Actually, many kids are really good players. The ratio of bad kid players and bad adult players is probably 1:1 
why are kids considered bad players?
Sort:
Apr 16, 2016
0
#2
Generally speaking, you need to have played for a while to become a "good" player. And generally speaking kids have't played for very long.
I am kid and good...
Less experience.
Because they pick their noses and rub it on the chess pieces.
The worst is when their parents have to change their diaper in the middle of the game.
The chess forums is always entertaining.
1NaturalDisaster wrote:
Patzer-Play wrote:
Do I need to even talk about how bad it smells when they poop their pants, uggh.
Oops, I pooped a little, cuz I was on the toilet. Ya, I just wiped with my bare hands!
Um... thanks for sharing, but we really didn't need to know that.
macer75 wrote:
Generally speaking, you need to have played for a while to become a "good" player. And generally speaking kids have't played for very long.
Who do you think would play better chess: a 9 year old who has played for 4 years starting at 5, or a 39 year old who has played also for 4 years starting at 35?
Apr 17, 2016
0
#11
Indeed. If the question is all about experience, talent notwithstanding, then it's not out of bounds to say some children aren't very good even after 4 yrs vs a 39 yr old who's played for most of their life (I can very well relate! Heh)
But comparing strength between a 9 yr old vs a 39 yr old with the same amount of experience? Then I would probably side with the older person since I'm guessing they wouldn't have much higher aspirations. Their other life experiences provide them with a maturity, discipline. Resources only adults, if incentivised, can obtain.
najdorf96 wrote:
Indeed. If the question is all about experience, talent notwithstanding, then it's not out of bounds to say some children aren't very good even after 4 yrs vs a 39 yr old who's played for most of their life (I can very well relate! Heh)
There are also certain neurological differences.
Who do you think would play better chess: a 29 year old with just 24 years of experience, or a 89 year old with 84 years of experience?
(There actually are 2 grandmasters now living and age 90+. Averbakh and Taimanov. How good are they over the board, now at age 90+?)
Apr 17, 2016
0
#13
Heh. Yeah, now we're getting into relativity!
Of course.the.29 yr old player plays "better" because that person is presumably at their "peak". Following your inference, their neurological make up is primed, reaching approximately max powers. Sight of board, calculation, experience, physical, discipline, memory. 80+? Don't think I have to give a rundown of limited prowess in every area but experience.
Apr 17, 2016
0
#14
SilentKnighte5 wrote:
The worst is when their parents have to change their diaper in the middle of the game.
Seriously though, some parents...
I'm 11 years old, and rated around 850, which is bad.
Apr 17, 2016
0
#16
Ratings under 1000 (especially for kids) aren't bad at all. It just means you're new to the game.
stuzzicadenti wrote:
kids aren't going to be discussing theoretical physics. generally speaking kids don't really know what they are doing and they can't concentrate or sit still for over 30 minutes.
Areez says: Hey that's not right! When I was a small kid, I always paid constant attention and could sit still for hours if the situation demanded it. I pretty much still am a kid at 13.
Apr 17, 2016
0
#18
I can sit at a toilet for hours too. However I don't think young goats have opposable thumbs required for castling.
just kidding
plz tell me