
Our Chess Champion Has a Home - diego_moita
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/opinion/sunday/homeless-chess-champion-tani.html
======
Bodell
I cant remember the exact years, but I won two state championships in Idaho
somewhere between 12-14 years of age (so early 2000’s I think. I would love to
find some correlating information about this, but it seems the online records
don’t go back that far). I even tied a game with a master who was 30-40 years
older than me in a rated tournament. From what I remember I was the only one
younger than 25 in many tournaments during those times. Nothing really
happened though, it was mostly ignored, no school scholarships, no apartment,
no money. I did get alot of offers for free lessons from high rated players,
people who wanted to be able to say they taught the kid that won state. Truth
was I was raised by a single mother who never had money enough to be able to
afford things like chess lessons. I actually learned by playing “Chessmaster”
on the original play station, sitting home alone in a trailer in Texas. No one
including my mother found out that I knew how to play until a year or two
later. I quite playing after moving to a different state, around 14 or 15
years old. We continued to live in near homeless circumstances until I was 18.
“Near” is important here, as I grew older I learned about many of the small
kindnesses of strangers and friends that kept us a float in times of turmoil.

[In response to another comment here:]

America is a place where we care a lot for a short period of time about one
kid in one state winning one tournament. We really enjoy what are essentially
lotteries, and their winners (this is not to imply that chess is some sort of
crap shoot, but that simply from the perspective of the outside observer, so
many circumstances are unseen, and that which rises to the level of public
conciseness is absolutely due to luck). However, the thing in my humble
anecdotal story that knows no country borders; The thing we (in my opinion)
should be far more concerned with are the small kindnesses. The $200 dollars
loaned for refinancing, to help a single mother leave a job that holds a car
note over her head, for a better one (one that can pay for the rent and food
and a good Christmas for a son), never asking to be paid back. I really loved
this story. I would wish this kid and his family the best, but I have a
feeling they don’t need my well wishes. They will be just fine, same as me and
my mother, who both now live in infinity better circumstances.

~~~
Dangeranger
You are right.

One person's action to improve the life of another without any preconception
of glamor is far greater than the fulfillment of donating to a heartwarming
story, or hearing about a successful fundraiser.

Our (American) attention is too easily focused on the next shiny thing and we
pat ourselves on the back for cheering a worthy cause, without consideration
of those left out of the spotlight.

This story was amazing to witness, though not unexpected. We love to lift
those who embody our virtues, without reflection as to where our backs are
turned.

We could all do to learn from the lesson of Tani's family and "spread the
wealth" that which we receive, or send, to those in need who do not fit such a
story book narrative.

~~~
wallace_f
I can give a little perspectives from someone who was traditionally successful
and is kind of near the homeless thing, and experienced extreme adult
bullying, stalking, and abuse.

I don't mean to disagree with your ideas about spreading the wealth for
children which need help.

Personally I would just say I dont ever want any money from someone, but that
one place maybe our backs are turned is I would say we need more public
accountability ensuring people's rights, opportunities or freedoms are not
being violated. It seems like the ACLU and IJ are barely able to mend just
some of the really egregious, blatant abuses.

------
cyberferret
The takeaway from this story for me is the amazing loyalty of the family. To
turn down scholarships at other 'better' schools and stick with the one that
gave Tani free membership to the chess club and where the teacher that taught
him how to play works.

Plus the fact that they are donating the entire GoFundMe (which I donated a
tiny amount to last week) to helping other kids from Africa to migrate to the
US. That is 'paying it forward' in spades.

~~~
joe_the_user
Staying close to the kid's current school seems like good sense. They have
media attention and donations now but the chances are that will dry up after
some fairly short period. Using that money to put themselves in a sustainable
position can be better than trying to leverage it into the most prestigious
position.

There's a long history of child actors, homeless who do heroic deeds and
similar media-darlings later being dropped by the media and the public and
winding up in terrible situations (especially given that "people are people"
and media attention may one minute show a person's awesome side and the next
minute show their despicable side).

------
uptownfunk
The real tragedy, in all of this, is the feeling of compulsion that these
economically disadvantaged kids face to use their intellect to improve their
financial situation.

There was a kid in my statistical theory class who blew my mind with his raw
brain power. Came from Nigeria, could have easily pursued a PhD from a top
program. Perhaps gone on to do some great research.

Where did he end up..? An actuary. Why? The economic stability and progression
in the profession.

For me this is the real tragedy.

I hope this kid gets to use his gift to do something more than afford an
expensive bottle of wine some day.

~~~
GrynetMolvin
Why are you assuming that academic research is necessarily more valuable
and/or interesting than being an actuary (which can involve some really
sophisticated stats)?

The big downside of the academy is that it's basically a zero-sum game.
There's a limited pot of money, decided by the politics of the day, and all
geniuses and near-geniuses are fighting for it. The added benefit of another
smart person entering research is therefore limited.

However, in industry, including the insurance industry, a smart person can
create more growth than existed before he/she entered. The added economic
stability is not in conflict to this.

------
Dangeranger
Tani’s family has an apartment, near his current school, paid for one year by
an anonymous donor. They will be donating 10% of the GoFundMe to their church
and the remaining 90% will become a trust to help African migrants seeking
asylum in the United States.

While Tani has been offered scholarships by several elite private schools in
NYC, his family has decided to stay loyal to the school Tani is currently
attending until the middle school transition.

Tani was asked if he wanted any single material item and he replied, “Maybe a
computer”.

~~~
m0zg
> “Maybe a computer”.

Whereupon, sadly, he will discover social media, and all his progress will
come to a screeching halt due to FANG PhDs gaming his dopamine cycles for a
buck. I wish I was wrong, but looking at my 15 year old, I'm not hopeful. He
used to be pretty good at chess, too, before he started spending all his time
watching bullshit on Youtube.

~~~
rjf72
It's unbelievable this is getting downvoted, because it's 100% true and a very
major problem in society. I've taught lots of young players and success or
failure has 0 to do with intelligence. It's a matter of who can stay focused
and actually do the work it takes to improve (which at that age/level is
tactics tactics tactics). The second they "discover" social media or the
endless stream or inanity on e.g. YouTube, it's game over.

It's a big part of the reason I stopped teaching. It's so disappointing to see
somebody make such rapid progress, start getting distracted by digital
entertainment including social media, and then see all their potential
(alongside extensive wasted effort on my part) just flushed down the toilet.

\---

A sharp but, in my opinion, very related tangent is the Flynn Effect [1]. It
_was_ the observation that IQs were increasing over time. IQ tests are always
normalized such that the mean is 100 with a standard deviation of about 15.
However, Flynn observed that the absolute score of a 100 in e.g. 1950 was
higher than it was in 1920 and similarly on forward. Until the 1990s.

Sometime in the 1990s this all changed. In numerous developed nations the
Flynn Effect has reversed. Now, for the first time ever, a 100 IQ score would
be less today than in e.g. 1985 in many developed nations. And the declines
have been quite dramatic reducing on the order of 1-2 points per decade. Keep
in mind that 1/15 = 0.07. Somebody who is at the average of 100 would be ahead
of about 50% of people. Reduce that by just 1 point he's dropped 0.07 sigmas
and is now only ahead of 47% of people. And that's a population level event
recurring each and every decade!

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect)

~~~
reissbaker
I don't think there's a strong research-based link between the Flynn effect
reversal and Internet usage, social media, or videogames; in fact,
(correlative) evidence implies it's something else, because the Flynn effect
reversal actually started in the mid-70s in some countries, long before
videogames or the Internet (or its precursors) were widespread enough to cause
mass societal impact. "Kids today" have always been the bane of the kids
yesterday; I don't think their behavior or culture is the source of
stagnation, and the timelines don't line up.

The Flynn effect dropoff correlates decently well with the increasing rise of
wealth inequality in developed nations; given the fairly strong link between
IQ and wealth, I wonder if that might be a cause.

~~~
rjf72
Please do share what you're talking about regarding some sort of a reversal in
the 70s. To my knowledge all declines, and certainly anything that could
fairly be called widespread, began around the mid 90s. There was some isolated
stagnation prior to then, but I'm not aware of any consistent and clear
declines - the like of which we're now seeing.

As for wealth inequality, some of the first places the decline was clearly
measured in are throughout Scandinavia. There is compulsory military service
in various nations such as Finland and Norway, which also entails IQ testing
with public data available - provides a nice massive sample. It goes without
saying that these are some of the most egalitarian nations in the world by
most metrics people strive for today, including wealth distribution. There has
been no clear reversal of the Flynn effect in developing nations which, by
contrast, tend to have dramatic levels of wealth (and other) inequality.

For another hypothesis that some may be thinking but not want to say,
immigration is also controlled for in these studies. It's quite an interesting
phenomena that may shape the future of our species far more than many of the
issues we consider of otherwise critical importance.

~~~
reissbaker
In Denmark, the Flynn effect began declining (although didn't yet start
reversing) as early as the 70s:

> Teasdale and Owen (2005) examined the results of IQ tests given to Danish
> male conscripts. Between 1959 and 1979 the gains were 3 points per decade.
> Between 1979 and 1989 the increase approached 2 IQ points. Between 1989 and
> 1998 the gain was about 1.3 points.

I don't think that trend of declining growth, shifting into the negatives
recently, has much to do with something in the 90s; the decline started much
earlier and has been fairly linear and consistent over time.

Edit: In addition, most of these measurements have been taken from people in
their mid-to-late teens — meaning that whatever caused the decline presumably
started at least a decade before the decline was measured. TL;DR: I'm not
convinced that social media or any reasonably-modern changes are to blame:
this dates back to the Boomers or perhaps even earlier.

~~~
reissbaker
Also, an article from Slate noting that in Norway, IQ scores began declining
in 1975:

> What they found is that for Norwegians born between 1962 and 1975, IQs
> increased within each family by 0.26 points per year: Younger brothers had
> slightly higher scores than their older siblings, relative to expectations.
> (The researchers had to control for the more general fact that older
> siblings tend to have higher IQs than younger ones.) From 1975 until 1991,
> this tendency reversed, with test scores dropping by 0.33 points per year
> within each family.

[https://slate.com/technology/2018/09/iq-scores-going-down-
re...](https://slate.com/technology/2018/09/iq-scores-going-down-research-
flynn-effect.html)

~~~
rjf72
As your quote says, that study is talking about birth years, not the year they
were tested. Since it's based on conscription it's around age 19-20, so the
decline was measured between ~1994 and 2011. Your lead paragraph also states
as much:

 _"...At some point in the mid-1990s, IQ scores in these countries tipped into
decay, losing roughly one-fifth to one-quarter of a point per year..."_

------
starpilot
A tidbit about the kid's work ethic:

> “The average kids do 50 to 100 puzzles a week. (Tani) does like 500 puzzles
> a week,” [his chess coach] Martinez said.

[https://fox4kc.com/2019/03/22/homeless-8-year-old-who-
learne...](https://fox4kc.com/2019/03/22/homeless-8-year-old-who-learned-to-
play-a-year-ago-is-now-a-new-york-chess-champion/)

Pretty amazed at that effort. Far outstrips anything I did when I was 8 years
old, I believe I watched a lot of cartoons.

------
cyborgx7
Good for the kid, but the fact that he has to earn not being homeless is a
disgrace.

Not an uplifting story.

------
Leace
If anyone is interested here's the game:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3QMrf-
Rfeo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3QMrf-Rfeo)

~~~
cyberferret
agadmator is one of the few YT chess channels that I enjoy watching on a daily
basis. Love his analysis, and it has helped to improve my chess thinking and
strategy.

* Legend has it that if adagmator ever says "Goodbye Everyone!" the world will end.

------
blizkreeg
It's interesting to me how no one knows or is talking about the kid who lost
to the champ. He is perhaps equally good but lost in this game.

~~~
hmcm55
it's because the feat of winning K-3 NY State isn't that impressive. It's all
the things he had to overcome/persevere through to get to that moment. The top
players in the country that are his age are 2000+.

~~~
renholder
> _It 's all the things he had to overcome/persevere through to get to that
> moment._

You're demonstrating the OC's point: No one has any context around the kid who
lost, it seems; so, for example, did he (or she) come from an equally
disadvantaged position? If so, isn't he (or she) worthy of the same accolades
and/or help simply for getting to that point, as well?

~~~
waterpigcow
it seems unlikely that second place came from an equally or more disadvantaged
background. chess in general is a pretty exclusionary. sure the kid (tani?)
might not have been the worst off kid at the tournament but kids from higher
income schools or private schools might have an easier time dedicating time to
the study of chess. what's significant to me is the difficulty of being
homeless and dedicating time to studying anything, especially something
extracurricular like chess. it's possible that second place came from the same
place but if so you're kinda calling into question the entire premise of
champions right? like caruana and carlsen are essentially the same strength so
whats the use of calling carlsen the champion and giving him all the prize
money?

------
wslh
Does he have a Wikipedia page?

------
purplezooey
What about all the people that need a home and aren't chess champions..

------
mindgam3
What sucks is that this amazing story is being exploited by all kinds of
people to get attention and further their own agenda, including some who
should really know better.

Two days ago we had Garry Kasparov adding his two cents in the Washington
Post, including this choice paragraph:

"This heart-warming tale is also a quintessentially American one. Despite his
family’s conditions, Tani learned to play at a good chess program in an
excellent Manhattan public school. His mother took the initiative of getting
him into the school chess club, reminding any true chess fan of a similar
letter written by the mother of future U.S. world champion Bobby Fischer. (All
praise to assertive chess mothers like my own!)" (1)

With all due respect to Mr. Kasparov (or more likely, to his ghostwriter, Mig
Greengard), linking Bobby Fischer to Tani does a disservice to both players
and to the larger chess community.

First, there is nothing about Fischer’s story that is “heartwarming”. Fischer
grew up not just without a father but without even knowing who his real father
was. He struggled from the very beginning, getting expelled from school before
finally dropping out, then becoming one of the greatest chess players of all
time, captivating the world for a few years before cracking under the pressure
and descending into paranoia and anti-Semitic delusions. Fischer’s story is a
straight up tragedy. Chess players should stop using it as a shining example
of the transformative positive power of chess.

Second, to praise Fischer’s mother Regina as an “assertive chess mother” is
just wrong. A more appropriate term would be “absent”. She literally moved out
of the home and left Fischer alone at age 16, writing the following to a
friend: ““It sounds terrible to leave a 16-year-old to his own devices, but he
is probably happier that way” (2)

Yes, the chess community can make good things happen in the world, as proven
by Tani getting a home. We should celebrate this. But it can also take in
vulnerable people, simultaneously glorify them and drive them towards madness,
and cast them aside. If we want more of the good, we need to stop pretending
that the bad things didn’t happen. And we _really_ shouldn’t be rewriting one
of the greatest tragedies in chess history as a heroic tale of success, just
to cash in on all the excitement about the most positive thing to happen in
the chess world in years.

1\. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-heart-warming-
ta...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-heart-warming-tale-of-
the-8-year-old-chess-champion-is-quintessentially-
american/2019/03/22/7a2fdf92-4cd9-11e9-b79a-961983b7e0cd_story.html?utm_term=.582131ea4083)

2\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer#Drops_out_of_sch...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer#Drops_out_of_school)

~~~
gowld
Bobby Fischer started playing chess before age 16, and thanks to his mother,
and by age 16 we was well established in the community.

Blaming someone for his mental illness instead of acknowledging that illness
is often the dark shadow genius, the other side of the same coin in the brain,
is unreasonable and unfair.

~~~
mindgam3
“And by age 16 was well established in the community” Are you arguing that
it’s totally cool to leave a kid on his own, as long as he’s “well
established” in some community? That seems like a rather odd position on
parenting. Not that I haven’t seen worse from chess parents.

“Blaming someone for his mental illness... is unreasonable and unfair”

First, I never mentioned mental illness. Second, I didn’t blame anyone. Merely
pointed out that there are might be some environmental factors contributing to
a bright kid ending up with with socialization + behavioral issues, like, you
know, literally having to fend for himself by age 16.

But yeah, rather than see that kind of environment as traumatic in any way, we
could totally just point to some imagined place in his brain as the real
source of his troubles. Makes sense. /s

------
virgakwolfw
Pure JOY! I admire the sterling character that the Adewumi family has so
beautifully exhibited. It's so refreshing after the recent news about rich
kids cheating to get into college. (And shall I mention Trump's Foundation,
used to buy himself portraits of himself? ) Anyway, Tani, I see you have a
very large heart and an incredibly bright future ahead!

------
syntaxing
Say what you want about our country's current state but stories like this is
what makes America great (minus the fact the kid and his family was homeless
to begin with). It's not who you know but your talent (and some luck) that
get's you recognized and can change your life. Sure, this sounds naive and a
lot times, this doesn't play out. But these stories are still aspiring and
reminds me of the American dream we once had.

E: I kind of enjoy watching the fluctuation of the rating on this post between
positive and negative. Shows the drastic difference in mentality here.

Am I saying the US is perfect? No. There is a lot we can improve, and my
political (social or economic) tendency leans pretty left to begin with. But
you are very wrong if you think there is no mobility or opportunity here in
the US, even with the current political environment. I am an anecdotal data
point, but as a first generation immigrant that grew up in poverty here, I am
pretty certain I would not be in the lower middle class if it wasn't for the
American dream. Every single relative within my generation that immigrated to
the US are now heavily educated and work decent jobs to provide for our
families.

There is a lot of social policies we can borrow from other countries to
improve our social justice within our country. But the fact that many people
here are not even reflective with the possible opportunities here currently is
kind if of saddening to me.

~~~
moomin
And if he had a cold the day of the competition, came second, didn’t become
the subject of a news article and remained homeless?

The article itself points out this exact problem. We’ve replaced the American
Dream with the American Lottery, where only the truly lucky get to change
their circumstance. Otherwise, any study will tell you American has way lower
levels of social mobility than Europe. If you want talent to be rewarded, the
European Reality beats the American Dream very time.

~~~
Hydraulix989
Or if he wasn't picked up (or should I say, editorialized) by the New York
Times? Or if how we treat our "refugees" that are homeless vs. our own
citizens who are also homeless wasn't a highly-politicized issue du jour?

GoFundMe isn't a social safety net. Overly wealthy donors dolling out six-
figure handouts and spare prime-Manhattan bedrooms as pocket change at their
own discretion to this kid isn't scalable either.

We shouldn't treat one-off's like this that tug at our heart strings as social
progress. Just take a walk down Market Street and realize that there is still
a mountainous amount of work to be done.

And it can be done. In modern, developed countries like South Korea, there is
not a single homeless person. Come on, America!

I am very privileged; I didn't have to become a state chess champion against
all odds in order to have basic shelter.

~~~
Pharmakon
South Korea, as of last count, has 11,400 homeless people.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeles...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeless_population)

It is a tiny fraction of the total population, and an achievement, so why
bullshit about it? As for “our own kind” I’m not going to touch that for love
or money.

~~~
kgwgk
Maybe the parent comment was thinking of North Korea.

[https://www.upi.com/North-Korean-defector-says-no-
homelessne...](https://www.upi.com/North-Korean-defector-says-no-homelessness-
in-Pyongyang/8801457150974/)

~~~
Pharmakon
That’s even worse, akin to countries that claim there are no gay people there
because it’s ideologically inconvenient to admit otherwise, or anyone “out” is
summarily executed. Having said that the previous poster specified “modern
developed countries like...” so I doubt it was meant to be DRPK rather than
the claimed ROK.

