A parent writes:

> I don't think my son/daughter will be going to scholastic tournaments anymore. If one loss to a
> much higher rated player can offset four other wins, I can't see the point. I know all the
> stuff about learning something from each tournament you go to and playing
> chess should be more about fun and getting better than ratings, but
> he doesn't actually have that much fun anymore at scholastic
> tournaments and he doesn't think that he learns that much either.

I reply:

First, Fun is the most important thing.  Chess is a hobby, so if something in chess is not fun
don't do it.

Second, How ironic!  It was only a few months ago we were trying to convince
your son/daughter to play against the adults!!

Third: This is a common problem, but stopping altogether is a common trap! If he were my student,
I would strongly urge him to keep playing as many scholastic events as he can:

A) All my students who felt the way he did and stopped were greatly harmed by
it - if they had never invented the rating system he would not feel this way.

B) As you get better and better there will be less and less events with mostly
equal or stronger opponents because you play less

C) Beating weaker opponents who put up resistance helps you learn how to beat
stronger opponents in similar positions

D) Winning championships is a great goal - the major scholastic championships
require kids to play other kids, especially weaker ones.  And just playing once
or twice a year against them at the state or national championships is usually
disastrous since you don't learn how to beat them the rest of the year.

> But it will remain a "hard sell" for me to persuade him to look
> favorably on scholastic tournaments.  He will say, quite correctly I
> believe, that the only way he could have avoided losing any rating
> points on October 28th, would have been to win all 5 of his games,
> including a win over the top rated player. I don't think he will want to enter
> many scholcastic tournaments in which he will need to have a perfect
> score, including a win over a much higher rated player, in order for him
> just to avoid losing rating points.

I answer:

All this is true, but players who just play to minimize losing rating points and
not to learn lose out in both the long and short run.  The more you play, the
more you learn - it is that simple.  I have a theory that one reason the European players improve
better is that their rating systems are either not as accurate or encourage play (have to make norms
to get to the next level) and so they play as much as possible, not pick and choose.

While it is better to play stronger players, it is self-defeating to try to only seek out competitions with
exclusively those.  I have seen it so many times I would hate to have it happen
to your son/daughter, too.  Otherwise, there will soon only be about five tournaments in
Philadelphia he can play: the three CCA events, the Philadelphia Championship,
and maybe North Penn.  And that is far too little to keep sharp.  When Alisa
Melekhina won the Elementary Championship last year, I asked her father why she
did not play with better competition in the MS section.  His answer: "She needs
to be able to play all the players at all the time limits and she needs practice
beating weaker players."  Could not really argue with him at all and she is
doing pretty well...

Another one of my students, "X" was having the same problem.  At 1700 he did not want to play in
the Gr Phila HS Championship.  He was my student so I said,

"But X, this is what you get a high rating for!  When you grow up, no one
cares if you came in 7th in the Liberty Bell U1800, but everyone understands
that you were the Philadelphia area HS Champion in 2002.  Suppose you play and
have a "bad" tournament and go 3-1 and lose rating points (he did just that!),
then are you a better player or worse, despite your "lower" rating (15 points is
not very much, and neither is 50)?"

X did play and it was a warmup for the Congress.  At the Congress he played
U1800 and despite playing some players who were lower rated scored 5-1, gained
about 70 rating points, and won $400.  I somehow think he would not have done so
well if he had not played a few weeks before and the Congress had been his first
tournament since the summer.

Note that most scholastic tournaments are at faster time controls. Once someone learns
how to play correctly, they often hate faster time controls for a while until they learn more
flexible time management. But some scholastic events are slow and some adult events are fast,
so that is a different issue.

This is an issue which makes me HATE the rating system, because without it
everyone would not have this "artificial" problem.