I am planning to teach several kids chess from scratch at my house in Fremont! They are aged from 5 years to 10 years and know nothing about chess now. I will teach them for free which means buying software, demonstration board or any other expenses, I will bear myself. I myself am a club A level player and one of my students are my son who is 5 years old.
Now as I have already given some background, I would like to know if there is any good chess lesson or chess software that I might use to teach them. I can guess there are many, but I am looking for something that’s easy to teach the kids. For example, once I teach them how to move, should I let play against each other or against me or against a computer software with rating set as the lowest possible? Do I teach them a little bit about end game first and then development in openings and then puzzles about middle game tactics?
Yury Shulman’s Chess! Lessons From a Grandmaster and Jeff Coakley’s Winning Chess ______ for Kids books contain lots of good teaching material. However, if you’re teaching kids as young as 5, you’ll need to break even those basic lessons into smaller chunks. Don’t talk at them for more than 5 minutes without giving them a chance to practice what they’ve just learned for at least 10.
Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess is an exceptional book for beginners especially because it relies almost exclusively on diagrams making it much more appealing to children than books with a lot of notation or even words. Also, the book begins at a very elementary level appropriate for a beginner.
Probably all of the above. Players learn the most by playing players who are substantially better than they are. But they typically get the most enjoyment out of winning. Adults may be mature enough to tolerate losing all of the time in practice so that they can later win at tournaments, but young kids are rarely that mature. So it’s best if the kids can get a mixture of learning games (i.e., games they lose) and ego boosting games (i.e., games they win).
Once you’ve covered all of the rules of the game, I’d suggest showing them some very short demostration games, such as:
g4 e5
f3 Qh4#
or:
e4 e5
Bc4 Bc5
Qh5 Nf6
Qxf7#
or:
Nh3 e5
Na3 d5
f4 Bxh3
gxh3 Qh4#
This will give them a chance to see what an entire chess game looks like, and will also demonstrate to them that it’s possible to lose a chess game very quickly if you’re not careful.
I would definitely NOT show them games as suggested here. Focus on principles and good play. Teach them basic mates, chess notation, and basic opening principles. They’ll learn about stuff like the above on their own, and if you show it to them they’ll take it as an example of what chess should be.
Since you asked, I think it may be appropriate to suggest that you take a look at the web site that I help operate, ChessMagnetSchool.com. It’s free for anyone for the first 30 days, and coaches do not have to pay for their own accounts, either.
It is the distillation of some 25 years of teaching chess - primarily to very young players, some of whom have gone very far - by Harlan Lee, a 2400+ rated player who was in the process of earning a master’s degree in education when he began teaching chess to elementary school children on the side. He has spent his life in education, while continuing to teach chess and to train chess coaches as a sideline.
What Kevin Bachler writes is absolutely correct, and it’s actually quite interesting to see how many people keep trying to reinvent the wheel of teaching chess to beginners, when there are quite a few people like Kevin, and services such as mine.
Give kids access to ways to learn, but most importantly, don’t bore them, and let them have fun playing as much as they want. Make sure each of them has a chess set they can take home or keep at home.
PS - I wonder if any child would ever get checkmated in two moves from the opening position, if adults didn’t show them an example to imitate.
The workbooks are reasonably priced enough that you can buy one for each student:
Manual Step 1 for yourself (this is essential: wonderful teaching tips!)
Workbook Step 1 for each student (and a copy for yourself).
You may wish to supplement with Workbook Step 1 Extra and Workbook Step 1 Plus
I would also recommend the CD Chess Tutor Step 1: if you order everything direct from Holland, shipping is fast.
Whatever primary texts you choose, you can’t have enough beginners’ books/software! Lots of good suggestions above: I’ve used the Rockford site myself. Chess Magnet School is a reasonable choice. Beyond Step 1 of the Step Method, the tactics exercises in Pandolfini’s Beginning Chess are excellent. I love the mate-in-one problems in the famous L. Polgar big book (usually cheap on eBay).
Dan Heisman gives a lot of intelligent curriculum advice on his website: here’s his list of recommended books. I am reading his Back to Basics: Tactics right now: also excellent, geared more to “Step 2 - Step 3” beginners.
Looking at the Rockville site reminds me to also mention that we also provide a free web-based program that teaches the basic rules of chess, with supporting exercises, in conjunction with USCF. Click on the “New to Chess?” menu item on the left side of USCF’s home page to find it.
And the program will let you play chess against a weak program - even up, with material handicaps, and even chess960 - plus practice basic checkmates and K v Q.
Also, we’ve been told that our exercise-based curriculum parallels the Dutch “step method”, and students at Belgium’s Schaakacademie Limburg apparently qualify with high scores at early ages for admission to classes at advanced steps as a result.
I usually recommend the following books to raw beginning chess players:
“Your First Games of Chess”, by A.J. Gillam
“64 Things You Need to Know About Chess”, by John Walker
“The Genesis of Power Chess”, by Robin Ault
The first book shows a number of poorly played mini-games. Contrary to what Mr. Bachler says, this approach works well with kids. Very young players (Age 4-8) have great difficulty grasping concepts of good play. They learn through emulation and repetition of good moves. Their understanding of these take time. With young players it is often is necessary to show them really bad moves and games so that they can see what can go wrong. The “Fools Mate” and “Scholars Mate” mini-games show them what not to do, much like showing a small child what happens if they touch a hot stove. The book shows what happens if one side is careless and allows dangerous moves. It also shows why it is dangerous to move pawns around the King. Little kids need to see examples of what happens when things go wrong. Over time they realize why the moves we recommend are designed to avoid disaster. By the age of 9+ they are able to grasp deeper concepts. On the scholastic level, one often sees games won and lost by failure to deal with the “Scholar’s Mate”.
I tend to like all of John Walker’s books for the beginner. They are pitched for newbies and easy to understand for parents to instruct their kids in the basic elements of playing chess. Another good book by Walker is “Attacking the King”. It shows all of the important checkmate patterns. The book is designed for players who have just learned how to play and have a wee bit of experience. The stories are appealing to the U-1000 rated player.
Yet interestingly enough, when starting with a group (not 1, but a large group) of young kids, we never did this, and none of the kids learned anything about such mates for several months and yet never fell victim to them, because instead we focused solely on what TO do, not on what not to do. This is much more productive, especially early.
Brains are not wired to “not think” about things. They are wired to think about things. Try to “not think” about pink elephants.
The group of kids, btw, went from absolute novices to winning tournaments by midyear to winning the state championship the first year they played.
Can illustrating errors be useful? Absolutely. But illustrating good play is even better, and illustrating errors work best after developing a framework for good play, since otherwise there is no solid frame of reference.
When we did finally answer their questions about the mates, it was not to illustrate how the mates punished poor play. It was rather to show how “playing for the mates” was poor play in itself, and how to punish it more thoroughly. By then, their understanding was much higher than their opponents’.
Children’s brains are wired to do many things. They can even grasp the idea of “no, don’t do that”. There are multiple ways to learn. It is usually necessary to find one that fits that child’s way of absorbing information. One method is to show, as Bob McAdams recommended, little mini-games with quick mates. Another, a la Jeremy Silman, is to show the basic or “gross” mates to teach the kids what the object of the game is and what they are most likely to see and get to do in their earliest games. It certainly does not hurt to show how “not” to fall for a back rank mate, something that happens to many newbies in their early tournament games.
Kids in the age 4-8 range, except for outliers, have difficulty with complex concepts. They have to add layer by layer of knowledge through experience of play in casual games and later, if they are ready, in tournament games. Simple tactics and patterns often have to shown to them again and again because their brains are not ready yet to make them part of long term memory and a part of their own system of thinking. By age 10, deeper positional concepts and tactics are able to be grasped and the repetition of various motifs can be lessened.
The good teacher does not impose his concept of what is “good play” or what openings his students should play. That is a matter for both teacher and student to explore to find what most suits the player. There are many styles of play and the young player should be allowed to find his own. Some kids are more tactical. Others like maneuvering. Some like to defend rather than to attack. Articles on this have been published by noted coaches and trainers.
It really doesn’t matter that some of the kids can play in tournaments and win championships. That may be good for a coach’s ego. The methodologies that I have used and seen others use is to develop the mind for other useful pursuits as well as to play chess. So you can do what you like. We have other purposes in mind and find that using multiple learning strategies have been successful in the overall development of the children.
The good teacher both imposes what is good play and what openings should be played, and then helps the student beyond that later. But in general, early opening knowledge should be more based on principles than on a specific opening.
No one argued for controlling styles.
I find this a poor and an insulting argument. We are talking about students taught properly (not automatons - not memorization of openings) but taught principles and classically, who demonstrated highly strong and consistent results over a long period of time. OF COURSE that matters, since results indicate strength and hence success of method. These students also went on to be highly well-rounded and successful in multiple areas.
I am happy to say that the many GMs and other titled players I have worked with annually for the past 15 yeas like working with me and my students because I am a believer in a classical approach, focused on principles, and understanding and classical games. We aren’t talking about wrote memorization of openings here.
I have such purposes in mind as well. I did not comment on learning strategies, I commented on CONTENT. As noted earlier, one can show errors (one MUST, in fact) but the focus should be positive, and error avoidance should not be a primary concept BEFORE a student has a grasp of important rudimentary concepts.
Having a teacher who is rigid and inflexible might work for some children, but it does not work for all. The idea that “the good teacher imposes what is good play and what openings to play,” is plainly ridiculous. Even a Seigbert Tarrasch would blanch at that conceptual approach. What is “good play” is not as black and white as you make it out to be. Theorists have grappled on this subject for decades. Even the definitions for what constitutes a combination have been disputed. Pedogogically speaking, no good teacher in a school would follow the method of “imposing” ideas. The process of discovery has many paths, not just one.
Perhaps you should study the classicists more deeply as they were quite flexible in their approach to positional ideas and the implementation of strategy. They were comfortable with the many gray areas and paradoxes of chess. Steinitz may have been personally stubborn but he wasn't stupid. Lasker was exceptionally flexible and penetrating in his analyses both on and off the board. Neither tried to impose their views concerning chess, but offered them as matters of academic inquiry. What we call "rules" for chess are the result of many years of struggle to understand the nature of the game. As Fine points out in the seminal work for beginners, "Chess the Easy Way," the rules operate most of the time, but the master knows that there are many exceptions to those rules. I prefer to teach children to think for themselves, to learn the "rules" and to be alert for the exceptions, not only in chess but also in life. Your rigid thinking structures would turn off virtually all of the kids and adults I have taught. It would certainly be a non-seller with the diverse set of parents I deal with every day.
It was never stated that the teacher was rigid and inflexible except in your interpretation.
Absolutely it is not. No good teacher would easily allow or encourage a student to start out with a Benoni, or even a Reti for that matter. The student simply cannot grasp the principles and would be left floundering. Teachers are there to teach and to show what is good, to educate. If they aren’t going to impose standards of good play, there is no point to their existence.
Since I never made it out to be black and white at all, your statement is a non sequitur.
The point is education must take place, and we teach what is good. You are interpreting this as something that I’ve not stated.
And yet we still teach arithmetic. Remember when a basic arithmetic concept was taught? 5-3 =2, but you can’t do 3-5. Then later negative numbers are introduced, and you CAN do 3-5. You can’t divide by 0, but later we show how to divide by a number infinitely close to 0.
The same can occur here.
And yet I can give a simple working clear definition to any 4 year old within a matter of hours of starting to teach them, and it is a definition that is sufficiently robust and flexible to allow for future growth. If you do not define things, you teach nothing.
EVERY good teacher would do so. Yes, I believe in the process of discovery. Yes, I believe in a Socratic approach. But the point of the approach is still to lead. And at early phases, some definitions must be imposed just to have a sensible language.
I don’t know where you are coming up with the idea that the approach I am describing is inflexible. It is very flexible.
My thinking is not rigid. Seeing that you’ve never seen a single lecture by me, I find it amazing that you would draw such a conclusion. It seems to me that by making this claim, it is you who are being rigid.
One must provide knowledge somewhere, and knowledge creates some fixed points - signposts. That doesn’t make everything rigid. But if there isn’t some clarity (and hence, some “rigidity”) the student will simply be left floundering about. At that point, one can ask rightfully - what was the point in having an instructor?
Ah, I see. You are the all knowing one. Only your method has value while all others views are suspect. Yes, I find you to be rigid and inflexible in your approach to many things and as dismissive as ever. Your path is not the only path for children to learn chess. There are other ways and other “content” for them to learn besides what you impose on your students. I am sure they do derive a degree of success; the fact that they are interested in learning chess usually is a motivation to improve in spite of how their teacher instructs them. I think what Bob McAdams wrote was valuable “content” that has its place in instruction and should not be so easily discarded; your attitude toward it dripped with arrogance. Somehow, I am not surprised.
The Socratic method of teaching, among many other methodologies, is a valuable tool in chess instruction. Kids like to explore and have their opinions valued. Over time, their analyses are honed through trial and error. They learn, understand, and remember concepts much better when they derive the solution. Has worked very well for most of the GMs in this world and all in the world of academia. As for your mathematics analogy, I remember a lecture by a Russian friend of World Champion Mikhail Tal. For Tal there were times when he could make 2+2 = 5. Chess is more than just mathematics.
I never claimed there was only one way, nor was I dismissive. What I said was that some methods are better than others. I would find it difficult for you to argue with that statement on any logical basis. (Given that your argument presented here is emotional - making claims with respect to me personally - such as being “dismissive” rather than claims about what I am saying, I can see that you are not, in fact, making a logical argument.)
In my extensive discussions with other instructors, ranging from expert to GM, the successful coaches seem to agree that a positively focused approach, based on teaching principles (including positional principles) tends to lead to the best long-term and near-term results – as well as allowing for a great deal of transference of learning. (In fact, I make this a key discussion point in some of my lectures on general chess strategy.)
It seems to me like you’re criticizing me for something that you’ve neither experienced nor taken the time to understand. If that observation makes me “dismissive” then so be it - but I challenge you to show that you have experienced and/or understood the approach that I am discussing.
Again, your comment is easily reduced to name calling. Instead of listening as to WHY I made the recommendation (a recommendation that others here concurred with) you dismiss it by saying it “dripped with arrogance”. In other words, you don’t object to what I actually say - you call me a name. I think we can conclude quite a bit from that.
Tal never made 2+2=5. If sound, what he discovered was that there was more than 2 and 2 in the position. Although practically it is not possible, on a logical level chess must be deductive. Because of the practicality, inductive approaches are forced - but one still cannot logically get more from a position than was there to begin with. If they could Steinitz and Lasker (and I dare say Morphy) would be utterly wrong.
In my teaching the kids DO explore, and do have their opinions valued. But teaching is more than allowing them trial and error. If it were only trial and error, why hire an instructor? Obviously, there is guiding going on. And yes, I talk with many of those same GMs/IMs/FMs/Masters regularly. I believe we have a high respect for each other; there are many I have worked with for over 15 years.
It appears to me that you’re making comments on something that you haven’t experienced, nor have you really bothered to listen to what I am saying. Instead, you’ve labeled me an egotist and said I am dismissive. OTOH, we can look at my responses, and see that I am actually responding to your “points” not calling you names.
Before you judge it, why don’t you at least listen to it and experience it? It may be that you’re picking and choosing the wrong nits to pick.
If setting high standards earns me a title of “rigid and inflexible” well guess what - I’ll accept that title any day.
