Hacker News Reader

I'm someone who didn't have a traditionally dysfunctional home life and wasn't driven enough to be labelled a "prodigy", but I was good enough at chess, piano and math as a child to meet plenty of prodigies at those subjects in various settings.

What you've said rings true across all of those fields, and I've always suspected it generalizes much further. I've sat across children at chess tournaments and piano competitions that seemed driven to a pathological degree without having all that much interest in the subject itself. At the time I found it disconcerting without having any idea as to the causes, so I just assumed I wasn't good enough at the subject. In retrospect, and with the benefit of hindsight (knowing I don't care to pursue a career in any of those subjects), I'm glad I didn't take it as seriously as others did.

"I've always suspected it generalizes much further."

I think it does. At one point a light bulb went off when I realized that all of these scholastic talent competitions were basically the intellectual version of childhood beauty pageants. Ultimately I see the whole scene as a cycle - kids from overachiever/dysfunctional backgrounds who grow up, have kids of their own, and then (usually unwittingly) use their own kids as props to help them cope with their own unresolved issues and insecurities.

The closest thing I have to a general takeaway is: don't use your kids as props to deal with your issues. But of course the parents who have enough self awareness to acknowledge their issues aren't the ones who are pushing their kids to an unhealthy degree.

This common in many competitive activities, unfortunately. I had the chance to represent my country at the Olympics for my sport (I'd rather not reveal which one for privacy reasons), but I chose to retire and pursue a university education instead.

I have none of the most desirable physical traits for my sport and I was coached by my mother, who is obese and has no background in the sport herself, until I was almost a teenager and the national team coaches discovered me. I excelled because if I didn't my mother would physically, verbally, and emotionally abuse me. It was only by destroying my opponents that I was spared of her wrath. I too hope this kid is able to find solace in chess and that it brings him peace and enjoyment instead of acting as a catalyst for pain.

It's not unlikely that people who are successful have adverse childhoods (even when the adversity is not directly related to the activity of their success unlike yours) because it's a lot easier to survive the sheer terror of being 1) a child and 2) reminded that you have neither power nor security day in and day out with the dopamine rush of being the very, very best at something. It builds resilience.

But I don't think we should change how we reward these kids, because in a number of cases that reward keeps them alive, and outcomes from adverse childhood experiences that are not obsessive competitiveness and huge success in a specific area are typically much, much worse.

Yes "normal" people often have trouble seeing this (& it's frustrating as a suffering kid, that adults who are very much not suffering are using your story and taking pride in your accomplishment, as though it's theirs also, not knowing what you narrowly escaped to get there), but it may bring worse outcomes if they did (for example I would never tell my child that Little Johnny is better at basketball than they are because they play every night till 10 because that's all they have to do until their mom gets home and on the courts no one beats them up, even if it's true, because I'm not confident that my "normal" kid would use the information in a way that's wise and kind).

>I know a fair amount of chess prodigies from back in the day, including some who are still active and top players on the professional circuit. To this day I have not met a single one who didn’t have to deal with major adversity during childhood - broken home, missing or abusive/alcoholic parent, etc.

I used to play professionally at Marshall chess club in NYC and one of the grandmasters there went rummaging through our bag for something to eat.

A common joke in that club: What's the difference between a Chess Grandmaster and a pizza?

A pizza can feed a family of four.

Although I can appreciate self deprecating humor, it seems that you are simply using my comment to make fun of people who have already dealt with tremendous adversity. Does it make you feel better about yourself to tell stories and jokes about grandmasters who didn't have enough to eat?

You're punching down. Don't do that. If you're in doubt, please refer to HN guidelines:

"Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. Don't be snarky."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

How is this snarky or uncivil? The lack of opportunity to earn good money is the reason I never continued on my journey to play chess professionally.

Also I am pretty sure the gm had money but he had a concept of other people's stuff and had other issues. I am just adding to the point that op made that plenty of chess grandmasters have issues

"I am just adding to the point that op made that plenty of chess grandmasters have issues"

OP here. The point wasn't about the issues, it's that the issues often result from trauma, therefore we should speak and act with compassion.

In response, you told a story about a grandmaster who stole things from you and cracked a joke about someone being so poor that they couldn't feed their family. Hilarious!

Look, one of the reasons "plenty of chess grandmasters have issues", as you so astutely point out, is that so many people in the chess community think and act like you do. Not to single you out or anything, but this is such a common and harmful pattern. You'd think that people would see someone struggling and, I don't know, reach out to offer support. But instead, people like you make jokes.

Assuming you actually want to be part of a substantive conversation, rather than simply trolling, consider sharing more about where you come from and what you've dealt with, rather than making fun of other people.

I recently read Searching for Bobby Fisher and Joshua Waitzkin's childhood seemed intense, but not broken. Would you consider him an exception or is that level of intensity itself dysfunctional in your view?

I do agree that integrity and sportsmanship - along with the game's beauty - should be placed higher than defeating opponents and that it often isn't. At some point this may just be the nature of competing at the highest levels, but early scholastic chess shouldn't be that point.

Perhaps part of it is cultural. I grew up playing in Russia as a kid (I showed promise, but didn't go nearly as far as you). Chess was deeply woven into the culture and into my family. I have warm memories of an inspiring game that only encouraged development of integrity and perseverance. I've been hoping my child gets into it. He did, but watching chess in the U.S. leaves me cold. Obsession with ratings, winning, trophies, pragmatism, and plain cheating at ages when these kids should be imagining themselves as honorable warriors is disheartening. I try to guide him through it - and point out the exceptions - but it always feels like swimming against the tide.

I'm not all that familiar with Waitzkin's story. Pretty sure I met him back him in the day, but we certainly didn't talk about this stuff back then. And I haven't read that book. If you can give me some specific events, I could offer an opinion. That said, I'm not certain how much of a say he had (or profits he shared) in the book/movie based on him. Purely a gut reaction but I suspect there was at least some garden variety exploitation going on.

"At some point this may just be the nature of competing at the highest levels, but early scholastic chess shouldn't be that point."

Unfortunately, a little-discussed aspect of top level chess is that the only real way to be a contender for the world championships, especially these days, is to start young. Chess mastery is like fluency in a language - you can learn it at any age, but to attain the absolute top levels of performance you need to be a native speaker. This is probably why the cult of prodigies continues despite its downsides. In chess, music, dance, etc. people just love seeing superhuman performance.

"Perhaps part of it is cultural. I grew up playing in Russia"

I think you're right about this. Chess culture in the US is absolutely, positively terrible compared to other countries. I know that it's much better/healthier in Europe. I'm aware that it's a major cultural thing in Russia so I have to believe that it's better over there. Almost like a mental martial art, as opposed to whatever it is in the US.

Don’t forget that Searching for Bobby Fisher was written by Waitzkin’s father and almost certainly is bending the reality to the story he wants to tell/image he wants to project.

'The art of learning' is written by Josh himself and didn't leave me with an abusive childhood impression.

Josh seems very balanced, it's a great book as well, highly recommended.

While common, it's not so bad. Carlsen has a good family and he wasn't pressured to do anything. Polgar sisters were raised as chess players, but they all say only positive things about their childhood. 9 y.o Tihon Chernyaev is close to the level of Fide Master and plays competitively, but it's more of his obsession, and his mother just helps and encourages him without any pressure (that's from her own words, so could be wrong).

> but they all say only positive things about their childhood

> his mother just helps and encourages him without any pressure (that's from her own words, so could be wrong)

For the record, almost everyone says only positive things about their childhood, including people who have been abused. The notion that "family is good" is so powerful that breaking it is one of society's biggest taboos.

Similarly, I have not met a single overbearing parent who doesn't act outwardly like they are nothing but supportive.

This doesn't mean that everyone is lying. Just that you need to take these things with a grain of salt. If abuse was always on the surface, visible to everyone at a casual glance, it wouldn't be nearly so prevalent.

There is a relationship between great success and hard childhood, I think PG for ex wrote a tweet about this around last weekend.

Also: it's terrible to tell a young kid "you are very talented" and similar; positive encouragement is good but it's better to praise effort.

> Also: it's terrible to tell a young kid "you are very talented" and similar; positive encouragement is good but it's better to praise effort.

Whether this is true or not is controversial; it's primarily based on research which has many supporters, but which has also failed replication despite many attempts. See Carol Dweck's wiki page (including the "criticism" section) for more.

> I hope his gift brings him joy and success,

Not sure about that, but it might have brought him a home if all the attention that led to the gofundme account pans out, and it doesn't get stolen or frittered away.

Yeah, I was trying to get at something, but "joy and success" didn't really capture it. The fact that his gofundme raised enough for him to move into a new home - that's what I'm talking about.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/8-Year-Old-Nigerian-Re...