I wish I had learnt to play when I was younger, i.e before my teens. I learnt as a teen while in secondary school, and it came at a time where I needed to learn some mental discipline.
In high school we used to coach younger kids from a neighboring primary school. Some kids would be all over the show, but the ones who did well picked up quite well. A few of them made provincial school tournaments, and fewer would make nationals. The gap in our training would then be apparent at that level because they'd be playing against kids who are learning enough chess theory, i.e endgame theory.
We once had someone in our team leading in material, but fail to mate her opponent, so sad yet funny because it was like a witch hunt, chasing the opponent king all over the show with a few pieces. We hadn't taught them some endgame tactics.
I think chess is one of those games that many people should try out. I'm glad I had a friend in the game when I went through painful teenage years.
> The gap in our training would then be apparent at that level because they'd be playing against kids who are learning enough chess theory, i.e endgame theory.
Openings are a vast area of theory as well.
I played competitive chess in my teens for a bit (my neighbor was insanely good at it and I got better just by being his punch bag) and I always refused to learn any theory. I think it's comparable to cheating on a test, it's supposed to be a game and a puzzle and I would feel the same if I learned how to solve a puzzle by memorizing solutions from a book.
Hmm, I had a similar outlook (although with Magic rather than chess :P), but got over it. Learning theory isn't like looking at the solution for a puzzle, it's like learning specific problem-solving skills. It doesn't take the challenge away but rather enables you to play at a higher level which, with a decent game, is going to be deeper, more interesting and more challenging.
Now I think of learning enough theory to get to an intermediate level (at least) is more like a ticket to play the game at all: the game I play now is qualitatively different from the game I used to play and broadly better. To be sure, it was still fun when I was floundering around, but competitive play with a high-level mental framework (and yes, some specific information directly copied from others) leads to far higher replay value.
Yeah, we had openings, middle-game strategy, endgame, as well as tactics, in our roster.
I know there were Chess Opening Encyclopedias, someone once donated one to me, but we could never afford to buy much material as we were lacking in boards as a start. Our school never had enough to spend on chess, it was athletics, soccer and netball that were on the budget. I live in South Africa if it adds any context.
I once got suspended at high school for 'focusing too much on chess'. I happily obliged and told the principal that I'd stay at home and study on my own, within 2 days I was back at school, and continued with my chess :)
In high school we used to coach younger kids from a neighboring primary school. Some kids would be all over the show, but the ones who did well picked up quite well. A few of them made provincial school tournaments, and fewer would make nationals. The gap in our training would then be apparent at that level because they'd be playing against kids who are learning enough chess theory, i.e endgame theory.
We once had someone in our team leading in material, but fail to mate her opponent, so sad yet funny because it was like a witch hunt, chasing the opponent king all over the show with a few pieces. We hadn't taught them some endgame tactics.
I think chess is one of those games that many people should try out. I'm glad I had a friend in the game when I went through painful teenage years.