I have been examining a question–what factors lead to initially exceptional students flaming out, and sometimes even leaving chess??
Looking at some of the patterns of those at some of the clubs I have directed for, it seems that perhaps a reason for this is that as one
progresses, wins become more difficult. If the percentage of wins IS the key determinant of success, then this can be an issue. For example,
say Billy is “mowing them down” in a Novice section (U750). Very happy with himself. Parents very happy–why do we have a “prodigy??”
Billy the next week moves to Intermediate (U1400). At first this is a struggle, because his chances of winning are not nearly as great if he gives away his major pieces. I mean, there is always a good chance of this happening in the novice section. Billy does not win nearly as often as he did
in Novice. But, his rating slowly goes up. Until one day, he makes the top section of the clubs weekly tournament.
His rating continues to grow, but after 5 months, his rating is now only 1500. Only 100 points growth in 5 months?? And 60% of the time losses??
not much fun. Interest wanes.
So the question I have for you gentlemen and ladies is this–what are the goals you have for your students, what measurable do you use??
What do you tell the parent frantic that for the first 8 months of their kids chess career, he went from new to 800, and is “only” 1100, at the
one-year mark??
My goals for students are for us to accomplish what it is we set out to do. I always ask the question, Why do you want to get better at chess? Once I hear the answer to this question we can set a plan to make this happen. I cheifly deal with adults so my job in simpler than dealing with the youths.
What would I tell the parent? First of all I would tell them that their child is making better progress than the top player in the United States did in the same timeframe you gave. GM Nakamura’s first tournament was in January of 1995 and his first rating was 684/6. By September of the same year he had improved his rating by about 100 points. Perhaps this piece of information would help alleiviate the concerns of the chess parent and show what a big deal this gain of 300 points in eight months signifies. Good luck and best of skill lighting those chess fires!
In recent years, I can remember analyzing with two young players around 1000 USCF–both times, I thought to myself, “wow, this kid is going to be stronger than I am,” and was proved right in a couple years. Each of these young players (one who I coached, one who I observed closely in tournament play) plateaued SEVERAL TIMES in his development: 1000, 1200, 1600 etc
The quantum leap is often followed by a period of consolidation. Young players learn new things…10 mating patterns, 5 basic endgames, say…but they’re unlikely to put much of this new knowledge to work immediately. But if they keep playing, that day will come, and the new knowledge is an annuity that keeps paying.
Much progress is of the “gee, I really should stop hitting my thumb with this hammer” variety (ignoring development, hanging pieces, counting errors). Dan Heisman’s books and columns are outstanding on such things.
Coaches need to manage expectations & let the kids know their efforts will pay off. Playing up is good, but playing in a section where one is LIKELY to score less than 25% is generally inadvisable. And it’s good to play a few easy events for psychological reasons
I have not taught much, and only basics to low rated beginning players, but my prime goal is to ensure that my students are enjoying their chess. Secondarily / as part of that, is the player getting what they want out of chess? Ratings improvements are only part of that if that is what the player desires. (And tertiary to that, that the parents are also honest with themselves about what they want as their child’s goals and if there is any conflict there to the student’s goals.)
The natural coach’s instinct is that players are seeking improvement in strength or rating. I have found that to be true less than half of the time for players I’ve taught, but true for eighty to ninety percent of parents.