I'm not sure if that many bridge players could remember a whole deck of cards. Just like chess players, the memory tends to very much focus on clustering/likely patterns etc rather than random placements of pieces.
The sort of thing that people remember is the hand patterns (number of cards in each suit) for each player on a deal, and then who had which high cards. Also the bidding/contract and the early play. Every card beneath the ten tends to get ignored, and even hand diagrams often just give them as x.
One of the hardest things to do is to discipline yourself so that you automatically and reliably count the shape of every hand out as you go. The biggest issue with doing that isn't the technical difficulty but self discipline. Quite often you don't have to but when you do....
The place where pure memory is most useful is probably bidding agreements. A genuinely serious partnership can easily produce 200 pages of those and the consequences of a slip can be entertaining..... (most leave it a lot vaguer.).
Child Genius - the representation of chess
-
MartinCarpenter
- Posts: 3048
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am
-
Stewart Reuben
- Posts: 4549
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
- Location: writer
Re: Child Genius - the representation of chess
Yesterday I met up with another person who was approached to appear on the current Chess Genius Series. The mother decided it wasn't appropriate for her 10 year old son and they withdrew from the project with his agreement.
>There is no agreement as to whether child prodigies (of the Adams/Short/McShane class) should stay at school. Even each of those three went separate ways - Adams left school in all but name at 16, Short made a more serious attempt at A-levels, I think, and Luke went to Oxford.<
Nigel started an A Level course at 16 and dropped out in February. Michael did stay on the 'books' of Truro School. In the Second year 6th he attended school for just one day. Since he told me at 16 he was turning professional, I have always presumed one of the reasons for remaining registered as a pupil was so as to be able to play in the National Schools Championship. Luke took a gap year, reached 2600, and then returned to full-time education. Matthew Sadler worked very hard at his O Levels, neglecting his chess. He turned professional at 16 and it took him about a year to catch back up with his chess. Later he changed careers as did Michael Stean and William Watson. Tony Miles and Julian Hodgson both dropped out of their university courses. David Howell took a gap two years and then did his degree full-time. Jonathan Mestel is a polymath, he is a GM in both chess and bridge and a professor of Applied Maths. John Nunn is the person we know who would have excelled most on the programme. He finished his maths degree at about 18, then Ph.D, then was an academic. After a bit he turned to full-time chess. Jon Speelman went to St. Pauls, as later did Hodgson, Watson and Kumaran. Perhaps Jon is the most original thinker of the lot mentioned here.
The Polgar sisters were home-schooled. They developed into well=rounded, well-educated people. Bobby Fischer was a high school drop=out. Sammy Reshevsky had a 'turbulent' early childhood. He got $400 for simuls when a child! He went into 'normal' education at about 11. I met a family member at the poker table who told me that it was a family legend that his age had been falsified. I met Rustam Kasimdzhanov at 17. He told me he didn't go to school. He had a better knowledge of 19th century English literature than anybody, apart from professionals, I have met. He tells me he doesn't have much time for such pursuits these days.
A failing of the English educational system is this idea that one size fits all. Nigel appeared in a series 'Your Exceptional Child'. It was made clear that all children were exceptional.
>There is no agreement as to whether child prodigies (of the Adams/Short/McShane class) should stay at school. Even each of those three went separate ways - Adams left school in all but name at 16, Short made a more serious attempt at A-levels, I think, and Luke went to Oxford.<
Nigel started an A Level course at 16 and dropped out in February. Michael did stay on the 'books' of Truro School. In the Second year 6th he attended school for just one day. Since he told me at 16 he was turning professional, I have always presumed one of the reasons for remaining registered as a pupil was so as to be able to play in the National Schools Championship. Luke took a gap year, reached 2600, and then returned to full-time education. Matthew Sadler worked very hard at his O Levels, neglecting his chess. He turned professional at 16 and it took him about a year to catch back up with his chess. Later he changed careers as did Michael Stean and William Watson. Tony Miles and Julian Hodgson both dropped out of their university courses. David Howell took a gap two years and then did his degree full-time. Jonathan Mestel is a polymath, he is a GM in both chess and bridge and a professor of Applied Maths. John Nunn is the person we know who would have excelled most on the programme. He finished his maths degree at about 18, then Ph.D, then was an academic. After a bit he turned to full-time chess. Jon Speelman went to St. Pauls, as later did Hodgson, Watson and Kumaran. Perhaps Jon is the most original thinker of the lot mentioned here.
The Polgar sisters were home-schooled. They developed into well=rounded, well-educated people. Bobby Fischer was a high school drop=out. Sammy Reshevsky had a 'turbulent' early childhood. He got $400 for simuls when a child! He went into 'normal' education at about 11. I met a family member at the poker table who told me that it was a family legend that his age had been falsified. I met Rustam Kasimdzhanov at 17. He told me he didn't go to school. He had a better knowledge of 19th century English literature than anybody, apart from professionals, I have met. He tells me he doesn't have much time for such pursuits these days.
A failing of the English educational system is this idea that one size fits all. Nigel appeared in a series 'Your Exceptional Child'. It was made clear that all children were exceptional.
-
Peter D Williams
- Posts: 839
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:15 pm
- Location: Hampshire
Re: Child Genius - the representation of chess
I agree Angus.Angus McDonald wrote:John,
Andrew has authored this thread. He knows the sensitivities. I watched the 4OD programme yesterday. Andrew does comment to Millions about someone elses son. It's not your son and it's not your decision that is being criticised in tone by the programme in my opinion. Andrew states they edited the programme to suit what they wanted. I accept that but he is still on the record saying what he said. It's obviously been quite distressing for the Williams family. I've been there to a degree because I was elected onto the School Board at my children's primary school many years ago. Bad move! Head teacher didn't appreciate a parent asking questions about the School. Same Primary School Michael Gove went to by the way! My son did though have his leg ripped open on a wire fence being held against it by another pupil whilst there Eventually I took my two sons out of the School and home schooled for a while. It was too much for me! and we put them back into another Primary School later. In terms of natural justice this was Andrew commenting on Peter's son and not the other way round, e.g Peter commenting about Andrew's son. That is why I think Andrew owes a little tollerance to Peter's request.
Also I admire The Williams for being able to Home School their own child. It's not an easy thing to do and there has been quite a hostile position taken to this from some authorities. I wouldn't be happy if someone commented to Television about my children either. I agree with something Andrew did state about being sympathetic also.
Last post on this matter. Angus McDonald
I do not believe A Martin said loads of wonderful things about Peter if he did then he would have made a complaint at the time to the film makers to say your misrepresenting what i said to you.He made no effort to do this.
I wonder what A Martin would say if you said things about his daughter on TV and then claimed to him sorry the film maker edited all the nice things out that i said about your daughter
Peter at college now for those who do not know and he is studying A level Physics /Mathe further Maths
last post on subject
almost time for lunch
when you are successful many losers bark at you.
-
Alan Burke
Re: Child Genius - the representation of chess
Just because Andrew Martin did not bother to make a complaint to the film makers doesn't automatically mean he was totally happy with the programme's content. I also just don't understand why Peter Williams (snr) won't accept Andrew Martin's offer to meet or talk about the incident. Surely that is the only way this dispute can be solved and I don't see how continual comments made on this forum can lead to any conclusion - perhaps someone just doesn't want to listen to any other point of view.
On a more general point, it seems to me that such programme makers (and to a further extent, the public in general) use chess as a way of trying to portray "clever" people from the rest of humanity.
I am sure most people have experienced the situation when you say "My son/daughter plays chess" to which the response is "Oh, you have to be clever to play that game."
No, it is not a requirement of the game to be clever; it is just a matter of knowing the rules and learning the pattens of play, as with many other games. However, to 'outsiders' who have no idea of the game, chess has generally been regarded as the most complex of games which would be above most peoples' ability.
These programme makers then use that perception for their own benefit - why don't they instead use someone who shows promise at some other pastime ? Is a chess player more clever than someone who can do a Rubik cube or complete a suduko puzzle ? No !
I would also like these programme makers to revisit these so-called "genius" children 10 years later to see how they have progressed (or not) since the original programme, so they can get a more personal view from them about the whole situation and to see if the former youngsters then thought they were 'forced' to participate in the programme.
A comparison is the ongoing series of programmes which have been shown since the mid 1960s titled "7 Up", "14 Up" etc, etc and which last aired at "54 Up". Some of the now adults in that programme most certainly said that they had no choice in the matter when they were young in whether or not they wanted to be filmed and just went along with what their parents wanted because they trusted them.
On a more general point, it seems to me that such programme makers (and to a further extent, the public in general) use chess as a way of trying to portray "clever" people from the rest of humanity.
I am sure most people have experienced the situation when you say "My son/daughter plays chess" to which the response is "Oh, you have to be clever to play that game."
No, it is not a requirement of the game to be clever; it is just a matter of knowing the rules and learning the pattens of play, as with many other games. However, to 'outsiders' who have no idea of the game, chess has generally been regarded as the most complex of games which would be above most peoples' ability.
These programme makers then use that perception for their own benefit - why don't they instead use someone who shows promise at some other pastime ? Is a chess player more clever than someone who can do a Rubik cube or complete a suduko puzzle ? No !
I would also like these programme makers to revisit these so-called "genius" children 10 years later to see how they have progressed (or not) since the original programme, so they can get a more personal view from them about the whole situation and to see if the former youngsters then thought they were 'forced' to participate in the programme.
A comparison is the ongoing series of programmes which have been shown since the mid 1960s titled "7 Up", "14 Up" etc, etc and which last aired at "54 Up". Some of the now adults in that programme most certainly said that they had no choice in the matter when they were young in whether or not they wanted to be filmed and just went along with what their parents wanted because they trusted them.
-
Stewart Reuben
- Posts: 4549
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
- Location: writer
Re: Child Genius - the representation of chess
Try this about a four year old:
http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211 ... 40613.aspx
Earlier I listed a number of strong players when they were children who might have made it to the 'Child Genius' programme if it had been around when they were young and if they had been from Britain. I forgot to include some I have known.
Elaine Pritchard was precociously strong. I think she had a 'normal' education.
Ruslan Ponomariov played at Hastings when 15. I don't think he attended school and was looked after by his coach with the same surname. But when 17 I asked him whether he was wearing the same suit as when he was 15. I was right. He hadn't grown.
Sergei Karjakin is the youngest-ever GM. He played at Hastings as a GM and afterwards stayed in my home for some days. He too was accompanied by his coach. Again, I don't think he attended school. He was quite a mature 12 year old.
Gata Kamsky played in the Lloyds Bank Masters when 14. He spoke reasonable English and his domineering father none. He didn't do well, but within the year had become a strong GM. He pursued an academic career for some time, but has now returned to chess.
http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211 ... 40613.aspx
Earlier I listed a number of strong players when they were children who might have made it to the 'Child Genius' programme if it had been around when they were young and if they had been from Britain. I forgot to include some I have known.
Elaine Pritchard was precociously strong. I think she had a 'normal' education.
Ruslan Ponomariov played at Hastings when 15. I don't think he attended school and was looked after by his coach with the same surname. But when 17 I asked him whether he was wearing the same suit as when he was 15. I was right. He hadn't grown.
Sergei Karjakin is the youngest-ever GM. He played at Hastings as a GM and afterwards stayed in my home for some days. He too was accompanied by his coach. Again, I don't think he attended school. He was quite a mature 12 year old.
Gata Kamsky played in the Lloyds Bank Masters when 14. He spoke reasonable English and his domineering father none. He didn't do well, but within the year had become a strong GM. He pursued an academic career for some time, but has now returned to chess.
-
Geoff Chandler
- Posts: 3494
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
- Location: Under Cover
Re: Child Genius - the representation of chess
Hi Stewart
Interesting about the four year old.
"After school – he goes to nursery – Sparsh (that is the lad's name) is already in the habit
of solving chess puzzles from Sergey Ivashchenko's Manual of Chess Combinations. "
So when the other kids are learning about Little Jack Horner he's on his own in the corner playing chess.
And apparently when he played in this tournament there was a kid 24 days younger than him playing!
"But he was not as good", beamed a proud father.
He will be a GM by the time he is 7. World Champion at 12.
Ex-World Champion at 14 when he gets beat by that lad that is 24 days younger than him.
I don't think I like the sound of a mature 12 year old.
He should be out skinning his knees with his mates riding push bikes and playing football.
Scrumping apples, fishing, setting off fireworks, getting up to mischief.
That will be the trouble with not letting your kid go to a normal school.
They will have no real friends, no childhood memories, never experiencing the total joy of bunking off lessons.
No stealing a kiss in the playground, no walking to school in the pouring rain and running home on a Friday afternoon.
They become wee old man at 12. It's a shame really.
Now what that other bit I saw, Oh Yes....Being clever.
"No, it is not a requirement of the game [Chess] to be clever."
Define clever.
Going to a tournament hall and at the given hour you have to create using your imagination.
Every game is an exam, a test, often you will be asked to create on a blank canvas twice a day.
That's clever.
Beethoven was clever but he did not write two of his tunes in the same day.
Loads of clever people did not do the clever things they are famous for on spec like us chess players.
Some of them took years and years to become famous for being clever.
That wee lad that Stewart linked made it to the headlines in four!
You would not go up to Shakespeare and say "write me a play, now!"
But it is what is expected of us chess players.
We have to read books, study openings, middle games and some players, the really clever one's, endings.
Often unaccompanied we have to find our way to the tournament hall in some strange town or city.
We developed have street by street map reading skills. That's clever.
We have to invent on the spot excuses for not paying club memberhsip fess....now that is clever.
Interesting about the four year old.
"After school – he goes to nursery – Sparsh (that is the lad's name) is already in the habit
of solving chess puzzles from Sergey Ivashchenko's Manual of Chess Combinations. "
So when the other kids are learning about Little Jack Horner he's on his own in the corner playing chess.
And apparently when he played in this tournament there was a kid 24 days younger than him playing!
"But he was not as good", beamed a proud father.
He will be a GM by the time he is 7. World Champion at 12.
Ex-World Champion at 14 when he gets beat by that lad that is 24 days younger than him.
I don't think I like the sound of a mature 12 year old.
He should be out skinning his knees with his mates riding push bikes and playing football.
Scrumping apples, fishing, setting off fireworks, getting up to mischief.
That will be the trouble with not letting your kid go to a normal school.
They will have no real friends, no childhood memories, never experiencing the total joy of bunking off lessons.
No stealing a kiss in the playground, no walking to school in the pouring rain and running home on a Friday afternoon.
They become wee old man at 12. It's a shame really.
Now what that other bit I saw, Oh Yes....Being clever.
"No, it is not a requirement of the game [Chess] to be clever."
Define clever.
Going to a tournament hall and at the given hour you have to create using your imagination.
Every game is an exam, a test, often you will be asked to create on a blank canvas twice a day.
That's clever.
Beethoven was clever but he did not write two of his tunes in the same day.
Loads of clever people did not do the clever things they are famous for on spec like us chess players.
Some of them took years and years to become famous for being clever.
That wee lad that Stewart linked made it to the headlines in four!
You would not go up to Shakespeare and say "write me a play, now!"
But it is what is expected of us chess players.
We have to read books, study openings, middle games and some players, the really clever one's, endings.
Often unaccompanied we have to find our way to the tournament hall in some strange town or city.
We developed have street by street map reading skills. That's clever.
We have to invent on the spot excuses for not paying club memberhsip fess....now that is clever.
-
Peter D Williams
- Posts: 839
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:15 pm
- Location: Hampshire
Re: Child Genius - the representation of chess
Afternoon All weather rather nice todayAlan Burke wrote:Just because Andrew Martin did not bother to make a complaint to the film makers doesn't automatically mean he was totally happy with the programme's content. I also just don't understand why Peter Williams (snr) won't accept Andrew Martin's offer to meet or talk about the incident. Surely that is the only way this dispute can be solved and I don't see how continual comments made on this forum can lead to any conclusion - perhaps someone just doesn't want to listen to any other point of view
I would also like these programme makers to revisit these so-called "genius" children 10 years later to see how they have progressed (or not) since the original programme, so they can get a more personal view from them about the whole situation and to see if the former youngsters then thought they were 'forced' to participate in the programme.
A comparison is the ongoing series of programmes which have been shown since the mid 1960s titled "7 Up", "14 Up" etc, etc and which last aired at "54 Up". Some of the now adults in that programme most certainly said that they had no choice in the matter when they were young in whether or not they wanted to be filmed and just went along with what their parents wanted because they trusted them.
I did wonder when you would appear on here
Your a fine one to talk about listening on here. Where you not banned from this site for a while?
A meeting with A Martin would be a waste of my time as i do not trust him and he had plenty of time when we where at Canterbury to say i been filmed talking about your son and have said wonderful things about him. Then later he could have said my goodness its not in the film what do you make of this?
If i said on national TV something about your son lets say i said you have forced the boy to play chess and your son is very venerable and could be at risk.When you challenge me about it i say oh its ok i said loads of nice things about you and your son but its not in the film it must have been cut.
Peter more than happy for them to come back and film him in 10 years time if the fee is right
but some how i doubt they will because not enough people are interested in him or the other children who took part in the film.I take part to if the fee is right Right time for lunch
when you are successful many losers bark at you.
-
Andrew Martin
- Posts: 998
- Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:37 pm
Re: Child Genius - the representation of chess
The recent posts of Peter Williams are equivalent to spamming.
-
Geoff Chandler
- Posts: 3494
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
- Location: Under Cover
Re: Child Genius - the representation of chess
Hi Peter.
You just posted.
"I said on national TV something about your son, your son is very venerable."
Of course you did not, I just edited your last post to make it look like you did. It's easy.
If Andrew says they edited out most of what he said so the final product gave
a false impression then why not believe him. I do and so do most other people.
I can see it happening in the editing room with the crew trying to cut down the film to fit the schedule.
I was involved for 10 years in assisting editing the interviews I did on Speedway riders.
You can make anyone appear to say what you want them to say with a few deft snips.
We did it from a comedy angle but could quite easily have made anyone say the complete
opposite of what they meant by selecting a few well crafted questions then giving a
different question to the coming answer on the tape.
http://www.foes.info/videos/vids91.html (see pic at the bottom.)
Andrew being Andrew would have gone on and on and on...and on and on...and on.
An interviewers dream, an editors nightmare.
So no doubt they had to cut a large chunk out and left in the controvesial bit.
If I was part of the editing team I would have left in just that bit.
Their job is to give all sides, entertain, if the programme was going all cute and sweet (and boring)
and needed spicing up then the cutting room staff did their job.
It appears to have worked.
Just let it go.
Have a nice lunch.
I'm about to tuck into some Shetland Black Pudding rolls that I picked at the Royal Highland Show.
You just posted.
"I said on national TV something about your son, your son is very venerable."
Of course you did not, I just edited your last post to make it look like you did. It's easy.
If Andrew says they edited out most of what he said so the final product gave
a false impression then why not believe him. I do and so do most other people.
I can see it happening in the editing room with the crew trying to cut down the film to fit the schedule.
I was involved for 10 years in assisting editing the interviews I did on Speedway riders.
You can make anyone appear to say what you want them to say with a few deft snips.
We did it from a comedy angle but could quite easily have made anyone say the complete
opposite of what they meant by selecting a few well crafted questions then giving a
different question to the coming answer on the tape.
http://www.foes.info/videos/vids91.html (see pic at the bottom.)
Andrew being Andrew would have gone on and on and on...and on and on...and on.
An interviewers dream, an editors nightmare.
So no doubt they had to cut a large chunk out and left in the controvesial bit.
If I was part of the editing team I would have left in just that bit.
Their job is to give all sides, entertain, if the programme was going all cute and sweet (and boring)
and needed spicing up then the cutting room staff did their job.
It appears to have worked.
Just let it go.
Have a nice lunch.
I'm about to tuck into some Shetland Black Pudding rolls that I picked at the Royal Highland Show.
-
Andrew Martin
- Posts: 998
- Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:37 pm
Re: Child Genius - the representation of chess
Geoff, thank you very much for the endorsement
Just so there are no further misrepresentations, the filming at Yateley Manor took place well after the British at Canterbury, into the new autumn term.
If there are any queries about what was actually said the programme can still be viewed :
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/chil ... od#3150451
I am sorry that the thread has gone this way.
Just so there are no further misrepresentations, the filming at Yateley Manor took place well after the British at Canterbury, into the new autumn term.
If there are any queries about what was actually said the programme can still be viewed :
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/chil ... od#3150451
I am sorry that the thread has gone this way.
-
Joey Stewart
- Posts: 1865
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:35 pm
- Location: All Of Them
Re: Child Genius - the representation of chess
I think the only way to solve this is to fight fire with fire - tell him what you have had for tea every night, and make sure it is twice as delicious as anything he has ever eaten!
Lose one queen and it is a disaster, Lose 1000 queens and it is just a statistic.
-
Angus McDonald
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:39 am
Re: Child Genius - the representation of chess
Sorry! Posting again because I think a few posts don't recognise natural justice or the rights of the individuals and legal guardians.
It would be good if Peter and Andrew could resolve their differences about this matter.
I think a general discussion of the pros and cons of such programmes are interesting for those interested in the Media and Education and that could be the intended purpose of this thread. Clearly Andrew has an interest so he should be able to accept Peter's participation and questions to him as he has commented about Peter's sons on TV to millions.
There are some facts that do need to be resolved until things can move on to that degree I think.
1. Andrew spoke to the TV about Peter's son without contacting Peter first. (In Peter's shoes I would expect somebody to contact me about that first and to try their utmost to present Peter in a positive light)
2. Andrew states that they edited out the positive things he said about Peter. (I accept that. I know what they are like and from the programme they appear to have decided that they didn't want to include that) My feeling (opinion) is that they didn't want to show home Schooling in a positive light.
3. State education does a lot more forcing that any good parent ever did to their child.
I think Geoff's picture of the Idyllic Schooltime is great but not every child has that kind of recollection of School. For some children it is a time of torment. Geoff, you mention pranks etc. Looking back on the pranks I would get up to. (90% of them weren't funny or amusing) Indeed it's a wonder I'm still here to post. Usually a result of peer group pressure. Smokes and alcohol to name but 2. Been fag free for 30 years and only have occasional glass of wine today. Many parents bring their children up to indulge in such habits. Not frowned upon but accepted.
I also think that children are streamed by the system far too young in life. I'm currently urging one of my sons to take his time and think seriously about what he wants to do in life. He's only 17 and where is all the pressure he feels coming from? It's not from his parents but from a system which always tries to tell children and parents it knows what's best for them.
I do feel that parents who make other decisions for their children feel under pressure to explain themselves also. My wish for them is that they understand that they really don't have to explain anything. We'd be far better holding the powers that be accountable for what they decide for our children. Some of the absolute bunkum they come out with in Schools today should be a national disgrace but because they hold power and authority over others some seem only too happy to go along with it.
This is an alternative viewpoint. But! In my opinion it's just as valid and probably a deal more natural.
If families were strengthened socialization of children would happen naturally within those families. Instead be have the breakdown of the family and a fabricated society. This achieved whilst spending an absolute fortune on state education over the years.
It would be good if Peter and Andrew could resolve their differences about this matter.
I think a general discussion of the pros and cons of such programmes are interesting for those interested in the Media and Education and that could be the intended purpose of this thread. Clearly Andrew has an interest so he should be able to accept Peter's participation and questions to him as he has commented about Peter's sons on TV to millions.
There are some facts that do need to be resolved until things can move on to that degree I think.
1. Andrew spoke to the TV about Peter's son without contacting Peter first. (In Peter's shoes I would expect somebody to contact me about that first and to try their utmost to present Peter in a positive light)
2. Andrew states that they edited out the positive things he said about Peter. (I accept that. I know what they are like and from the programme they appear to have decided that they didn't want to include that) My feeling (opinion) is that they didn't want to show home Schooling in a positive light.
3. State education does a lot more forcing that any good parent ever did to their child.
I think Geoff's picture of the Idyllic Schooltime is great but not every child has that kind of recollection of School. For some children it is a time of torment. Geoff, you mention pranks etc. Looking back on the pranks I would get up to. (90% of them weren't funny or amusing) Indeed it's a wonder I'm still here to post. Usually a result of peer group pressure. Smokes and alcohol to name but 2. Been fag free for 30 years and only have occasional glass of wine today. Many parents bring their children up to indulge in such habits. Not frowned upon but accepted.
I also think that children are streamed by the system far too young in life. I'm currently urging one of my sons to take his time and think seriously about what he wants to do in life. He's only 17 and where is all the pressure he feels coming from? It's not from his parents but from a system which always tries to tell children and parents it knows what's best for them.
I do feel that parents who make other decisions for their children feel under pressure to explain themselves also. My wish for them is that they understand that they really don't have to explain anything. We'd be far better holding the powers that be accountable for what they decide for our children. Some of the absolute bunkum they come out with in Schools today should be a national disgrace but because they hold power and authority over others some seem only too happy to go along with it.
This is an alternative viewpoint. But! In my opinion it's just as valid and probably a deal more natural.
If families were strengthened socialization of children would happen naturally within those families. Instead be have the breakdown of the family and a fabricated society. This achieved whilst spending an absolute fortune on state education over the years.
-
Alex Holowczak
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: Child Genius - the representation of chess
I remember my school having frequent career days. The first was aged 14, when we were about to pick GCSE options. Then at 16 with A Level options. Then at 17 with University applications. There were other careers days. I remember one about alternative career paths, which featured the building trade, charity work, and other things.Angus McDonald wrote:I also think that children are streamed by the system far too young in life. I'm currently urging one of my sons to take his time and think seriously about what he wants to do in life. He's only 17 and where is all the pressure he feels coming from? It's not from his parents but from a system which always tries to tell children and parents it knows what's best for them.
The school was very motivated to ensure they had adequate coverage of these subjects, because they've been told (either by parents or local government) that they need to do this. This undoubtedly contributes to, as you put it, "where is all the pressure he fells coming from".
I don't think you can blame the schools. They're only doing what those in power are telling them to do.
-
Peter D Williams
- Posts: 839
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:15 pm
- Location: Hampshire
Re: Child Genius - the representation of chess
Good points again Angus.Angus McDonald wrote:Sorry! Posting again because I think a few posts don't recognise natural justice or the rights of the individuals and legal guardians.
It would be good if Peter and Andrew could resolve their differences about this matter.
I think a general discussion of the pros and cons of such programmes are interesting for those interested in the Media and Education and that could be the intended purpose of this thread. Clearly Andrew has an interest so he should be able to accept Peter's participation and questions to him as he has commented about Peter's sons on TV to millions.
There are some facts that do need to be resolved until things can move on to that degree I think.
1. Andrew spoke to the TV about Peter's son without contacting Peter first. (In Peter's shoes I would expect somebody to contact me about that first and to try their utmost to present Peter in a positive light)
2. Andrew states that they edited out the positive things he said about Peter. (I accept that. I know what they are like and from the programme they appear to have decided that they didn't want to include that) My feeling (opinion) is that they didn't want to show home Schooling in a positive light.
3. State education does a lot more forcing that any good parent ever did to their child.
I think Geoff's picture of the Idyllic Schooltime is great but not every child has that kind of recollection of School. For some children it is a time of torment. Geoff, you mention pranks etc. Looking back on the pranks I would get up to. (90% of them weren't funny or amusing) Indeed it's a wonder I'm still here to post. Usually a result of peer group pressure. Smokes and alcohol to name but 2. Been fag free for 30 years and only have occasional glass of wine today. Many parents bring their children up to indulge in such habits. Not frowned upon but accepted.
I also think that children are streamed by the system far too young in life. I'm currently urging one of my sons to take his time and think seriously about what he wants to do in life. He's only 17 and where is all the pressure he feels coming from? It's not from his parents but from a system which always tries to tell children and parents it knows what's best for them.
I do feel that parents who make other decisions for their children feel under pressure to explain themselves also. My wish for them is that they understand that they really don't have to explain anything. We'd be far better holding the powers that be accountable for what they decide for our children. Some of the absolute bunkum they come out with in Schools today should be a national disgrace but because they hold power and authority over others some seem only too happy to go along with it.
This is an alternative viewpoint. But! In my opinion it's just as valid and probably a deal more natural.
If families were strengthened socialization of children would happen naturally within those families. Instead be have the breakdown of the family and a fabricated society. This achieved whilst spending an absolute fortune on state education over the years.
It will never be resolved because of what A Martin said about Peter
"the most talented children the gifted ones are always very fragile and they are quite vulnerable so it is crucially important at that point to be sympathetic and absolutely the right thing to do is to treat them as normally as possible and somehow create a framework for them under which they can operate and I am convinced that this can be done within the education system"
He was implying that this can only be done if you send your child to a school.This clearly shows to me he has no understanding of other legal ways to educate a child.
For the record i am in favor of private schools which i believe give a better education than a state school.
I do not believe he said loads of wonderful things about Peter that was cut from the film he had loads of chances to talk to us at Canterbury but did not and he never mentioned he had been or was going to be filmed talking about Peter.
Peter does not play chess any more but this and a one or two other unresolved issues made him give up and just concentrate on his study at college.
Nothing much else to say we covered the main points thanks for your support Angus.
when you are successful many losers bark at you.
-
Peter D Williams
- Posts: 839
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:15 pm
- Location: Hampshire
Re: Child Genius - the representation of chess
Joey Stewart wrote:I think the only way to solve this is to fight fire with fire - tell him what you have had for tea every night, and make sure it is twice as delicious as anything he has ever eaten!
Like
I am having Rake Fish on Saturday beat that
when you are successful many losers bark at you.