Hey. How do you think, what is the optimal age for starting to

>>7729471
optimal age is as soon as they show real interest

generally considered that they must have 3 to 5 years before puberty if you want them to achieve master level skills without an inborn natural talent

>>7729471
lower age the better

>play video games as toddler
vidya will be intuitive

>play piano as todler
piano is intuitive


possible at later age, but I remember as a kid being obsessed more easily. Today I have a more difficult time finding interest in things that i'm not already good at

the best age to start is an IQ > 190 if u want them to ever achieve any success

>>7729471
Chest is outdated and doesn't hold the intellectual weight it used.

Teach your kids Starcraft instead.

>>7729471
chess is not worth learning.

teach them something useful like basic math and move on from there.

>>7729644
This. Why waste a child's time and attention on a game? Chess is great fun but ultimately it's still a game. Better to teach a child something worthwhile like math.

>>7729657
Because it's fun, and it teaches logical skills. It develops their theory of mind and ability to plan and predict.

But I'll ignore the more mechanical descriptions of its use and quantize it down to "because it's fun". Life isn't truly linear, you're doing and thinking many things at once in any given frame of your life. Teach em' chess. Play checkers, they don't know or care yet that it's a solved game. Play some cards. Spur them to create novel games of their own, kids do this all the time based on their interests and imagination, and if you don't encourage it at least go along with it.

I know why you're all saying what you're saying. I feel it too. A parent who disagrees that their role is closer to that of an engineer, is either ignorant or in denial. You want to generate the best result for their sake and your own. Because that's part of having children. creating something that is net better than the creator, and equipping it to achieve whatever it likes.

It's hard to figure out what the right thing is. But fun is important. And it really is a lot about fun.

>>7729669
Teaching them music and math, both as a game, seems currently to be the best way to help them develop their brain and skills.

>>7729657
Sometimes /sci/ mystifies me. /sci/ jerks off to pure unapplied maths yet frowns on puzzle games such as chess or Rubik's cubes

>>7729632
This, one can easily memorise opening lines/ variations sometimes up to 20+ moves deep. Getting worse as computers are getting stronger

>>7729471
If you have a natural/intuitive ability for the game it doesn't matter when you start playing. Although masters generally start at a young age

My entire school started learning chess in grade 1. Everyone knew how to play, at least, though most of them probably don't any more.

Anyone can reach 2000 elo dedicated practice... if you treated it like a full time job, call it 3-5 years?

This guy started playing and documented the whole progress for a few years online:
https://www.youtube.com/user/jrobichess
He got to nearly 1600 in a bit over 2 years.

>>7729669
>and it teaches logical skills
lemao

>>7729757
Go on.

>>7729726
>This, one can easily memorise opening lines/ variations sometimes up to 20+ moves deep.
Top fucking kek
I always remember this quote
>[Americans] Play the opening like grandmasters, the middlegame like experts and the endgame like beginners.

>>7729471
2-3 years old, as early as they can learn how to hold small objects and place them properly. Buy a proper board, and play with just pawns first, and then add more pieces. Play 5-10 games with just pawns, then add the queen, and then the others. Add the king in the end.
Do not let them win easily. Don't compensate for their age. They'll scream and shout for two games and then silently start thinking in the next game. Keep BS distractions like phones and tablets away. Make them read books, or do sudoku. Just don't let chess develop into a drug. It'll be self-destructive then.

Sauce: I tried this on my cousin when he was younger. He plays well for his age, although he doesn't show much interest in it. He's 10.

>>7729471
I started playing chess at 5 years old. I was quite talented, but I didn't spend much time on it - I liked pokemon more. It kills me to think about how good I could have become.

At the age of 16 I reached 2000. I quit promptly after, because I realized I found practicing a chore, and I wasn't enjoying chess at all because I didn't have anyone to play with day to day.

Chess doesn't teach shit. Finding "good" moves consists of considering a move then evaluating your opponents response, then your response etc and seeing if the resulting position is favourable to you. that's it. You might as well teach your kid to multiply large numbers in his head because it's the exact same type of skill.

>>7729471
Chess to a certain level (say 1800) can teach a child a work ethic, how to compete, and concentration skills.

But past that it's really a waste of time. You aren't learning any more skills - just how to play chess better - e.g. pattern recognition on the chessboard, chess positional intuition.

>>7730944
http://www.quadcitychess.com/benefits_of_chess.html
I believe you'll be satisfied with this.

>>7729471
you can just cheat your way to 2000 duh.

computers beat humans in chess

>>7729657

it's a good game to teach strategy and cunning, and cut-throatedness. your job is to kill the enemy king. it's a game to channel and hone aggression, etc.

>~2200 player

as far as talent goes, either you have it or you don't, on some level. I could practice and play day and night and never would be GM or much less somebody on Fischer or Kasparov's level. Just like I can practice and play all day basketball and I won't be as good as Kobe.

It's still a worthwhile game, and if you're good enough you'll win enough for it to be rewarding

>>7731029
holy shit did you just compared chess to basketball. yeah you will never reach a GM level

>>7731033

same idea; you have some innate talent that makes you good. study, practice, experience, etc. all contribute, but without innate talent you can only go so far, just like, say, lack of height in the NBA...

yes, they are comparable in that way

>>7731035
yeah all those computers beating the crap out of top players must have so much innate talent

>>7731033
It takes serious talent and even more importantly, hard work from a very young age to reach anything near world class. Sure, you can have some outliers, like that 2650+ amateur or that guy who was 1700 at 18 and became a GM in a couple years, but it's generally a very young man's game and talent only takes you so far. Similar with hard work, like that Russian GM who was named the hardest working GM, he spend his entire days practicing and analysing and he never reached anything near the top, where people with both reside.

>>7731047

computers are aggregated human knowledge and ability, and hella great memory

>>7731051

not to mention it doesn't pay anything unless you're tippy top tier

look up Ken Rogoff - became a GM, quit because fuck chess

worked for the IMf; now teaches at Harvard

>>7731047
To be honest family, I've been beaten irl by a 2300 player having two pawns for a piece in the late middle game. The catch? I played with a computer because I refused to believe it was that fucking hopeless.

>>7731057
If you are from eastern Europe and titled it pays amazingly actually. $15/h Skype classes make them a lot of money compared to others. Of course, it's shit if you live in a country where 15$ isn't much.

>>7731029
How did you go from 2000 to 2200? Any specific resources you'd recommend?
Oh yeah, your thoughts on the openings? I'm not usually a openings faggot, but I've been recently literally blasted away by a 2200 player with huge and extensive openings knowledge. I can't even get into the middlegame with the fucker, I'm either completely crushed in 15 moves or I'm in a shit position, fighting for another 10 moves before I resign because he has executed all the plans and goals of the position and I'm faced with material loss. Fucks with your morale.

>>7731067

study the masters

practice

>>7731067

>openings

I play 1.e4 always. I consider d4 feminine

I usually play 1...d5 as black

I also like to improvise

openings are just beaten paths. unless you understand the themes; ie. how pieces work together; spacial considerations (eg. pawn structures)

desu something mainstream is the way to go when it comes to openings. there's a reason most GMs don't play 1...b5 or whatev

control the center, open up your lines of movement, etc. it's not terribly complicated when it comes down to it.

>>7731084
I do that already.

>>7731087
I'm almost a 2000 player, I realise how openings work. I'm just in a position where I play with someone who knows openings hundred times better and I get crushed before I even get to the decent middle game (reinventing 100 years of opening theory OTB isn't that easy).
It's always
>I play 1. e4
>oy vey let's go into sicilian with thousands of forced lines I know and you don't
>oy vey let's go into the French which I regularly play
Or
>he plays 1. d4
>KID? Why not, I'm very well versed in hundreds of lines and main attacks for white
>QGD? Why not, it's only one of the most played out openings

>control the center, open up your lines of movement, etc. it's not terribly complicated when it comes down to it.
Relying on general principles isn't that useful when your opponent knows the lines very well and knows that any straying from the beaten path (that you yourself don't know) is a mistake which he immediately starts exploiting.

Shit, I've had decent games with a FM where I got outplayed, but it was in a complex middlegame and endgame. I'm fine with that, but this is ridiculous.

>>7731102

find something that works for you; something that's solid

I used to play ne4 budapest as black, then I learned indian type of defence is more solid, not as much potential fun, but against stronger players it works better

learn the themes. the sequence is not always terribly important in some of these openings (eg. closed lines)

sicilian is complicated, yah
the french can be tricky too

the thing is, as long as you're in his book you're not going to win. meaning, at some point you're going to have to go off the beaten path and try to maintain a decent position doing so, then if you've managed to survive the opening and you can really play, then it will come down to natural talents, etc.

>>7731102

also, you learn more (how) to transpose openings.

I used to hate playing against the petroff and the alekhine, but you can usually transpose to scotch 4 knights with an early Nc3

>>7731249
>if you've managed to survive the opening

I have this problem, my opening sucks. I can play decently in mid game and late game but I only have knowledge of two or three opening lines. I easily fall into bad positions in opening.

>>7731281

what I would do is study some lines, then play them online, and get the hang of it

no substitute for experience

>>7729471
I began three weeks ago. I took out a book from the library and try to play every day. I'm 18. I've improved a lot but have quite a ways to go before I can say I'm decent at chess. Regardless, I like the challenge it presents me.

I replaced chess by league of legends, How pleb am I?

>>7731029
Alright, you are Masters level, I wanna ask, I am a shitter but am getting better. I keep hearing this meme "beginners shouldn't study openings and just do tactics", now this has to be horseshit right? I feel like in openings I don't know I get blown off the board, if someone plays a line I do know, I often get better-winning in the middlegame. Surely I should study some openings right? 1. d4 as white, 1. e5 as black and Grunfeld vs 1.d4 ( probably too much for a shitter like me but I can blow shitters off the board consistently with it since I have read the theory).

>>7731392
>>7731392
Also I guess the problem with d4 is all the transpositions so you gotta know your shit. I do tactics on chesstempo really well but I am way shit at everything else.

>>7729632
>starcraft
Skill ceiling isn't even close. There are a fair amount of people who never touched an RTS before and went from Bronze to GM, that could never happen in chess.

>>7731029
But are you really 2200? Is that a fide rating or internet rating?

>>7731249
Caro kann is solid also

>>7729632
This, but only because I don't want starcraft to die as a game and would appreciate some non-korean prodigies

we need a bobby fischer of SC

>>7731067
Because he knows opening theory and you play weak moves in response

>>7731087
>i consider d4 feminine
you're my hero

>>7731087
>I play 1.e4 always. I consider d4 feminine
I'm a d4 player and I find this ofensive.

>>7731584
>d4 is feminine

Because it's queens pawn

>>7729471
youngest the better. but any age is reasonable to become 2000 elo

there are senior citizens that started in their mid to late 40s and only play on weekends and are 2000+
also, homeless people who hustle in parks in nyc and seattle are well over 2000 - possibly 2200

File: 12341116_740362756095648_4370835658545814815_n.jpg (42KB, 720x719px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 720x719px

>>7729471
5 elo for your english

>>7729624
That's not an age.

>>7731392
Play e4 e5 as a beginner, you gotta experience dem open games first, almost every closed game eventually opens up. Look at really old games, steinitz, morphy etc