English Chess Forum

Most chess parents will tell you, there are 2 things that escape their comprehension:

1. why do children play so fast?
2. why are their results so variable

I think mine has broadly surmounted the first point (thanks to puzzle survival!). But I am still stumped by the second.

While I do understand that chess itself is quite variable, you'd expect most (sober ) players to operate in +/- 200 Elo point range of their natural strength, with the odd, rare, exceptions.
However, my son, and many in his age group, can regularly beat 1900+ players, yet still regularly lose to sub 100 ecf/ sub 1200 players the next game.

Time controls may play a part (I notice that as they get better at standard, they start having problems with the shorter time controls as they got used to calculate deeper and broader), but I believe something escapes me.
Some of the below answers were suggested to me in the past. It is due to:

• to natural children brain development?
• to a lack of experience?
• to the psychology of playing other children?
• various other ideas

So what drives that variability, and for those who are familiar with juniors, what is the best way to reduce variability and results?

Scale any online blitz play and supplement instead with rapids. Play twice as many adult events as junior ones. Usually the good players break the speed habit once they get to 12+.

Expecting to beat someone might make a difference. Either on grading or, "Oh, I'm winning" and then you lose concentration...

They might notice this has happened or maybe somebody has to tell them!

I have played some strong juniors who are not very good at endings - experience really helps there.

I wonder if part of this might be lack of positional understanding.

I've been playing through some of my games from the 1970s. I'm struck by the almost complete absence of positional understanding. Ok, so what's changed, some might say!

Looking back, my contemporary with the best positional understanding was Nicholas Benjamin (no idea what happened to him, but his brother posts on here).

My results were variable as a junior. Playing on a Friday after a long week at school.

More study of endings, etc - less playing.

Parents expectations too high. ANNUAL assessments in education. So why not chess.

I have losses against u100 of five in my whole career. I am not a strong player.

I've known juniors to lose as a result of getting too nervous due to the expectation that they will win. (That's not restricted to juniors.)

On the other hand, over confidence can cause unexpected losses as their concentration is not what is needed. Although they might be good enough to recover from a minor early disadvantage their inexperience/panic kicks in and the position actually gets worse.

Echoing earlier replies, I think many juniors grow up on a tactical style which aims for decisive victory in the middle game, but then have little understanding of positional chess or endgames. So I can easily imagine juniors being graded 125, but with effective 150 tactical strength and 100 at endgames (and so can lose against much lower graded players when caught in a position they do not understand and where their natural style just makes it worse).

As a junior I stalled for a year at 160 as my cheerfully uncomplicated aggressive style ran into stronger opposition who could defend against it.

One tournament I was assisting at, which your son was playing in (but not your son), I watched two juniors both over 100 playing a K+P endgame, with the evaluation rapidly switching from won for one side to won for the other, with no sign that either realised that the position was critical and they had to calculate accurately. In the end the game was won in K+P vs K due to a basic opposition error by the side with the K.

Joseph Conlon wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 06, 2020 7:06 pm

As a junior I stalled for a year at 160 as my cheerfully uncomplicated aggressive style ran into stronger opposition who could defend against it.

The opening of this game with Joseph as white against me may have been a case in point.

From the 1992 Berks & Bucks Congress.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d4 b5 6. Bb3 d6 7. dxe5 dxe5 8. Bxf7 Kxf7 9. Nxe5 Nxe5 10. Qxd8 Bb4 11. Qd2 Bxd2 12. Nxd2.

An engine now suggests that not only does Black have a piece for two pawns, but also a better position. Later though the game was drawn in a Rook and Pawn ending at move 60 as I failed to handle the technical phase with sufficient accuracy. Time pressure may have come into it as well.