NO Time Delay

[Bob_McAdams]

@DENTONCHESS

And let me ask you this-- how often have you had players drop out of events because of negative
early round results, withdraw at the start because there is not the caliber of players to justify
risk to their ratings, refuse to enter at all because the pool is not strong enough. All are examples
of an emphasis on that which should be of secondary importance. Learning and growing should be the
priority. I have about as much distaste for parents in this category as those in the beginners pool,
and really, for this as a coaching philosophy as well.

One of the most interesting things I ever had happen was two boys who came in and registered for a tournament, but then asked what the rating of the highest rated player was and, after hearing it, withdrew. What made this particularly interesting to me was that their question was completely irrelevant because of something they never even asked about: We were playing quads, and since there were 4 players with higher ratings than theirs, they wouldn’t have been playing in the top quad, and therefore wouldn’t have ever played the highest rated player.

Bob

[William_H_Stokes]

@DENTONCHESS

@tmagchesspgh

As I said, the parents need to be taught/trained/informed about the process of competition, too. I have seen the impatient parents. They and their kids don’t stick around long. They are looking for shortcuts and tricks to winning, similar to the way they act when dealing with their kids in school. The process and the content are less important to them than the result. Whether the child is really learning is not important as the “A”, or preferably an “A+” through pressure on the school.

Agreed. I had a little boy who was treated as the “golden child” by his parents. The kid, although
quite bright, was also quite lazy. Getting him to do assigned chess homework was nearly impossible.
Until, one day, a “miracle” occurred. It was all complete, neat, and correct. Also not in his handwriting.
Upon questioning, his sister admitted to doing his homework on parental instructions. Seems mom
did not wish for me to have the opinion that her little boy was lazy, so she had sister do the work.
Needless to say, I was astounded. Did not expect that. I told mom the time had come for them to
find another tutor.

Now in regard to G/30, no delay–there is no question whatsoever that these kids are learning and
progressing, seemingly with every tournament they play, or at least quite a few of them. Those that
notate, and take the game seriously do improve, and quite often, quickly in this time format.

And let me ask you this-- how often have you had players drop out of events because of negative
early round results, withdraw at the start because there is not the caliber of players to justify
risk to their ratings, refuse to enter at all because the pool is not strong enough. All are examples
of an emphasis on that which should be of secondary importance. Learning and growing should be the
priority. I have about as much distaste for parents in this category as those in the beginners pool,
and really, for this as a coaching philosophy as well.

Rob Jones

Great post from a principled tutor. There are tutors that will rake in the money no matter what the circumstances. Parents and beginners who don’t understand the growth potential of competition is one thing; however, there are players at all levels who avoid chances to help others grow by spurning “weak” tournaments.

I refuse to judge coaches who would lose revenue by sub-par performances because the bottom line comes first if this is what the potential customers look at. The purpose in this case is business, not improvement. The stronger player should challenge themselves to provide the best lesson they can for weaker players in tournaments. And the weaker player should use the lesson given as study material for future success. This way everyone wins.

[DENTONCHESS]

I refuse to judge coaches who would lose revenue by sub-par performances because the bottom line comes first if this is what the potential customers look at. The purpose in this case is business, not improvement. --quote from William H. Stokes

---

If one is to remain as a chess teacher for most after-school programs, the business aspects must always come first, ahead of teaching. I have found through years of experience that most parents
who sign their kids up for after-school chess are far more concerned with general daycare aspects than
they are their child really learning and developing in chess. And this is not just my perspective. In a
conversation about this topic with the chess coordinator of a local ISD, I was told that their chess
school coordinators/teachers are instructed to hold their lessons to 20 minutes MAX. The reason for
this is simple–when a very competent afterschool company with excellent teachers had half hour and
longer lessons, with much less time for general play and socialization, the effect was that the next
semester, about 50% of the kids dropped after-school chess. When it became known that the 20
minute rule was back in place, the kids rejoined. The number of kids participating/and child management details far outweigh the quality/length of teaching in quite a few after-school environments, as the schools and school systems usually receive a percentage fee for every child
enrolled. Thus, the main criteria for after school chess programs that are retained from year to year is
revenue generated for the school.

Now, the question of-is this overall positive or negative. I lean strongly to the positive. For out of
this atmosphere, introduction to chess takes place, and quite a few children do become excited about
the game, and from this excitement, some of them take their game beyond scholastic, to USCF and
beyond.

Planting the seed is the first step.

Rob Jones