I have only one advice.
Your daughter is not a mini-you.
Let her be herself.
Your daughter is not a mini-you.
Let her be herself.
She needs to realize the positive feeling from overcoming an adversary or a challenge (in life).. That's evolution holmes..
In my opinion, it's a mindset. Some people enjoy something strategic and mentally stimulating activities on their free time. Some don't. You can't change someone fundamentally.
Volunteers not victims. The trick is to allow people to choose you or what you do. This may never happen but people do choose something. Chess is not the only worthy pursuit. I would even go as far as to posit that the only worthy pursuits are those which make the individual happy ... and are not illegal. But then again...
Simply give the kids the option and wait for them to decide whether they are going to take it up or not. It's all good either way.
Simply give the kids the option and wait for them to decide whether they are going to take it up or not. It's all good either way.
I started reading, and was a bit concerned with the content. Felt like being hyper-critical. Decided to read the piece from start-to-finish instead of skipping around to try and understand the point.
In any case, got to the end of the article. Thought it interesting, and feeling less critical seeing the overall point, but ...
Just a little bit creeped-out by the way the piece ends. I won't be critical of it, except to say: There is a known issue in the chess community (like other worlds of thought in terms of shaping individuals from a young age -- interpret as you like; should you understand and have the experience or comprehension) -- and it is reflected here. Further, it's not a male-or-female issue, so much as a problem, plain and simple. (One term for it, that sociologists use: Grooming.)
The article discusses motivations and interests, and then how to leverage other known information to help shape an immature individuals' motivations or interests; -- and it creeps me the hell out.
In any case, got to the end of the article. Thought it interesting, and feeling less critical seeing the overall point, but ...
Just a little bit creeped-out by the way the piece ends. I won't be critical of it, except to say: There is a known issue in the chess community (like other worlds of thought in terms of shaping individuals from a young age -- interpret as you like; should you understand and have the experience or comprehension) -- and it is reflected here. Further, it's not a male-or-female issue, so much as a problem, plain and simple. (One term for it, that sociologists use: Grooming.)
The article discusses motivations and interests, and then how to leverage other known information to help shape an immature individuals' motivations or interests; -- and it creeps me the hell out.
Chess is a battle, a proxy for war and fighting. Players are mainly motivated by the joy of winning and the pain of losing.
There is some friends and magic in it. There exists comraderie in team competitions. There is some magic in combinations, endgame studies and chess problems. When teaching beginners, I like the Saavedra position. The skewer, the stalemate save, the minor promotion are magic indeed especially from such a simple 4 men position.
There is some friends and magic in it. There exists comraderie in team competitions. There is some magic in combinations, endgame studies and chess problems. When teaching beginners, I like the Saavedra position. The skewer, the stalemate save, the minor promotion are magic indeed especially from such a simple 4 men position.
@MrCharles Genes and environment. Of course what parents show their kids influences their thinking. What's the difference from other schoolmates teaching chess to them? Humans are just big copying machines. Real creativity is only attainable by luck.
Why did a blog post from 2016 get pumped again?
Why did a blog post from 2016 get pumped again?
@wannabe2700 the lichess bot is going though all the old blog posts, since the previously used comment system is being phased out.
@wannabe2700
I appreciate most of what you are saying but I'm not sure I agree with your point about creativity being mostly luck. I accept luck plays a part in most things as we don't see or control everything, however, I believe we can be deliberate in the way we generate new ideas, products, views, anything really. I'm not sure waiting for the muse is necessary to be creative. Genetics is not necessarily destiny. Just as chess is not real life. Nothing wrong with teaching people to explore, deliberately.
There is no doubt in my mind, nonetheless, that people especially children are moulded by family, peers, celebrity, educators, but mostly peers. I think teaching kids to not take anyone's word for anything and to question everything goes a long way to honing cognitive skills necessary to negotiate an increasingly demanding world. It would help with any chess education as well.
I appreciate most of what you are saying but I'm not sure I agree with your point about creativity being mostly luck. I accept luck plays a part in most things as we don't see or control everything, however, I believe we can be deliberate in the way we generate new ideas, products, views, anything really. I'm not sure waiting for the muse is necessary to be creative. Genetics is not necessarily destiny. Just as chess is not real life. Nothing wrong with teaching people to explore, deliberately.
There is no doubt in my mind, nonetheless, that people especially children are moulded by family, peers, celebrity, educators, but mostly peers. I think teaching kids to not take anyone's word for anything and to question everything goes a long way to honing cognitive skills necessary to negotiate an increasingly demanding world. It would help with any chess education as well.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.