Traducción:He jugado al ajedrez desde que era un niño.
I did some research. I believe this might be the answer.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
This website gave an explanation: .https://www.brighthubeducation.com/learning-spanish/9061-using-ser-and-estar-in-the-past-tense/
In brief, it says: "When they are not being used with adjectives or as helping verbs: "The verb estar is used for health and location while ser is used for everything else. "
Does the situation involve health or location in the past? If so, the imperfect of estar must be used and the only remaining task is the person and number.
If the situation does not involve health or location in the past but the use of the be verb falls in the "everything else" category, then there is one last question to ask: Is one a) summarizing or b) introducing an idea? The preterite, remember, sees an action as over -- it has a summarizing quality. The imperfect has an on-going quality, and is descriptive and open ended. (introducing an idea)
In addition: "Except for time of day, Don't use the preterite of estar! Why? Because although there are good reasons for using it, such as when a time of day is mentioned in conjunction with where someone was or wasn't (the preterite must be used -- it falls in the other 10%!), there are very few other situations in which the imperfect of estar could be used with no distortion in meaning."
Comments on this?
Well, it's certainly a better rule of thumb than the temporary/permanent "rule." I do have a copy of this, but I'm a little bit wary because I'm aware that it's only a crude approximation and will work in many cases, but not always, which the author readily admits here. "it is a good rule for beginners -- another one of my "90%" rules"
I have my doubts as to whether it would be accurate as much as 90% of the time. The exact percentage doesn't really matter as long as we keep in mind that we'll see many phrases that don't fit this "rule" and will need to refine our understanding.
It generally helps me to think about how I would say something in the present. For example, you learned in Basics 1 that "I am a child (or boy)" = Soy un niño. Because ser would be used in the present, it will be ser in the past also. So, that immediately eliminates all forms of the verb estar.
Then, you only have to decide if it should be preterit (fui) or imperfect (era). https://www.thoughtco.com/fue-or-era-3079735
For "I was a child" with no qualification or descriptive adjective, I've seen only the imperfect "era un niño (or niña)."
However, I've also noticed a pattern that the preterit is sometimes used when an adjective is added:
fue un niño precoz
Fui una niña prestada. https://www.amazon.com/Fui-una-ni%C3%B1a-prestada-Spanish-ebook/dp/B0799SDRM1
Disculpe a los hablantes de español, pero yo sé que ustedes no tienen ningún problema con ser/estar. Entonces, una explicación en español no es necesario.
hasta dónde sé , al= a el qué es una forma correcta de expresar "He jugado al ajedrez", yo a veces digo "a el" en vez de al, pero decir : He jugado el ajedrez me hace entender que tu estas manipulando el tablero ,aventando las piezas, pero creoque aún asi nunca diriamos "He jugado el ajedrez" o por lo menos jamas lo he escuchado, sería muy extraño.Podría ser solo en forma metaforica y poetica en cierto contexto, pero no se me ocurre un ejemplo. Basicamente sería un error usar "el" , en lugar de "a el" o "al"