago

    musiclife

    Nice article David.  It's a nice human side to tournament chess/success.  I think that it's also a blessing to have so many strong players and so many new kids interested in the game; it provides excellent competition to fight against, and it invites you to enjoy the success that you do achieve all the more!  Best,


    Jeremy

  • 3 years ago

    Elubas

    "That naivete, that innocence--do I really have more fun now? I doubt it."

    I couldn't disagree more. The more you understand the game the more strategies are available to you, and every part of the game becomes more interesting.

Back to Top

Post your reply: