@Steven-Nowak, I would let them win occasionally or else there’s a good chance they’ll become disheartened😔 and give up. I say this as a former 10-year-old whose mother never let her win!😭
Ahhh, but here you are on a chess site all these years later anyway .
That IS true, @btickler!🤷♀️
My late grandpa liked to play Chinese chess with us, and he was really good at the game. I don't know if he held back when he played us, but he always thought out loud on his moves so that we had an idea of the logic behind them. It's his way of giving us some winning odds while still not holding back.
No. They have 1 opportunity in life to beat you genuinely. If you "fake" a loss to them, it will never be the same. My father taught me to play and never gave me a win. He shared lessons, gave tips, encouraged, but never gave me a win. When I finally did beat him, it stood out as one of the most important accomplishments of my life at the time. It taught me the perspective of how work can pay off, even if it takes years of effort. Letting them win and letting them know they are loved are very different things.
Definitely yes. I do this a lot when I teach kids, and they learn much more that way. To be more precise, I don't necessarily let them win all the time, I just adjust my playing strength so that they can win about 70 percent of the games, and I also give them advice while playing. They know that I am letting them win, but they don't mind that if the difficulty level is right.
Definitely no.
It is a form of lying.
Do not lie to kids.
Definitely no.
It is a form of lying.
Do not lie to kids.
Nobody talks about lying. The kids should know that you are giving them some chances.
I think that it is best to make bad moves intentionally from time to time to give them a chance.
You would not be doing them any favors in the long run, by losing to them. That is, teach them how to beat you, not by allowing them to beat you. Better to teach them how to play, and make it fun, so that if they do ever beat you honestly, they will have pride in the fact that the accomplishment was legitimate.
Good Chess Books for Beginners and Beyond...
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/good-chess-books-for-beginners-and-beyond
https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell
There are studies of this question in cognitive psychology: optimal for learning generally is 85% success and 15% failure. (Also optimal for continuing is to enjoy what you are doing!) So I'd suggest handicap it however so they mostly win and sometimes lose. And then do something like tel them that if they win X number of games you''ll take them for ice cream.
I'll also say that not letting them win, doesn't mean you crush them every game. They have the opportunity to win against other players of the same age/skill. They will also see opportunities to win when playing you, even if they can't capitalize on them.
There are studies of this question in cognitive psychology: optimal for learning generally is 85% success and 15% failure. (Also optimal for continuing is to enjoy what you are doing!) So I'd suggest handicap it however so they mostly win and sometimes lose. And then do something like tel them that if they win X number of games you''ll take them for ice cream.
I don't think I would do this. Tying rewards to outcomes is not ideal.
Are you the only person they play against? If they can beat some of their friends, then I don't see why they'd get discouraged losing to you. In fact, if they have any other friends who play, they can brag about their grandmaster grandfather.
You could make up variants, such as giving them a choice between two moves for you to play. Or, every other move they get to play two moves in a row.
There are studies of this question in cognitive psychology: optimal for learning generally is 85% success and 15% failure. (Also optimal for continuing is to enjoy what you are doing!) So I'd suggest handicap it however so they mostly win and sometimes lose. And then do something like tel them that if they win X number of games you''ll take them for ice cream.
This is like a textbook case of what *not* to do. Optimal learning ratio is not a reason to create a fake environment. Because then the 85% of wins you are giving them is what they expect from all opponents.
Let them win 85% of the games and then take them for ice cream? And when they get out into the real world? Giving kids a soft landing 100% of the time when young is selfish and only delays the harder lesson they will have to learn later on because you raised them in a bubble of oversimplified happiness.
It's like the parents that let their kid be a slob and pile up junk to their knees in their bedrooms. Once those kids are adults, they have trouble finding roommates, trouble staying in relationships, etc. But hey, as least they like *you* for not making them clean their room...and since nobody likes *them* for being so messy, they will come running back to the people that play pretend for them, and avoid everyone else.
It can end up being very dysfunctional.
I say dont let them beat you at chess. I also think u should give it your best and try to see and help them improve.
-green_coyote10
Let them win. Then give each of them a giant trophy. Because that is how life really is.
i would let them have takebacks, and if they blunder a peice tell them a better move.
The adult teach the kids and do his best on the game. The kids play among themselves and beat each other and this way all is right and fun.
Exactly this! That's how I ran the after school classes. If there was an odd number I would show some puzzles or take a lone king against their pieces and they could practice checkmating. If they preferred to play me, then I gave them a real game.
In one class I vividly remember one of the boys berating me for "never giving me (him) a chance". That's not my style, but I guess his father would do that. Anyway, in a later game against him I actually managed to hang my queen. The horror! His eyes lit up like it was his birthday. He was so happy, I didn't know what to do. An ethical dilemma: Should I tell him I just made a bad move? Or should I let him go on believing I "gave him a chance"? I decided to say nothing and let him be happy.