Because society immediately assumes that young = no experience = bad.
However, I don't consider kids to be bad players. If a 12 year old child (for example) has been playing since he/she was 7, that's still 5 years experience.
Also, I have been told that the younger you are, the faster you learn.
Kids are capable of more than you think.
Deja-poo-- A feeling that you've heard this crap before.....
Kids are necessarily worse than adults because they lack the amount of brain to see far in the game but some kids are really good.Jeffrey Xiong is probably better than all of you in this chat put together.I might be even better than most of you.
"Kids are necessarily worse than adults because they lack the amount of brain to see far in the game". That's completely ridicolous. Actually, kids often can calculate faster and deeper than many adults because they are so energetic.
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?
I think the 9-year old would be a better player, because--as a generality--kids have more time to study chess than adults.
deja-poo again.... :D
Why are some kids good like 1500 im only 800
I looked really hard but cldnt find JC in the last post. Y hast he forsaken me?
I don't know what anyone's talking about in this thread.
If a 10 year old kid and a 50 year old adult have the same rating, the 10 year old kid is almost always much better. He's younger, has more energy, and is still improving (while the 50 year old can't expect to improve much).
There are a lot of kids registered in the USCF system with ratings under 1000, and so it makes it seem like kids really suck at chess, but kids who are good can become scary good. I'd almost always rather play an adult than a kid given the choice.
This comes from someone who is straddling the line between kid and adult (17 years old).
Honestly I don't notice a difference other than kids see tactics well and play faster. What I mean is I don't prefer to play kids or adults.
Although maybe part of this is because I don't play sharp lines. If the position becomes sharp and nothing matters but what you calculate then yeah, I don't want to play the 10 year old!
i am 12 and play board 3 for somerset adults so... go get some common sense
Because they pick their noses and rub it on the chess pieces.
lol
Some of the kids I meet doesnt use all the time available. One kid lost to me after 50 moves with 1 Hour 26 minutes left on the clock in a 90min + 30sec pr move game. If he had spent one extra minute on twenty of those moves he could have had winningchances. Chess is much about finding the good moves and plans, and finding the threaths . Finding things takes time. I you look long enough you can find.
I'm 11 years old, and rated around 850, which is bad.
Me too
Kids are bad 'cause they bang the pieces into the board and annoy the hell out of adults.
Lykke Merlot Helliesen did beat GM Simen Agdestein in a simultan when she was 6. Now she is a monster at 7.
I don't know what anyone's talking about in this thread.
If a 10 year old kid and a 50 year old adult have the same rating, the 10 year old kid is almost always much better. He's younger, has more energy, and is still improving (while the 50 year old can't expect to improve much).
There are a lot of kids registered in the USCF system with ratings under 1000, and so it makes it seem like kids really suck at chess, but kids who are good can become scary good. I'd almost always rather play an adult than a kid given the choice.
This comes from someone who is straddling the line between kid and adult (17 years old).