When Should Children Start Playing Chess?

Probably one of the most common questions I hear from parents of young children is: when can a child start learning chess? Is four too early? Is six a good age? And if a child is already nine, have we missed something?

I am always a little surprised by how seriously parents focus on age itself. As if there is a certain moment when you have to put a child in front of a chessboard, otherwise some important window will close. You can feel this especially strongly today, when videos constantly appear online of very young children playing tournaments, knowing openings, and already having ratings. After watching videos like these, parents of a seven-year-old sometimes talk to me as if they are already several years late.

I am Grandmaster Valery Filippov, and I have been involved in chess professionally for many years. During this time, I have seen very different children. Some started at four or five, others much later. This is why I do not particularly like giving parents a nice and simple answer such as: “The best age to start learning chess is five.”

I do not think such an age really exists.

If a child becomes interested in chess at four, great. If it happens at eight, that is also great. I am much more interested in why the child sits down at the board, whether they enjoy it, and what exactly the parents mean when they talk about “chess lessons.”

Because showing a five-year-old how the knight moves and putting them through a one-hour training session with exercises are two completely different things.

At Four, You Can Already Introduce a Child to Chess

I am perfectly comfortable with children being introduced to chess at four or five. If there is a chessboard at home and the child starts asking what it is, I see absolutely no reason to wait another two years simply because somewhere it says that chess is for children aged six and older.

Show them.

But I would show them chess rather than immediately start serious training.

For a young child, the pieces themselves are quite interesting. There is a king, a queen, a horse, and castles. Some move straight, others diagonally, and the knight jumps around in a completely strange way. To an adult these seem like elementary rules, but for a four-year-old there is already plenty of new information here.

I see nothing wrong if the first lessons hardly look like chess training at all. Today you learn how the rook moves. Tomorrow you try to capture a few pieces with the rook. Then you figure out the bishop. If the child gets bored after fifteen minutes, you can stop.

In my opinion, fifteen minutes of enjoyment at this age is much more useful than forty-five minutes of a “proper lesson” after which the child is simply happy that it is finally over.

Sometimes parents are too quick to turn interest into education. A child asks to play chess twice, and a week later they already have a coach, a tactics app, and a training schedule. I would not rush into all of that.

I Would Not Confuse an Early Start With Early Success

There is a fairly common idea that strong chess players have to start very early. Parents read biographies of famous players, discover that this or that champion learned to play at four or five, and reach a perfectly understandable conclusion: the earlier you start, the better the chances.

That conclusion seems too straightforward to me.

We know the biographies of the children for whom everything worked out. We hear much less about the thousands of other children who also started at four, studied for several years, and then simply lost interest in chess.

Starting early by itself guarantees nothing.

In fact, I have seen situations where a child started very young and by the age of eight or nine was already clearly tired of chess. They continued because this was simply what the family had become used to. A tournament on the weekend, a lesson during the week, exercises, another tournament. Formally, the child already had several years of chess behind them, but there was not much desire to play. I discuss this problem in more detail in my guide to chess for parents, because I think keeping a child interested is much more important than simply getting them started as early as possible.

Then another child comes to chess at eight or nine and becomes completely fascinated by it. They want to play games, ask questions on their own, get upset when a lesson is canceled, and ask me to give them something to study at home.

As a coach, I value the second situation much more.

Of course, if two equally talented and equally motivated children train equally well and one of them started three years earlier, that child will have more experience. It is difficult to argue with that. But in real life, I almost never see two “identical” children.

For Regular Lessons, I Prefer Somewhere Around the Age of 6-8

If I absolutely had to give an approximate age when more systematic training can begin, I would probably say six to eight.

Not because some special chess function suddenly switches on in the brain at six. It is simply that at this age it becomes easier to have a normal conversation about chess with many children.

You can show a position and ask, “What does your opponent want to do now?” The child is capable of doing more than simply naming the first move that comes to mind. They can think for a little while. You can give them a simple problem and wait. You can look at a finished game and return to the moment where a mistake was made.

To me, this already looks much more like real chess training.

Even here, though, I have seen enormous differences between children of the same age. One six-year-old can work calmly through almost the entire lesson. Another wants to switch to something new every five minutes. And I do not think the second child is necessarily less talented. Perhaps concentrating in this format is simply still difficult for them. This is also why I think parents should focus less on age and more on how they can actually help their child improve at chess.

There Is a Simple Sign I Like More Than Age

I am much more interested in whether a child can think independently, at least a little.

Not necessarily for a long time. And not necessarily correctly.

For example, I show a simple position and ask where to put the rook. If the child immediately makes a random move, I ask them not to rush. A few seconds later, they suggest another move. Then suddenly they notice that the first rook move would simply have lost the rook.

That little moment already matters to me.

The child is beginning to understand that in chess you do not have to move a piece immediately after looking at the board. You can stop. You can check. You can change your decision.

In my opinion, this is where proper chess learning begins.

I do not expect deep calculation from a six-year-old. It is much more important to me that the habit of asking yourself a question before making a move gradually begins to appear.

And if that habit is not there yet, that is not a problem either. Perhaps it simply makes sense to spend some more time playing.

It Is Quite Easy to Overload a Young Child With Chess

Adults usually underestimate how much information a beginner child is dealing with.

To us, it seems obvious that you should not leave a piece hanging. To a child, it is not obvious at all. They have to remember how the pieces move, keep an eye on their king, watch the opponent’s pieces, try to capture something, and somehow come up with their own move at the same time.

Then the coach adds development, the center, castling, double attacks, pins, and five more new terms.

All of this can be explained. The question is why it all needs to be explained at once.

I often prefer spending an entire lesson with a child around one simple idea rather than trying to cover five topics. Let them really see a double attack several times and eventually find one themselves. The next topic is not going anywhere.

With children, the adult logic of “the more material we covered, the more productive the lesson was” does not always work.

Sometimes the best training session looks very unserious from the outside.

A Child Should Want to Come to the Next Lesson

I consider this one of the best signs of a good start.

Not the number of exercises solved. Not the rating. Not the result in the first tournament.

Do they want to do it again?

After a lesson, a child may not remember everything that was explained to them. Especially if they are five or six. I am completely comfortable with that. A week later, something will have to be repeated. Then repeated again.

But if they are looking forward to the next lesson, the coach has time to teach them everything. This is also something I would pay attention to when choosing a chess coach for a beginner. With young children especially, the ability to keep them interested can be just as important as the chess material itself.
If, after only two months, a child starts asking their mother whether they really have to go to chess today, that would concern me much more than the fact that they still sometimes forget about castling.

Sometimes Parents Want Chess More Than the Child Does

This is a fairly delicate subject because parents are almost always acting with the best intentions.

They want to give their child a useful activity. Chess looks much more attractive than several more hours with a tablet. Parents also enjoy seeing results: the child wins a tournament, receives a medal, improves their rating.

I understand all of this perfectly well.

But sometimes chess gradually becomes the parents’ project.

The child loses a game and forgets about it ten minutes later. The father remembers the loss for another two days. The child is happy with third place, while the mother explains that first place was very close. The coach gives five exercises, and fifteen are solved at home because “we need to improve.”

In my opinion, it is very easy to go too far here.

If the child wants to train more, that is a completely different story. Then I am all for it. But I would try not to create motivation artificially where it does not yet exist.

Chess may well become a serious part of a child’s life later. There is no need to decide that for them at five.

I Do Not Like Overly Serious Lessons for Preschoolers

I find it difficult to imagine a good training session with a five-year-old that looks exactly like a training session with a fifteen-year-old.

Young children need a different pace.

Sometimes you can solve a problem. Then play a small position. Then have a competition to see who can promote a pawn faster. Then return to regular chess.

If a coach can keep a child interested through ordinary explanation, wonderful. But expecting adult concentration from a preschooler seems rather strange to me.

And I certainly would not worry that the child has “covered too little material” during the first few months.

What exactly are we rushing toward?

If they are going to play chess for the next ten years, there will be plenty of time to study the isolated pawn.

The First Coach Really Does Matter

With children, I think this is especially noticeable. I have written separately about whether a beginner really needs a chess coach, but with young children there is another question that matters just as much: who that first coach is.
A strong chess player and a good children’s coach are not always the same thing. You can understand chess extremely well and have no feeling at all for how to work with a five-year-old.

Sometimes a coach gives exercises that are too difficult simply because they seem easy to the coach. Sometimes the coach talks too much. Sometimes every mistake is corrected, and eventually the child becomes afraid to make a move without permission.

At the beginning, I prefer when a student is not afraid to make mistakes.

Made a bad move? Fine, let’s see what happened.

Lost the queen? Great, now we have a very clear example of why we need to look at the opponent’s threats.

I would not want a young child to see a mistake as something embarrassing. They will make mistakes in chess for the rest of their life. I make mistakes too. Every grandmaster does.

It is much more useful to learn how to continue playing after a mistake and then calmly figure out what happened.

There Is No Need to Rush Into Tournaments Just Because Other Children Are Already Playing

A first tournament can go wonderfully. It can also be a fairly unpleasant experience.

I would look at the child’s personality.

Some children need competition almost immediately. They want to know who is stronger, count the points, check the standings, and demand a rematch after losing. For children like this, tournaments often make chess even more interesting.

For another child, the whole environment may feel uncomfortable. Strange people, chess clocks, an arbiter, parents somewhere far away, an opponent who does not say anything. They lose two games in a row and already want to go home.

I see no reason to rush such a child.

You can spend another few months playing during lessons, play games against other students, and get used to the clock. The tournament will still be there.

I especially dislike it when the first tournament becomes some kind of test of ability. A child finishes last, and the parents immediately start wondering whether they have any talent at all.

After five games?

I certainly would not draw conclusions like that.

Losing Is a Separate Part of Learning

Children have very different attitudes toward losing.

One shrugs and a minute later goes to play the next game. Another may cry after every loss. This does not necessarily say anything about their chess ability.

I think the reaction of the adults matters here.

If after every loss the parents start discussing the result on the way home, the child quickly understands that losing is not only bad for them. A loss upsets the whole family.

I would try to be calmer about it.

Yes, you lost. Was there anything interesting in the game? Where did it become difficult? Maybe next time it will go better.

A chess player who competes in tournaments is going to lose games anyway. Even a very strong one. So gradually learning to deal with losses normally seems much more useful to me than trying to protect a child from them.

But if a five-year-old is not ready to lose at all yet, I am not sure they need to be sent to competitions immediately.

If a Child Is Ten, It Is Definitely Not Too Late to Start

This is where parents often worry for no real reason.

Sometimes people write to me: “My son is already ten. Does it still make sense to start?”

Of course it does.

At ten, a child may learn much faster than at five. Something that took a preschooler weeks can sometimes be understood in a single lesson. It is easier to follow explanations, easier to read chess books, and easier to work independently on exercises.

Yes, a child who started at five and has trained seriously all those years will have an enormous head start. That is obvious. But why do we have to compete with that child in the first place?

If a ten-year-old likes chess, let them play.

I do not really understand the idea of being “too late” when we are talking about a normal childhood interest. We do not usually ask whether ten is too late to start playing table tennis if the child wants to learn.

It is different if the parents are already talking about a professional career and international titles. That is a separate conversation. But the overwhelming majority of children do not need to become professional chess players.

Rating Often Gets Too Much Attention in Children’s Chess

I understand why. Chess Rating is very convenient.

It was 1200, now it is 1350. That means there has been progress.

It was 1350, now it is 1280. Something must have gone wrong.

In reality, children’s progress looks much less tidy to me.

A child can spend several months with almost no rating change and then suddenly make a big jump. They can start playing much better, enter a strong tournament, and lose rating points. Or they can gain rating even though I am not particularly impressed by the quality of their games.

As a coach, I am much more interested in other things.

Three months ago, the student made every move in five seconds, and now they sometimes stop and calculate. Before, they constantly missed the opponent’s threats, and now they are beginning to notice them. Before, they hung a piece in one move in every second game, and now it happens rarely.

Those are the signs I consider important.

The rating will sort itself out eventually.

Parents Do Not Need to Become a Second Coach

If a child starts taking chess lessons, the parent does not need to immediately download a chess program and check homework with them every evening.

Especially if the parent does not play very well.

In my opinion, it is enough to be interested in what is happening and help with the practical side of things.

Did you enjoy the lesson? How did you play? Do you want to play some more? What was the most interesting thing today?

That is enough.

Sometimes I actually prefer chess explanations to remain the coach’s responsibility. A situation where the coach teaches one thing, Dad teaches something different at home, and YouTube teaches a third thing in the evening usually does not accelerate progress.

Supporting the child’s interest is much more useful than commenting on every move they make.

How Many Lessons Does a Beginner Child Need?

I do not think a young child immediately needs a serious training program.

One or two lessons a week seems perfectly reasonable to me at the beginning. After that, I would look at the level of interest.

If the child plays independently after the lesson, solves exercises, and asks to train more often, you can increase the workload. If one lesson is enough for now, why rush?

The number of lessons really only makes sense in relation to the goal.

Does the child simply enjoy chess? That is one situation.

Have they started playing tournaments regularly and want to become stronger? That is another.

Do they have genuinely serious competitive goals and are they personally ready to work hard? Then the training gradually becomes very different.

But I certainly would not start with the last option simply because a five-year-old won their first children’s tournament.

What I Would Like to See After the First Year

If a child has been studying with me for a year, of course I want to see chess improvement.

They should calculate better, leave fewer pieces hanging, understand simple tactical ideas, know the basic opening principles, and be able to convert elementary winning positions.

But there is one more thing I would definitely look at.

Do they still want to play?

If the answer is yes, the first year probably went pretty well.

I would much rather see a child who still plays imperfectly but runs into the lesson with a game they want to show me than a student with a slightly higher rating who is already tired of training.

Because I can help the first child become stronger.

With the second, we first have to figure out why they should continue playing chess at all.

So When Is the Best Time to Start?

I would not look for an exact number.

At four or five, you can certainly introduce a child to chess for the first time. If they are interested, you can play a little and have some lessons, but I would keep those lessons light and fairly playful.

At six to eight, it becomes easier for most children to move toward regular training. You can solve exercises, analyze simple games, gradually learn to calculate variations and, if the child is ready, try tournaments.

At nine, ten, or twelve, you can also start without worrying. There is no disaster here.

Something else matters much more to me. The child should at least want to play a little themselves.

They do not have to dream of becoming World Champion. They do not have to wake up in the morning and immediately run to solve chess problems. Ordinary interest is enough.

They want to play one more game. They want to understand why they lost. They want to beat that boy from the club next time. They want to show their coach a nice checkmate they found.

A real interest in chess grows out of fairly simple things like these.

So when people ask me when a child should start playing chess, I usually do not see much point in searching for the perfect age. It is better to take out a chessboard once and see what happens.

If, after some time, the child asks you to play again, I would consider that a much more important sign than the date on their birth certificate.

♟ Article prepared by Grandmaster and chess coach Valery Filippov ♟

📖 Continue Improving Your Chess:

▸ Why Kids and Adults Improve at Chess Differently
▸ The Right Approach to Online Chess: How to Set Up Your Playing Process from A to Z
▸ Why You’re Not Improving at Chess: 8 Mistakes You Must Fix

FAQ

1. How long should a chess lesson be for a young child?

I wouldn’t be obsessed with reaching a certain number of minutes. With a preschooler, even 15–30 good minutes may be enough. Older children can usually handle longer lessons. If the last twenty minutes are spent waiting for the lesson to end, they are not doing much good anyway.

2. How many times a week should a child study chess?

For a beginner, I usually think one or two lessons per week is perfectly reasonable. If the child starts playing and solving problems on their own and wants more chess, the amount of training can always be increased later.

3. When should a child play their first chess tournament?

When they understand the basic rules and seem comfortable with the idea of playing against other children without help. I would not rush it. A first tournament should be an experience, not a test of whether the child has “chess talent.”

4. Should parents let their child win at chess?

Occasionally making the game easier is fine, especially with a very young beginner. But constantly losing on purpose is not something I particularly like. Children eventually need to discover that losing a chess game is normal and that they can simply set up the pieces and play again.