Losing so they can win

Neenie1 said:

I've seriously thought about family game night too. (although dd is not yet 3, so she won't really be interested in playing just yet, although she does love Mouse trap) I think we might schedule one soon.

Click to expand...

We started game night when OS was 5 and YS was 3 We have quite a few games now but their favorite is Peanut Butter and jelly.
http://www.amazon.com/Peanut-Butter-Jelly-Card-Game/dp/B000BYRJVS

YS and I have been one team, DH plays on his own and OS plays on his own. We each play fairly and our hardest and we've all won some and lost some

We don't deliberately let a child win (of any age). These are the strategies we use:

1) lots of games we play are games of chance, like Trouble or Snakes & Ladders.

2) we always play a game that suits the skills of the youngest player (so for eg no chess with my 4yo, since she can't play yet).

3) the first few times we play a game we play it 'open handed' and don't keep score, until everyone knows how to play.

4) we help players who need it, by offering advice or strategy.

5) we sometimes play modified rules according to the age of the children. Eg No 'going back to start' in Trouble, not playing the bonus points in Scrabble.

We think it is important for them to have the achievement of really winning, even if that takes years to achieve. Particularly important for strategy games. I refused to even play Scrabble with DS until he was 7yo, because I knew it would be too humiliating for him . Now he can score plenty of points but still not beat me, but he can see the improvement, and is sure that every time will be the winning one .

The first time I played chess with DS (I'm not a good player at all, he always plays with DH) was when he was 7yo. He almost beat me in 3 moves . It was only that he was grinning his head off and DH was giving me warning looks that I realised what he was setting up. The game ended in a stalemate and he has beaten me since. Boy does he feel proud!

lucypevensie said:

Interesting point of view. What are some examples of the kinds of games where there is no winner?

So, do you think board games like Sorry and the like should not be played by young children?

Click to expand...

I want to be clear that I don't discredit competition. It is a useful quality in a capitalistic society and I hope that my son excels as an adult in the society we live in, which means that he must be able to withstand competition and to possibly thrive off of it. I just don't want to teach this quality to him while he is still in his formative years (i.e. not until after he passes the childhood age, 12 yrs or so, and the psychosocial stage of industry vs inferiority according to Erikson). I believe competition breeds individualism and this sense of individualism is in direct contradiction to my religious beliefs. My son's salvation is more important than his societal success. I also want my son to learn to be *his* best regardless of what others "expect" or how others "feel". So, first I want to help him develop a sense of competence in himself and doing his best regardless of others and then I will be more apt to encourage him to look at others as a barometer to challenge himself to be better without being irrational in his expectations.

So, to respond, I have not entered the specifics of this all as my son is only 3. I would prefer games like pictionary (where the point is to have fun), Janga (it's fun to continue building that tower and its fun to be the one to knock it down and begin the rebuilding process), any games requiring team playing, etc.

lucypevensie said:

I've never tried bridge. Is it complicated? I have the Hoyle book of card game instructions and the bridge section is one of the longest in the book.

Click to expand...

It's actually pretty simple -- especially the "play" (each hand has two stages, the "auction" and the "play", the "auction" being a little more complicated). What makes the bridge section long is the explanations of strategies, especially of strategies for the auction stage.

I learned by playing whist first -- which is basically bridge without the auction -- and by playing it "naturally" rather than with any memorized strategies. My grandmother was an inveterate whist player, and insisted on all the old-fashioned card etiquette and turns of phrase. I still get a little nostalgic thrill on those rare-to-non-existent occasions when I hear a bridge player inquire politely "Partner, may I lead?"

Then I learned how to bid from my grandfather on the other side, who was a master bridge player but also a master teacher -- again bidding "naturally". Only then did anyone start teaching me conventions and strategy, and at that point they made a lot of sense.

lucypevensie said:

Interesting point of view. What are some examples of the kinds of games where there is no winner?

So, do you think board games like Sorry and the like should not be played by young children?

Click to expand...

Here are some cooperative games:
http://www.mrgym.com/CooperativeGames.htm

Edited to add--coperative games are games where everyone works together to "win" --there are no individual winners or losers.


Here are some cooperative board games (these are for ages 7 and up--on the same site there are two pagesof board games for kiddos 3-7)
http://childandnature.com/games7-adult.html

When I play with Kirsty, I try to keep it 50/50, my brother in law never lost games as a child as his mum would always let him win, when he started playing games with us as an adult, he would sulk if he lost! He is a lot better now though

I do sometimes. I want them to learn that they can still have fun if they lose, but losing all the time would stop them from wanting to play with me, so I let them win sometimes.

I would say it has been a balance in our house. Sometimes they win/sometimes I win. When my kids are learning a new game I take it easy on them until their skill level gets better, then my skill level will get better. My son and I have been playing chess since he was 7 years old and if I always beat him at it I believe he would have soon stopped playing the game. So through the years as he has gotten better I have increased my playing. This way he learned the game, had a lot of fun and didn't get discouraged. My son is now 12 and I have to play my hardest to beat him. We are at about 50/50 now.

With the kids I babysit, it depends on the game.

Some games like chess or checkers, kids just don't have the thinking skills to keep up, so it would be really unfair for me to play like normal against them.

I wouldn't say I let them win, but I do try to even things out the best I can so they have a chance. Say for example, if we are playing checkers, it's their turn, and one of their pieces is in danger of being jumped if they don't move it. I won't not jump it on purpose, but I won't point it out either. I just tell them that I'm gonna get one of their pieces if they don't move it and they have to find it on their own.

Sometimes if I have an older kid and a younger kid, I won't play at all. I'll let them play against each other, but I'll help the younger kid out a little. Not so she dominates the game, just so she has a better chance.

I feel that often when playing, it is helpful to play at their level. I remember when I moved back home, my sister was 10 and still cried when she lost things, so we catered to that, and she grew out of it, now she is very loving and sweet person, and she also graciously loses to my son now, we call that playing at their level, I really believe they grow out of that, if you really fight about it, the kid will eventually quit trying if they feel they can never win, I have seen that happen too, it can be very discouraging for the kid to always lose. at least give them some opportunities to be a winner and have some successes, at least some of the time.

I probably will graciously lose to my kids - she's too young to play board games and such yet.