World Youth Chess Championship 2011 Caldas Novas Brazil

[My apologies for the late posting but better late than never!]

The WYCC 2011 edition is finally over and we have a new star in Australia (well sort of and perhaps I am going overboard since it is early days yet as he is only 8 years old) with the name of Kevin. Yes, Kevin Willathgamuwa did Australia proud by coming 10th in the U8 Open division. Kevin could have got a higher position if he won his last round. Similarly a number of other Australia juniors woudl have achieved a higher final placing if they won the crucial game in the last round. But it is never easy ...... The second best placing was achieved by Justin Tan in the U14 Open placed 24th and as GM Ian Rogers commented, the only player who managed to defeat the eventual winner. Sally Yu managed a 28th placing result which came after a long layoff from chess (?). So my congratulations to all.

Five out seven managed to achieved 50% or more in their games. And I think that is a great improvement.

Final result here. The official website is a mess.

GM Kevin Spragett's take on junior chess following GM Vladimir Kramnik's remarks ......

GM Vladimir Kramnik's remarks on the current generation of Russian junior chess players (see my last blog) has been picked up by GM Kevin Spraggett and this is what he says (I cannot link his blog as it is not suitable for juniors):

ARE TODAY'S CHESS YOUTH THE SACRIFICIAL LAMBS OF HI-TECH?

Like many vibrant aspects of human culture, chess has traditionally been handed down from one generation to the next generation. Not only thru an accumulating chess literature (that began in the 15th century--some of the first books published in any domain were chess books) and by way of examples of the play leading players of the day, but especially thru the development of new ideas. Each successive generation was built on the previous generations best efforts.

In this way chess culture and chess knowledge has attained a firm historical point of reference; and has witnessed, parallel to this, an impressive growth of relevant information, both horizontally and vertically. Chess has more books and magazines written about it than all other games combined!

Generations of players were brought up learning the great games and successes of Morphy, Lasker, Alekhine, Capablanca and others who moved chess forward into the modern times. When I first learned chess I instinctively centred my chess formation around their teachings, their ideas and their best and most instructive games.

Some generations have been more outstanding that others: the generation of post-World War II Soviet Union will likely never be equalled: almost a dozen World Champion-quality players, including Tal, Spassky, Petrosian, Korchnoi, Geller ,Smyslov and Bronstein. Together they extended and enlarged Opening Theory to unprecedented reaches, so much so that even today their contribution is as vital as it was 50 years ago.

By comparison, the generation of Karpov, and then Kasparov, were relatively lean times. Then came another great generation: Shirov, Ivanchuk, Gelfand, Kramnik, Kamsky, Salov, Khalifman, Svidler and a few others. Even today they dominate chess as they did 20 years ago when they first appeared!

But strange as it may seem, today's generation of young players that is just under 20 years of age no longer is as much shaped by the traditional 'hand me down' process of one generation to the next: instead, today's generation is strongly influenced by hi-tech.

Today's youth do not first learn their fundamentals thru games of Alekhine or Fischer, or even Kasparov. When told that they should study the games of these great players, they reply cynically ''Why? I will never have to play any of them!''

Today's generation might be called the PC generation, for their dependence on chess-databases and the internet as opposed to fundamentals. They first study the nameless statistics that differentiate one opening line from another and then shape the rest of their chess formation by jumping from one line to another, all in search of a winning formula. The only names of players that are of interest to them are their next round opponents....

Something tells me that they are missing something that I was very fortunate to acquire: a historical perspective of the modern game and a rich understanding of the legacy of our greatest players, regardless of when or where they were playing. Ofcourse, I am not talking about chess strength or level of playing skill: talent, hard work and information can be done in your own room for this!

I am talking about chess culture and chess knowledge, not colourless information or nameless statistics from ever larger databases, much of the content of which is being produced by weak players with little or no experience! I fear for the future of these players...and I am not alone here.

Many of the finest trainers and coaches in the world are beginning to notice that the present generation is different from any previous generation.

More on junior chess from GM Vladimir Kramnik ......

The translated excerpts are here (again thanks to WhyChess and Colin McGourty) but read this:

What sort of impression did the talented young players make on you? Are they well-read children or “children of the computer”?

I can’t say I studied them that well, but it seemed to me that the kids, including the girls, are definitely very talented and mentally alert. But when it comes to knowledge… It seems to me that at their age our generation knew more about chess than they do. They need to gain knowledge. But in terms of talent everything’s fine. I posed them some questions and they suggested very interesting moves. It seemed to me, however, that we were keener on working, although it’s hard to draw conclusions after three days.

Originally I wanted to give lectures on the opening, but then we discussed it with the coaches and decided that I’d talk about general topics: how to prepare for opponents and determine their strong and weak points and so on. The second lecture was on the topic of positional play. They all see tactics well, but I was told that they’ve got some problems with positional play.

Food for thought for Australian coaches and trainers.

PS. note that one of his 3-hour lectures will be published on the Russian Chess Federation website after the 2011 WYCC in Brazil. Hmmmmmm ...... perhaps we can get a translation from an Australian chess player who reads Russian?

From the "mouth" of IM Silvio Danailov ......

I came across the translation (on WhyChess) of an interview with IM Silvio Danailov, current President of the European Chess Union but better know as the "gutter-mouth" manager of GM Veselin Topalov. You can read the translated interview here but here is the exceprt I was interested in:

The interview started with a discussion of the recent European Team Chess Championship, where Bulgaria had excellent winning chances until the final rounds. Danailov talked about the players tiring towards the end, and continued:

Don’t forget another factor – Kiprian Berbatov giving up chess was a big blow for us. We’d spent 4 years getting him ready and were relying on him for the fourth board, but finally he decided to concentrate on mathematics and not chess. But that’s what the younger generation is like – not only in chess but also in all other sports. They’re distracted by many things – there’s the internet and many different forms of entertainment. The old practice of self-discipline, self-improvement and self-sacrifice is rarer and rarer among the young. That’s the problem for Bulgarian sport as a whole – there’s nothing coming up from below. […]

But can the money there is in chess, which primarily benefits elite chess players, put off young people like Kiprian?

On the contrary, he also earned pretty well, but now he won’t have that income. There’s a long road ahead in order to become a mathematician, and the earnings in chess aren’t bad. But if you love something you don’t do it for the money. He gave up that money for the sake of mathematics, and he’s got the right to make that choice, of course. But it was a big blow for us.

Hmmmm...... Another strike for mathematics over chess! A reverse of GM John Nunn's decision 30-40 years ago to give up mathematics for a professional career in chess.

IM Danailov's remarks reminded me of an article (based on an interview with Alexander Vaisman , Honoured Trainer of the Ukraine) I read in the NIC' The Chess Instructor (2009) (btw a great book for any chess parent to read and reflect).

Alexander Vaisman bemoaned the deleterious effect chess parents can have on their talented child in two opposing extremes. The first is imposing an expectation of winning at all costs and all the time. Vaisman makes the point that junior chess is preparation for adult chess. (Do you agree?) In fact he does not think highly of Fide's World Chess Championships for the U8-U12 (which is currently taking place in Brazil!). But he also goes on to mention the other extreme where parents "make their child combine chess studies with higher education. The result is that both areas of study suffer. One must have the courage and intellect to choose one or the other. And parents should never try to impose their own will on their child, in this respect. He then gave the example of two juniors who pursued university studies. One junior gave up university after 2.5 years but the other continued. He expressed regret at the latter's choice since he believed that the junior had the potential to be World Champion. "But... the boy was forced to go to university. Time passed, and with it passed his chance to become World Champion. What a shame... 'Never kill a dream', as they say. Not the dream of the child, nor that of his trainer." (Note he advocates identifying as early as possible talent for chess and the the necessity for talent plus hard work equals success. He also speaks on other topics relating to chess training for juniors.)

This is an important issue for chess juniors and their parents. Would you have the courage to pursue the dream? Yes, it takes courage! And I salute those in Australia who have done so. They have proven to be more bold and courageous than me. I wonder what you would do, as a junior and/or as a parent ......

World Youth Chess Championship 2011 Caldas Novas Brazil

Heading into the first rest day, I thought I will summarise the exploits of the intrepid Australian juniors after 4 rounds (see here for results). Things will only get harder from now on as the Australians begin to play other juniors nearer to their own playing strength if not higher.

U8 Open
Kevin Willathgamuwa has 3 /4 all against unrated players but faces his first rated player in Rd 5: Samir Sahidi Elo 1579 from Slovakia (2.5/4) on Bd 11.

U10 Open
Rowan Willathgamuwa Elo 1687 has 2.5/4 winning against unrated players but lost to a FM in Rd 2 (Amin Tabatabaei from Iran Elo 2028). Rowan faces an unrated player from Argentina in Rd 5.

U12 Open
Karl Zelesco Elo 1976 has 3/4 having lost in Rd 4 to a Canadian seeded 8th (Elo 2094) but defeated an Italian FM (Elo 2211) in Rd 3 ranked 4th. Karl now faces Trinadadian Joshua Johnson Elo 1862 in Rd 5.

U14 Open
Justin Tan also has 3/4 also losing in Rd 4 to a FM from France Bilel Bellahcene Elo 2311 seeded 11th but similarly defeated a FM from Russia Kirill Alekseenko Elo 2351 in Rd 3 seeded 8th. Justin faces German Dennis Wagner Elo 2333 in Rd 5.

U16 Girls
Abbie Kanagarajah Elo 1617 has 1/4 being paired with two opponents rated over 2000+ (seeded 21st and 15th respectively which demonstrates how tough the competition is) in Rds 1 and 2 but drew against unrated opponents in Rds 3 and 4 and now faces unrated Angelica Gariela Marques form Brazil in Rd 5.

U18 Girls
Sally Yu Elo 1918 has 1.5/4 having lost to a WFM (elo 2205) and a WIM (Elo 2167) in Rds 1 and 4 respectively but drew against another WFM (Elo 2106) in Rd 3. Sally now faces unrated Reka Kantor Elo 1972 from Slovakia in Rd 5.

Miranda Webb-Liddle Elo 1489 has 0.5/4 managing a draw against an unrated player in Rd 3. She faced higher rated players (2 x 2000+ and 1 x 1900+) in the other rounds and lost. She now faces Romanian Maria Vasilecu Elo 1835 in Rd 5.

Note that Rds 3 and 4 were a double header, ie double rounds on 20th November. (PS I checked out the time difference and it looks like they are -13 hrs in comparison to AEST, which meant they started playing Rd 3 at 11 pm AEST 20th Nov and Rd 4 was at 6 am AEST 21st Nov.)

All in all, I think our results are better this year. I suspect that Kevin, Rowan, Karl and Justin will find it harder going from Rd 5 onwards and Abbie, Sally and Miranda may find it a bit easier. Nonetheless their task is made easier since we have a secret weapon travelling with the Australian juniors, who is none other than opening theoretician and specialist, GM Ian Rogers. Hopefully the rest day will give some respite to the kids and allow them to have a breather. And maybe for their super-coach to come up with some magical openings novelties, just kidding!!! :) :) :) At this standard of play, I think games are won and lost in the middlegame and/or endgame.

Now to a round up of the tournament itself.
In the U8 Open, US junior Awonder Liang (yes that is his name and see here for more) leads with 4/4 with 8 others snapping at his heels with 3.5/4. Kevin is joint 10th with 3/4 well within striking distance.

In the U10 Open it is very close with 4 players on 4/4 and 6 others on 3.5/4. Rowan is sitting on joint 27th with 2.5/4.

In the U12 Open, Karl's 4th round opponent leads with 4/4 with 12 others on 3.5/4. Karl sits on joint 14th placing.

In the U14 Open, Justin's 4th Round opponent is joint first with an Indian junior, FM Diptayan Ghosh. Justin is sitting on joint 14th position.

In the U16 Open, there is no one with a perfect score and hence 8 juniors are sitting joint first with 3.5/4 including my picks, FM Felix Jose Ynojosa from Venezuela (but plays chess in England) and Polish IM Kamil Dragun. GM Jorge Cori is 0.5 point behind on 3/4.

In the U16 Girls, we have a sole leader, Indian unrated Pv Nandhidhaa with 4/4 (demonstrating how dangerous these unrateds from India et al are) followed closely behind by 7 others on 3.5/4.

In the U18 Girls, we have two joint leaders on 4/4, Russian WGM Alina Kashlinskaya and Georgian WIM Meri Arabidze.

In the U18 Open, we also have two joint leaders and who will clash Rd 5, GM Samvel Ter-Sahakyan (seeded no 1) and 3rd seed GM Saleh Salem from the UAE. There are 6 others on 3.5/4 including 2nd seed, Russian GM Vladimir Fedoseev. WGM Deyse Cori and IM Zhou YangFan are on 2.5/4.

But there are plenty more chess to come with 5 more rounds to go.

World Youth Chess Championship 2011 Caldas Novas Brazil

Rd 3 Pairings:

Willathgamuwa Kevin vs Baasansuren Erdene U 8 Open
Romero Gonzalez Juan Ignacio vs Willathgamuwa Rowan U 10 Open
Zelesco Karl vs FM Rambaldi Francesco U 12 Open
Tan Justin vs FM Alekseenko Kirill U 14 Open
Fang Tina Fang vs Kanagarajah Abbie U 16 Girls
WFM Petrova Irina vs Yu Sally U 18 Girls
Webb-Liddle Miranda vs Monadjem Mina U 18 Girls

World Youth Chess Championship 2011 Caldas Novas Brazil

We have started Round 1 with 4 wins and one loss: see here. It looks like the U18 girls Rd 1 begins one day later (maybe they are playing one round less?) OR maybe the results are not being updated as quickly.

It seems there are live games here and here.

According to live games, there is a BIG UPSET in Rd 1 of the U18 Open. Top seed Armenian GM Samvel Ter-Sahakyan lost to Elfer Cutipa Loayza from Peru. And 2nd seed GM Vladmir Fedoseev has also lost. Hmmmmmmm! not very sure about this especially after the problems with the electronic live games from the European Team Championships recently in Greece.

After further investigations, it looks like the live games results are corrupted. Perhaps they inputed the names of players wrongly. There are just too many upsets.

Stay tuned.

World Youth Chess Championship 2011 Caldas Novas Brazil

It is that time of the year again, yes, time for the greatest show on earth in the area of junior chess, the biggie, the Mother of all junior chess tournaments, the World Youth Chess Championship 2011 (WYCC 2011) (see here). This year it is in Brazil, in the city of Caldas Novas in "the state of Goiás and considered by many to be the largest hydro-thermal resort in the world" (wikipedia).

Australia's representatives are:
No. Name FideID FED RtgI Name
62 Willathgamuwa Kevin 3214168 AUS 0 U 8 Open
37 Willathgamuwa Rowan 3214176 AUS 1687 U 10 Open
24 Zelesco Karl 3213390 AUS 1976 U 12 Open
28 Tan Justin 3206882 AUS 2160 U 14 Open
64 Simmonds Leteisha 3208699 AUS 1642 U 16 Girls
65 Kanagarajah Abbie 3208630 AUS 1617 U 16 Girls
43 Yu Sally 3206718 AUS 1918 U 18 Girls
60 Webb-Liddle Miranda 3206939 AUS 1489 U 18 Girls

Note that Daniel Lapitan has withdrawn from the U12 Open.

The team Coach is the evergreen GM Ian Rogers (who has to make the mad dash from Amsterdam, see here for a photo (2nd photo) of him kibitzing with David Smerdon (?)).

The Schedule:

Thursday 17 November 20h – Arrival of Delegations
Thursday 17 November 22h – Technical Meeting
Friday 18 November 15h30 – Opening Ceremony
Friday 18 November 16h – 1st round
Saturday 19 November 15 hs – 2nd round
Sunday 20 November 10 hs – 3rd round
Sunday 20 November 17h –4th round
Monday 21 November – Free day
Tuesday 22 November 15 hs – 5th round
Wednesday 23 November 15 hs – 6th round
Thursday 24 November 15hs – 7th round
Friday 25 November 15 hs – 8th round
Saturday 26 November 10h – 9th round

Saturday 26 November 20h – Closing Ceremony
Sunday 27 November – Departure of Delegations

Best way to keep track of results is via ChessResults (see here). Looks like there is no live broadcast of games.

Names to look out for (besides Aussie juniors and the obvious top seeds):
U18 Open - IM Zhou Yang-Fan (Eng) and WGM Deyse T. Cori (Peru) (who is playing in Open section and not U18 Girls);
U16 Open - GM Jorge Cori (Peru), IM Kamil Dragun (Poland), Felix Jose Ynojosa (Venezuela but lives and plays chess in England);
U14 Open - FM Jan-Krzysztof Duda (Poland), FM Koushik Girish (India), FM Tibor Kende Antal (Hungary);
U12 Girls - WFM Maria Furtado Ivana (India) (she is top seed but this might be her year).

15 year old Jack Hughes and the oldest chess club in Australia (?)

A video of the Mebourne Chess Club to enjoy, mainly because of the junior, 15 year old Jack Hughes, taking the initiative to become an arbiter. I think he carried himself well in the interview and a good ambassador for chess. Here is the link to the newspaper story. Kudos to Melbourne Leader.

Celebrity Chess Coaches vs Solid "Boring" Chess Coaches — Further comment

For a very apt comment (a picture is worth a thousand words) on the previous blog on Celebrity coaches:


Chess Wishes by Jose Diaz
courtesy of Chessvibes

Celebrity Chess Coaches vs Solid "Boring" Chess Coaches

This week's soundbite in the chess world was the revelation (but not for most people it seems, at any rate according to GM Vladimir Kramnik) that US GM Hikaru Nakamura has been working with GM Garry Kasparov since late 2010. You read the story here, and here.

This set me thinking of a parallel phenomenon in local junior chess scene. What I mean is the case of the ambitious chess parent who flits from chess coach to chess coach for their child hoping the better known chess coach will somehow make their child a success. Of course who is a "better known" chess coach is dependent on two factors: 1) the chess coach individual success in chess tournaments which is reinforced by chess titles, ie GM title is better than an IM title which is better than a FM title and after that we proceed to ratings, ie Elo/ACF 2200 coach is better than a Elo/ACF 1800 coach; 2) the chess coach's current student(s) successes in tournaments.

So, what do we look for in a chess coach? Or what should we be looking for? A chess title such as GM? Well, they are quite few and far in between in Australia where we basically only have three and one GM-in-waiting. (I know of a chess parent who would only consider a GM as a coach for their child.) Do we look for the celebrity factor (as measured by tournament successes)?

What do you think?

Back to the international chess scene. It is interesting that the most famous of all chess coaches is only an IM but possibly at GM strength. It is also interesting that the most successful chess coaches as measured by the successes of their students are chess players who have achieved the IM or GM title but given up competitive chess to concentrate on coaching and teaching. In fact the most famous Moldavian chess coach is Chebanenko who is not a GM. It is interesting also that two other "Young Guns" in the chess world , GM Anish Giri and GM Sergey Karjayin, are currently being coached by not very well-known names.

Following on from Last BlogPost: Ratings, Norms, Titles, or Fun, or just Chess???

This is a follow-up to the last blogpost highlighting US IM Greg Shahade's blogpost on USCF Chess Life Online on his concerns about the US junior chess scene's obsession with results and in particular with norms and ratings (see here). I also pointed to Michael Aigner's reply to IM Shahade that chess should be fun otherwise there will be chess burn-out (interestingly he cited the case of Nicholas Nip as an example of chess burn-out; earlier, Nicholas Nip's story was raised in the chess media as junior who managed to beat Bobby Fisher's record in becoming the "youngest USCF Master in history, obtaining a rating of 2207 at the age of 9 years, 11 months and 26 days" (see wikipedia entry here). But it seems he no longer plays chess ......)

This bit about chess as fun brought out a personal bugbear of mine into the open. I am not for any reason denying that chess should be fun but Chess Should be Fun as a governing stricture? That I have problems with.

Let me explain. Like IM Shahade, I think we need to be careful which group of juniors chess players we are referring to in the immediate discussion. So for the benefit furthering the discussion, let me propose the following classification (but bear in mind, only as a heuristic and not as an essentialist tool):

1) Super talented junior chess players who can make it to the GM title and beyond to 2600+;
2) Talented juniors who can make it to IM and possibly GM;
3) Talented juniors who can improve to Elo 2200-2400;
4) Talented juniors who will improve to only 1800-2000.

But this classification is one-dimensional. We need to add another dimension, the dimension of motivation.

1) Juniors who are ambitious and singularly focused on achieving a GM title;
2) Juniors who are ambitious and focused on achieving success in international tournaments;
3) Juniors who are ambitious and focused on only achieving success in local and national tournaments;
4) Juniors who play only because of peers and/or parents.

We need also a third dimension: a measure of Passion:
1) Juniors who are really passionate about chess and live to play chess in a singular manner;
2) Juniors who are passionate about chess but has other competing passions;
3) Juniors who are interested in chess as a hobby or intellectual stimulation;
4) Juniors who are interested in chess as a facilitator to other subjects such as mathematics.

When we try to place juniors according to the three dimensions, we realised that it is a more complex complicated picture than originally envisaged.

Obviously (well, it is obvious to me at any rate) that the group of juniors that IM Shahade is referring to in his blogpost is the group where there is super talent, there is ambition and there is passion! And the group that Michael Aigner refers to as requiring fun as a component of chess might be talented, modest ambition and other passions besides chess or it might also refer to the group who are averagely talented and treats chess as only another activity. As they say: horses for courses.

This schema raises an interesting issue which of course is at the heart of IM Shahade's blogpost. How does a junior chess administrator (usually volunteers!!!) and/or tournament organiser cater for these diverse groups and interests? This question is one which is asked and debated amongst parents at every Australian Junior Championships and in particular whether you have a so-called "serious" chess tournament consisting of only one game a day or you have multi-games day thus making the tournament shorter in duration, thus more "parent-friendly".

Last rant: Why is it that we brow beat chess parents for being pushy parents if they "facilitate" the child's improvement in chess by adherence to a strict regime etc. Don't we do the same in Australia with other kids in other activities? such as swimming (go and read the biographies of famous swimmers such as Ian Thorpe and the 5 am waking up for 6 am 20 km laps in the pool) and gymnastics. What about football (three practices a week!)?

Well, what do you think?

Caveat: My son does not play chess anymore. I have jokingly told people it is because I was a pushy chess parent. But in all seriousness, I do not have to excuse myself nor make any apology. My son turned out to be talented (for a time the 3rd best U10 junior in Australia but that in itself is quite meaningless except as a conversation piece) but lacked the ambition and passion for chess required for further success. He may or may not play chess for fun in the future. On a brighter note, after he stopped chess, he channeled his ambition and passion to the violin. And I am happy with that. Hmmmm ...... Vivaldi's Four Seasons ......

Ratings, Norms, Titles, or Fun, or just Chess???

Over at USCF Chess Life Online, there is a blog post by well-known US chess player, chess coach, and chess training camp extraordinare, IM Greg Shahade entitled "Greg on Norms Part I: Please Stop Caring!". See here. IM Shahade begins thus:

Chess is a very difficult and competitive game. It’s extremely hard to become one of the best players in the world. To do so, you need to do almost everything right throughout your chess career. You should never squander opportunities to learn or grow as a chess player if your goal is to be one of the best in the world.

he goes on to say that the focus on norms, results and ratings is wrong and will ultimately harm the chances of the talented chess kids in achieving their dreams of success in chess. For example, instead of taking a last round 15 moves draw against a GM which ensure a norm, he reckons the chess junior should make full use of the opportunity and fight a full game aiming for a win.

What would be much more impressive to me, and would be deserving of a lot more praise than making a norm, would be if one of these players needed a draw in the last round of a tournament to make a norm, yet refused a draw against a Grandmaster opponent, and instead took that opportunity to understand and feel the pressure of trying to play a chess game for a win under severe emotional pressure. However that the player would be congratulated more if they took a draw in ten moves than if he played his heart out, played a character building game that could serve as the building block for a future World Championship run, but instead lost. We have it all twisted around.

This view of things can be contrasted with another well-known chess player cum coach, Michael Aigner (who runs the blog fpawn) (which can be found in the comments).

The most important ingredient for future success in chess is that you enjoy playing the game. You need to have fun at the board and while studying the games of other players. To a large extent, your own personality will define what is fun, and how you will play your games. Fischer enjoyed everything surrounding chess, even watching games between amateurs, and this brought him to the top.

Unfortunately, I don't see anyone having fun if the primary goal is very distant, such as top 10-20 in the world. The reality is that a young player needs many intermediate goals that can be reached sequentially. The youngster benefits from the occasional pat on the back (or CLO article) after some modest achievement. Those who don't taste success will get lost along the way.

I understand Mr. Shahade's form of idealism. He considers chess to be a form of art, like a composition by Mozart. However, art requires a much larger degree of maturity to fathom. While I may personally agree with many of the tenets discussed, I think there's a huge gulf between someone in their 30s and a teenager (or younger).

What do you think? Who do you agree with more?

IM Shahade also has this piece of advice for aspiring young chess players:

In order to become one of the absolute best it’s imperative that our amazingly young and talented players are taught at a very age to have their sights set high. As soon as someone who is as ridiculously talented starts thinking about getting IM norms or GM norms, and adjusting their play in order to make these norms, they have already lost that battle. There are about 1000 Grandmasters. If you are a special talent who has the rare opportunity to think about being one of the world’s best one day, put all of your focus on doing the things that it will take to become one of the top 10-20 in the world. Don’t spend energy worrying about whether you will become one of a group of 1000.

And he ends with these words:

Our young players are not going to become the best in the world by accident. There are kids all over the world who are talented enough and want the same thing. Our top players need to take advantage of every single opportunity in order to be the best, and unfortunately we have a bit of a results oriented culture that pushes our kids away from doing the right things. They should learn and be encouraged to never waste a single game, never sacrifice a learning experience for a short-term good result. Instead every single one of their actions should be focused on one thing, and one thing only: One day becoming the best player in the United States and one of the best players in the world. This probably won’t be possible until they are at least 18 years old, so the next 6-8 years should be treated as a learning experience.

Note: He promises a follow-up blog post on his "own personal feelings towards norms, and will be of a slightly different tone than this article." Hmmmmmmmm! Wonder what he means? Is he one who does not practise what he preaches? Have to wait and see.

PS. there is more to be found in the comments where Greg Shahade and Michael Aigner are having a discussion.

PPS. I have to say I agree with IM Shahade but note his caveat which he reiterates in his first comment:

This article is aimed towards people who have the potential to literally be one of the best players in the world.

He goes on to say:

I teach so many US Chess Schools, please trust me when I say it's a huge problem. Almost every kid who comes to our camps, no matter how talented, will automatically accept a draw against a GM in a slightly better position (or basically just anyone 100-200 points higher rated than them). I'd say approximately 80% would do so based on what I've seen.

I have to say, based on my own observations, which is limited, Sydney juniors are the same as well, taking a draw against a higher rated player just so they do not lose the game and they gain rating points. Anyone agree or disagree?