Does My Child Have Talent for Chess?
Over the years I have spent working as a coach, I have probably heard this question from parents hundreds of times.
Sometimes they ask it after the very first lesson. The child quickly understood how the knight moves, solved a few puzzles, and the parents already cautiously ask, “What do you think? Does he have talent?”
Sometimes the question comes a year later. The child is studying, playing tournaments, and gaining rating, but there is another boy of the same age who is progressing even faster. And then the question sounds a little different: “How talented is he, really? Does it make sense to take chess seriously?”
I completely understand why parents want an answer. The problem is that I am not sure such an answer can really be given very early.
Of course, children are different. I have seen students for whom chess seemed surprisingly easy from the very beginning. They noticed tactical ideas faster, remembered positions better, and almost never repeated the same mistakes. It would be strange to pretend that these differences do not exist.
But I have also seen enough children who, at eight years old, did not look at all like future strong chess players, and then a few years later started progressing very quickly. This is also why I would not attach too much importance to the age when a child starts playing chess.
So I would be careful with the word “talent.”
I Can Notice Ability, but I Cannot Predict the Future
After a few lessons, a good coach can already notice certain things.
One child calculates variations very quickly. Another remembers perfectly what we studied a week ago. A third has a surprisingly good feeling for where the pieces should be placed. A fourth solves difficult puzzles even though they cannot always explain exactly how they found the answer.
All of this is interesting.
But if a parent then asks me, “So does that mean he will become a master?”, I cannot honestly answer yes.
Between a talented eight-year-old child and a strong adult chess player, there are an enormous number of training sessions, tournaments, losses, periods without progress, changing interests, and simply life.
Research on chess expertise also gives us little reason to reduce a player’s future level to one inborn characteristic. Practice, experience, and individual differences seem to interact in a fairly complicated way, and even the same amount of training does not lead different players to the same result.
So I prefer not to say “talented” or “untalented.” I would rather look at the specific qualities a child has.
Solving Puzzles Quickly Does Not Necessarily Mean Great Talent
This is probably one of the most common things parents look at.
Give a group of children ten puzzles. One solves nine, another solves five. It is very easy to conclude that the first child is much more talented.
Maybe.
Or maybe not yet.
The first child may simply be better at chess tactics. Perhaps they have already seen similar positions. Maybe they calculate short variations faster. The second child, meanwhile, may be much better at playing long games, understanding positions, or concentrating for two hours without losing focus.
Chess is too big to measure a child’s ability with ten diagrams.
I have met children who made an incredible impression during lessons. They answered questions immediately and found combinations faster than everyone else in the group. Then the tournament started, and it turned out that after forty minutes the child lost concentration and began playing completely different chess.
And I have seen the opposite. A student was never the fastest during lessons, but at the board they would sit until the last minute and keep looking for solutions while everyone else had already started rushing.
Which of them is more talented?
I would not rush to answer.
I Really Like It When a Child Remembers Chess Ideas
There is one quality that I really do pay attention to.
Suppose a month ago we studied a particular idea. Not a specific move, but a principle of the position. A few weeks later, something similar appears, and the child says on their own, “This is almost like that game we looked at.”
That interests me.
A strong chess player gradually starts seeing not just individual pieces, but familiar structures, motifs, and typical ideas. Research on chess expertise has long shown that as a player becomes stronger, their perception of chess positions becomes more structured and increasingly based on chess-specific knowledge.
But even here, I would not turn one good moment into a diagnosis of “talent.”
I would rather see the same quality again a month later, then again, and eventually notice that the child needs fewer and fewer hints.
Independent Interest Sometimes Matters More to Me Than Quick Answers
Imagine two children.
The first is very capable. During the lesson, everything comes more easily to them than to the second child. But once the lesson ends, they close the chessboard and do not think about chess again until the following week.
The second is a little slower. But in the evening, they open a position on their own, play games, show their parents an interesting combination, or ask the coach why Carlsen made such a strange move in a particular game.
Two weeks later, the first child will probably still be stronger.
But five years later?
Here I am no longer so sure.
I value it very highly when chess begins to exist in a child’s life without constant involvement from adults. Mom did not tell them to solve puzzles. Dad did not promise a present for a good tournament. The coach did not assign homework. The child simply became interested on their own.
Research on young beginner chess players has also found connections between enjoyment, motivation, and the amount of practice they do. In other words, interest matters not only by itself. It also affects how much chess a child is actually willing to do.
For me, this is a very serious factor.
I Would Look at How a Child Reacts to a Difficult Problem
Imagine that a child cannot solve a position.
What happens after three minutes?
“I don’t know.”
And that is it.
Or do they keep looking? Try another move? Return to the previous variation? Ask you not to tell them the answer yet?
I like the second reaction.
Not because such a child will necessarily become a grandmaster. Simply because chess will constantly give them problems where the answer cannot be found in twenty seconds.
At some point, natural quickness is no longer enough. The opponents become stronger, the positions become more complicated, and helping a child improve at chess gradually requires more serious and independent work.
So I would consider the ability to stay calmly inside a difficult problem a very good sign.
And sometimes I see this quality in a child who does not look like a “chess prodigy” at all.
Mistakes Can Tell You a Lot Too
I am interested not only in how well a child plays. Sometimes I am even more interested in what happens after a mistake.
Suppose a child constantly forgets to look at the opponent’s threats. We discuss it during a lesson. In the next tournament, the same problem appears again.
Nothing unusual.
But what happens two months later?
If the mistake gradually disappears, I see that as a good sign. The child did not simply hear the explanation. They managed to change something in their own play.
I think parents sometimes look too much at the child’s current level and too little at the speed at which they are learning.
A rating of 1400 by itself tells me much less than the path the child took to reach 1400.
It Is Easy to Overestimate a Child’s Chess Rating
Especially during the first few years.
One child played eighty tournament games during the year. Another played twenty. One regularly faced strong opponents. Another mostly played in school tournaments. One had their rating updated constantly, while another barely played any rated events.
And then we put two numbers next to each other and try to measure talent with them.
I would not do that.
Of course, if a child is consistently gaining rating very quickly, I would not ignore it. It is a good result.
But rating primarily shows the results of their games during a certain period. It does not tell me completely what kind of chess player this child will become five years from now.
Research on chess development also shows a strong relationship between playing strength and accumulated experience and practice, although the picture is far more complicated than simply “more hours equals a higher rating.”
Do Not Compare Your Child With the Strongest Child in the Club
It is almost inevitable.
Every chess school eventually has a child who beats everyone. They are eight years old and already playing against adults. The parents of the other children start looking at this child as some kind of reference point.
“Ours studies just as much. Why is he weaker?”
I generally think that comparing your child with other children tells you very little about their real chess progress.
But you are almost never comparing identical circumstances.
Perhaps that child started three years earlier. Maybe they play chess at home every day. Perhaps they have an older brother who plays chess. Maybe they played a hundred classical games last year.
Or perhaps they really are exceptionally talented.
But what does that change for your child?
Almost nothing.
I am much more interested in comparing a student with the player they were a year ago. What do they see at the board now? Which mistakes have disappeared? Can they play more complicated positions? Have they become more independent?
At least that comparison gives us useful information.
Sometimes Very Talented Children Progress Worse
It sounds paradoxical, but I have seen it many times.
For the first few years, everything comes too easily to the child. They solve puzzles quickly, beat their classmates, and win children’s tournaments. They have hardly ever had to really work.
Then the level of the opposition increases.
For the first time, there are children who know the opening better. For the first time, they have to sit over a difficult position for twenty minutes. They also start losing more often, and learning how to handle those losses becomes part of their development. For the first time, the homework cannot be done casually between other things.
And suddenly it turns out that the ability to work has never really developed.
Another child is used to chess being difficult. From the beginning, they learned to analyze mistakes, calculate variations more than once, and return to positions they did not understand.
A few years later, the difference in “natural ease” that the parents noticed at the beginning may become much less important.
That is why I would not want a child to hear too early, “You are incredibly talented.”
Sometimes that kind of praise creates completely unnecessary expectations.
And I Definitely Would Not Tell a Child That They Have No Talent
This, in my opinion, is much more dangerous.
The child is eight or nine years old. They are developing more slowly than another student, and the adults decide that there are no serious prospects.
How do we know that?
I do not.
Even research that tries to separate intelligence, practice, and other factors gives us a much more complicated picture than the idea of one inborn gift for chess. In research on young players, practice has been one of the strongest factors, although some individual differences also mattered.
So I would be very careful about making final conclusions about a child who has only been playing for a couple of years.
Especially if they enjoy chess.
One of the Best Signs of Talent Looks Quite Boring to Me
The child comes to the next lesson and remembers the previous one.
They did their homework. Not necessarily perfectly.
They played several games and want to show me one of them.
After making a mistake, they do not argue for twenty minutes. They try to understand what happened.
If a puzzle is difficult, they think a little longer.
Six months later, the old mistakes happen less often.
A year later, they understand things they did not understand before.
This does not look nearly as impressive as an eight-year-old finding a beautiful queen sacrifice in thirty seconds. But as a coach, I really like seeing exactly this kind of picture.
Serious chess strength is built over years anyway. Research on strong tournament players has repeatedly connected higher playing strength with large amounts of meaningful chess work, although different studies disagree about which types of practice matter most.
So the ability to learn for a long time is no less interesting to me than the ability to learn quickly.
Should a Child Study More Seriously if They Are Clearly Talented?
Possibly. But I would ask the child first.
This is an important part that adults sometimes miss.
The coach says the child is talented. The parents get excited. Suddenly there is another lesson, another tournament, a new training group, and daily puzzles.
But the child simply enjoyed playing chess three times a week.
If the child themselves wants more, that is different. Then I would gradually increase the workload and see how they react. More serious games, a little more independent work, stronger tournaments.
But I do not like turning a child’s ability into an obligation.
Talent does not mean that a person is required to devote their childhood to it.
What if the Child Does Not Look Particularly Talented?
If they enjoy chess, I would continue.
Not every child has to become a master. And even if competitive goals are important, I see no reason to make a final decision after the first or second year.
Give the child time to learn.
Look at how their chess changes. See whether independent interest begins to appear. See whether they get better at things that used to be very difficult for them.
Sometimes the answer becomes clearer after a few years.
And sometimes the question “Does my child have talent?” gradually stops mattering altogether, because in front of you is no longer a potentially talented child, but a real chess player who loves the game, trains, and keeps getting stronger.
What I Would Like to See in a Talented Child
If parents still ask me to name some signs, I would look at several things: how quickly the child understands new ideas, how well they remember them, whether they can concentrate, whether they find unusual solutions, whether they learn from their own mistakes, and, most importantly, whether they want to return to chess on their own.
But I certainly do not need to see all of these things at once.
One child has an excellent memory but poor concentration. Another calculates very slowly but is incredibly persistent. A third does not particularly enjoy training yet, but plays tournaments extremely well.
Children are inconvenient in one respect: they do not develop according to a table.
And that is probably a good thing.
I Would Not Try to Get a Final Answer Too Early
If your child is progressing quickly, enjoy it. Give them interesting problems, strong opponents, and the opportunity to develop. For parents, understanding how to support a child in chess is usually much more useful than trying to decide too early how talented they are.
If their progress seems fairly ordinary so far, I would not worry about that either.
I think it is much more useful for parents to ask something slightly different from “Does my child have talent for chess?”
Are they still interested in playing?
Are they getting stronger?
Are they learning from their mistakes?
Do they want to know more?
If the answers are yes, I would continue.
How far the child can eventually go will not be decided by the first three months, and not necessarily even by the first two years.
Chess is quite an honest game in that sense.
With time, it gives you the answer itself.
♟ Article prepared by Grandmaster and chess coach Valery Filippov ♟
📖 Continue Improving Your Chess:
▸ Why Kids and Adults Improve at Chess Differently
▸ How to Get Better at Chess: A Complete Step-by-Step Guide
▸ How to Calculate in Chess Without Missing Tactics
FAQ
How can I tell if my child is talented at chess?
I would look at more than results. Does the child remember ideas from previous lessons? Do they learn from mistakes? Can they stay focused on a difficult position? Do they sometimes find unusual moves? All of these things interest me. But I would be careful about making a final judgment after only a few months of chess.
Does a high chess rating mean my child is talented?
It can certainly be a good sign, especially if the rating is rising quickly. But I would not use rating alone. Two children with the same rating may have completely different amounts of tournament experience, training, and practice at home.
Is solving chess puzzles quickly a sign of talent?
Sometimes, yes. A child who sees tactical ideas very quickly may have a natural strength in this area. But chess is much bigger than tactics. I have seen excellent puzzle solvers who struggled in long tournament games, and slower puzzle solvers who became very strong players.
What age can you tell if a child has chess talent?
I do not think there is one age when the answer suddenly becomes clear. You can notice certain abilities quite early, but predicting a child’s future is much harder. Personally, I would rather watch how the child develops over several years than put a label on them at six or seven.
Can a child become a strong chess player without obvious natural talent?
Absolutely. I have seen children who did not look exceptional in their first years and later became very strong. A child who enjoys chess, works consistently, and keeps learning from mistakes can change enormously over several years.
