Money is really not any motivation—this is chess right:) I’ve never even bought a lottery ticket or even day dreamed of what I would do if I won the lottery! I haven’t turned down a gift or check that I can remember either though:) We did enjoy Supernationals–wow.
Your advice would help though. My real goal is to see him reach his chess potential, which in my view requires quality tournament experience. We are moving to Vermont so we anticipate more chess opportunity which means more decisions on which category will best improve his chess.
What advantage/risk is there in playing U1800 versus U1600---- Improvement and reaching potential is our goal.
The second part of that sentence is the answer to the first. Nobody ever got better by beating up on weak players. The way to improve is to play against opponents stronger than oneself – about 200 points stronger, I’d say.
Since your son may already be 1700 strength, I’m even wondering if he should play up two classes (under-2000) instead of one.
Playing up a class is, I’m sure, a good way to improve. When we are talking about young players, though, I think it has to be tempered by a knowledge of your child’s motivation.
My son (now 19 and an expert) played chess in very large part because he likes to win. He was never willing to play up a class, and still isn’t. Playing within his class gives him about a 50% chance of winning per game, and that was motivationally optimal for him. Of course, he still played plenty of people stronger than him-- at club, in open swisses, at the Denker, etc. But I’m pretty sure that had I pushed him into higher classes, he would have enjoyed chess less. And the only reason, for me, to want him to get stronger was so that he could enjoy chess more.
If you think his strength is higher than his rating, I would recommend he play up a section. I wouldn’ t play in a section whose maximum is much more than 200 points higher than your estimate of his strength (remember, if he does well he’ll be playing guys from the top half of the section).
For example if you estimate that he’s around 1700 strength, I’d recommend the U1800 section:
If he plays in the U2000 section, because of his rating he’ll be paired against players in the top half of their score group. This will be players that are 200-300 points stronger than your guessed strength and I don’t think he’ll get nearly as much playing them as he would playing opponents just slightly stronger than himself (top half of the U1800 section).
If you’re overestimating his strength then this is even more important. I think it would be a really bad tournament for him if just got killed every game. Not only will he not enjoy losing, but he might be so overmatched that he doesn’t even learn much.
If you’re underestimating his strength, then the higher class would be OK. But I don’t see a down side to playing Class B. If he’s stronger than 1700 he’ll have a good result, his rating will go up, and he’ll build his confidence.
Only if you think he’s really close to 1800 strength would I recommend the U2000.
Don’t underestimate the effect of where his rating falls on the ratings of the opponents he’s paired with. When I play in Class B (~1750 rating), nearly every opponent is rated 1600 to 1700. When I play up in Class A, nearly every opponent is rated 1900 to 2000. That’s a 300 point difference, not 200! Fortunately, it’s close enough I can enjoy the tournament either way – but if I weren’t quite that strong then the Class A competition would be a little hard to handle.
I always recommend checking with the organizer, especially if it is a tournament that has been held before. The organizer may have a good feel for the strength of each section based both on past history and on entries received so far.
I would not recommend playing up TOO far, though. I feel you learn the most when facing opponents who are 400 or so points above you. A 1600 player will probably learn more facing an expert than a master or senior master, and will probably enjoy the experience more, too.
The topic of this thread seems to have drifted from sandbagging to the pros & cons of playing up during young player development, so I’ll share my recent experience.
My 12-yr-old son, rated in the 1400s, was in a slump last fall. I too had subscribed to the “play up to get stronger” school of thought, and was entering him exclusively in open events (middle TN & north AL area). He got skunked at a couple of these, and then started playing poorly even against weaker players because he’d lost his self-confidence. A wise tournament director told me that an occasional “fish-kill” (i.e., scholastic event) was needed to remind him just how strong he is relative to his peers. After finishing 5-0 at the county scholastic team championship, his spirit improved considerably, and he’s gone on to play well since then.
This advice may not benefit all young players in his position, but what seems to work best for him is to leaven a steady diet of open tournaments with the odd scholastic “snack.”
I agree with Zug on both counts… First, this has drifted away from the original post (it was a sandbagging thread before). But, since we are now discussing scholastic players playing up, here are my thoughts. By the way, I started a scholastic chess program a few years ago and we went from two or three rated students in the county to over 300. I organized and directed most of those events. I have also organized and directed several scholastic state championships and have been in the USCF TD staff at numerous national scholastic events. All that coupled with what got me involved to begin with – a son who started playing tournament chess at the age of 12 and now is a 17-yr old who has won three national championships in the last four years – gives me some experience in this area. After my son played 25 games and attained an established rating of 1311, he went up an average of 100 points per supplement until he hit 1800. After that, as normally happens at that level, he slowed down. Now he is within 20 points of making master. He has done this without a chess coach , mostly with my help (although my OTB experience is very limited), by playing a lot in his own class, and also by playing up. He also played in local scholastic events until he was around 1800. Now, needless to say (but I will say it anyway), the only scholastic events he plays are State and National Championships.
It is much easier to play up – very little to lose and lots to gain. No risk, no pressure. It is much more difficult to play and win against opponents you are supposed to beat! I think kids need to learn that aspect of playing chess. Many kids (and particularly their parents) always want to “play up,” often when they have not mastered their own “class.” Nothing much is learned by going 1-4 or 0-5 one or two classes up. Sure, some have an occasional great tournament, but that is seldom the case. Of course, there are exceptions… I agree with Zug – is is okay for scholastic players to play up, but, once in a while it is also good to go back to a scholastic tournament or their own class. There is also lots to be learned from those experiences not to mention the boost of confidence they give, if in fact, they are so much better and can dominate their opponents. But…if they don’t, then they need to go “back to the drawing board” (chess board?). Many kids and parents often overestimate how well they are doing and some parents are also afraid of their kids losing against their peers (in terms or ratings). Not all, and not always, but that is the case at times… Again, there are exceptions, as there are kids who improve much faster than others. I guess there is no simple solution – each case is different. Be that as it may, the posibility discussed here should be considered – always consider playing where you belong… If you are much better, you will not belong there for long as the rating will take care of that. Right?