What’s the shortest mate exclusive of (various flavors of) the Fool’s Mate? It’s kind of amusing.
The argument above is another version of the Aagaard-Watson “rules-based” vs. “rules independence” feud after the publication of Excelling at Chess.
After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Qh4, White has a concrete reason for moving a piece twice. As long as your protégés snap the queen off, you’re doing well as an instructor. Let one hundred flowers blossom…
As usual, when anyone should have the temerity to disagree with Kevin, he claims that they are:
- not logical
- emotional
- lacking in experience
- calling him names
Then he usually “swings his thing” around talking about his success, how many masters, GMs, etc. he knows, yada, yada, yada. Same pattern of argumentation. A claim to appeal to reason but actually a long self-tribute to his own superior, god-like, belief that “some methods are better than others” as long as you believe in the way Kevin thinks. Otherwise, you are wrong. Yawn.
I have experienced quite a lot in teaching children and adults over the last thirty years. The methods I have used are pedogocially sound, research based, and have worked in practice. A number of my students and teams have won state titles. (Oh, forgot to add above that Kevin likes to point out how many champions he has produced). They have gone on to fine universities and had wonderful careers.
BTW, Kevin, I have received a number of PMs from some of your colleagues warning me that there will be a long argument with many nested responses and pontifications, since you seem to always like to get the last word. We used to have a person around here like that. We dubbed him, the Pope. So, Pope Kevin, do your level best to show how all the world is not as “logical” as you.
Oh, as an aside, when was the last time you played in a tournament, to experience what your students are going through? Most practitioners in chess coaching continue to play in tournaments so that their students can see how to behave as both a social being and as a competitor. It also provides topical material to let them see that even their instructor deals with many of the same problems they face. Dvoretsky and Shereshevsky recommended this in their books as good advice to prospective coaches.
Accidental repeat post.
Actually, that’s not correct. I didn’t claim it, I demonstrated it by showing where you did it. That which is observable is more than a claim.
Regarding lacking in experience - are you thereby claiming that you have actually sat in on a chess class given by me? Please state where and when, since the only question about “lacking experience” was whether you had actually had any experience with my teaching by which to judge.
So, yes or no - its a simple question - do you have that experience?
Funny. I can’t remember ever making a claim about how many masters/GMs I know, prior to noting that I have worked with several in this thread. None of it is a claim to superiority - it is a statement establishing fact.
Again, what does your argument above do, other than call me names, and why do the mods let this stand? It doesn’t deal with any actual teaching issues, its simply an ad hominem attack saying that my statements to establish facts are "claims of superiority.
Same here. Is there any basis on which you can argue that the methods I use aren’t fundamentally the same as the methods you use? Do you even know?
I am not a believer in letting unfounded claims go unchallenged.
Let’s instead stick to the facts. The fact is that all I claimed is that your argument didn’t deal with factual issues, in fact, it did nothing more than launch personal attacks, as does the argument here.
Where in that claim did I try to show that the world is not as logical as I am? You can attempt to make exaggerated spurious claims. That’s very easy to see through.
For the past several years I spent my time focused on a career change and on family issues including two sets of sick, aging, elderly parents. I’m sorry that doesn’t meet with you approval.
As a result of that choice, I also quit coaching in 2007. I kept it up till then because some of my grade school students were finishing high school and they asked that I do so.
As noted, I haven’t coached in several years for personal reasons, other than the annual chess camp I run. I have just recently been thinking about getting back into coaching, having had an opportunity to address some of those personal issues.
I also recently returned to correspondence chess as a way to start warming up for OTB play, and recently made arrangements to play and analyze in a tournament next month.
Again, I’d like to know why you find it necessary to launch personal attacks on issues where you clearly have no knowledge of the underlying facts, and I’d also like to know why the moderators allow this to continue.
Moderator Mode: On
All right, the topic of this thread is teaching chess to kids.
All posts in this thread need to address this topic.
I am leaving the previous posts alone, for now. Many have stepped either very near or on the line of violating the rules of this forum.
There is to be no advertising for personal services or businesses.
There is to be no attacking or denigrating of others.
This thread has enough in it as it stands. if no new and further information is available, don’t post in this thread anymore.
Ashik4chess, at some point you will probably want to consider hiring a coach or trainer for the kids. At this point you can do this work for some time using personal experience, videos, and software. But at some point, you might feel that you need help or want to expand the children’s experience especially as they get older. This is a big step and should not be taken lightly. Decide on what your and the children’s needs and goals are. Select an instructor that best matches with your child’s personality and learning style. Coordinate how much time you and the instructor/coach feel will be necessary for the instruction. Consider the attention span of the children when determinining the length of the lesson. Also consider someone who makes chess fun and has a sense of humor. Two books cover coach selection and other issues very well:
- A Parent’s Guide to Chess, by Dan Heisman
- The Chess Instructor 2009, ed. by Jeroen Bosch and Steve Giddins
Good luck!
Neither scholar nor fool: 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 Ke7!? (for creativity) 3.Qxe5# Maybe I saw this in Horowitz & Rothenberg, The Personality of Chess, forty-five years ago. (I’m 53, so I must’ve found it memorable.)
Any opinions from folks who have used Bain’s Chess Tactics for Students (seems to be good for “intermediate beginner”) and Coakley’s Winning Chess Exercises for Kids (seems to be fabulous for advanced beginners & up)?
Was 2…Ke7 played because of a touch-move rule violation? Did Black fail to say j’adoube when he adjusted the King? There are some funny games where this has happened. An interesting mini-game example to illustrate a rule.
No, but one could tell the story that way, as 2…Qe7 is not that illogical.
Here are some more short games:
Gibaud - Lazard, Paris Championship, 1924 (Both players are masters)
- d4 Nf6 2. Nd2 e5 3. dxe Ng4 4. h3 Ne3 White resigned. A smothered Queen and the Fool’s Mate theme if White takes the Knight. Source: Wonders and Curiousities of Chess, Irving Chernev
Hartlaub - Rosenbaum, Freiburg 1892
- e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nc6 3. Nf3 f6 4. Nh4 g5 5. Qh5+ Ke7 6. Nf5 mate.
Wade - Kinzel, Varna Olympiad 1962
- d4 d5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bg5 c6 4. Bxf6 gxf6 5. e3 e5 6. Qh5 e4 7. f3 f5 8. fxe4 fxe4 9. Qe5+ Black resigned.
Keres - Arlamowski, Szczawno Zdroj 1950
- e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. Qe2 Ngf6 6. Nd6 mate. A Caro-Kann trap that has nabbed a number of players over the years.
Djordjevic - Kovacevic, Bela Crkov 1984 One of the shortest games in over the board play.
- d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 c6 3. e3 Qa5+ White resigned.
These four games come from “The Batsford Book of Chess Records,” by Yakov Damsky.
There are a number of things that you can do to be successful in teaching them. A few key ideas are to get them to articulate (specifically) information, another is to use stories/analogies (the more concrete the better) and a third is to spend a lot of the intial phase on getting them to build a chess vocabulary and to undestand basic concepts.
Here are some examples to illustrate these points:
When teaching them to set up the pieces, a good story to relate is how the arrangement of the chessmen reflects a feudal Kingdom. To some extent, the names of pieces in other languages can provide both interest and assist with this story.
The Pawns, for examples - are Bauers in German - which means Farmers. The peasant farmers farmed the land outside of the castle in feudal Europe. The Rooks (as adapted to European chess) represent the towers of the castle. The Knights are positioned next to the towers. The Bishops are counselors to the King and Queen, who are at the center. This is why the chessmen are arranged this way.
While teaching them the moves of the pieces, you can stress the concept that except for the Rook (the only piece that does not move diagonally) all pieces have more available moves if they are toward the center than if they are toward the edge. This makes the piece better - more powerful.
While working on the moves, illustrate the concept of mate and focus on basic mates. Part of the idea here, of course, is to illustrate mate and the basic moves. But a key part of the idea is to teach that this is a process. Children at this age may have limited experience with a process and this helps.
Make sure that they can do all of the mates: K+2R, K+Q, K+R, K+2B. Depending on how quickly they pick it up you may have to wait a bit to work on the last one, but keep with the idea that this is a process to limit the opposing King’s available moves.
When talking about chess, use precise square names and ecourage them to do the same. This helps them to learn notation and avoids ideas being too fuzzy. If they say “Move the Bishop there” ask “Where”. If they poin ask them to SAY it.
A significant amount of learning can/does occur through articulation. This will also let you know that they really know something. Be rigorous in this. Rigor doesn’t imply mean, it just means that you will always ask, and after a short while they will be more careful about being clear about what they mean.
This aspect can also help with impulse control - kids will tend to answer the first thing that comes to mind. Getting them to articulate more specifically requires that they form a more complete thought - also allowing time for additional ideas to creep in.
Again, analogies where they have experience are helpful. For example, the 2R mate is a good mate to start with because it is very process oriented, and the mating process of moving the Rooks (at a distance) from Rank to Rank (or File to File) can be though of like a Slinky going down stairs, or like a person climbing/decending the rungs of a ladder. In this way you subtlely teach process as well as the mate. This idea can then carry forward to the other mates.
This concept of learning a PROCESS can also help with attention-span and with impulse control.
ENUMERATE what you are teaching and keep it simple for this age group.
For example, you can teach them there are 4 goals to the opening:
- Get the center (so your pieces can have more power and your opponent’s less power, like they learned earlier.)
- Get your pieces out (To establish that power.)
- Get your king safe (They know this is important from the mating tasks.
Note also that these broad goals can be reinforced repeated for both the opening and the middle game.
Now ask them what the 4th goal is? THIS IS KEY, because this is the start of them appreciating that they have an opponent. When getting them to articulate, you can lead, but avoid providing the information if possible.
Of course, the idea here is that if these are three goals that you are trying to do, what is your opponent trying to do? The same three goals of course.
So what is the 4th goal?
- To prevent the opponent from going after the 3 goals.
They will get this, and it helps frames things for them.
Somewhere in this range you will start allowing some casual play time to balance off what you are teaching. As early as possible try to get them to work on notation so that you can review things with them.
Teach them that openings have names and to use them. Teach them that squares have names and to use them. If they say something like “You know, that opening where your Bishop goes there” ask them what opening, what moves, what squares specifically. When they articulate it, they will better learn it.
Let them know that the pieces have value. The typical scale is P=1, N=3-, B=3+, R=5, Q=9. This scale will be expanded later - the N will become like 2.75-2.8 typically, the K for attacking purposes will be 2.5. Eventually (after you discuss the 4 elements of chess) you will also let them know that a P is generally worth 3 moves.
USE CONCRETE analogies, these tend to work better than negative rules. For example, we’ve all heard “Don’t bring your Queen out too early.” Besides being somewhat vague, kids have simple brains that think about things. Articulating the rule this way means that their brains will remember the concept of bringing out their queen early, and then will have to exercise willpower (perhaps without reason) to NOT do it. If a Queen move looks powerful, even if its bad, the kid may be sunk.
A better approach is that the chesspieces are a team. If your students play sports, compare this to a highly team-oriented sport. (For example, soccer is a better analogy than baseball.) So you might say “How many of you play soccer?” Several hands go up. Now you say “on your team, are there one or two players who might be really good or really fast - do you have a best player?” Generally, there is acknowledgement that there is. Now ask: “In how many of your games did the other team come out to play, but your team put only the best player on the field?” Of course it never happens. Ask why not. They’ll tell you. Get them to articulate it clearly. Repeat it back in a clear, articulate way. Have them repeat it back to you.
Then ask them - “what happens if you only bring your Queen out early?” Talk through it. Note that the development of the pieces is roughly in the order of weakest to strongest.
Get them to understand tactics - there are 5 ways to do tactics:
- Pin
- Fork
- Skewer/X-ray
- Double attack
- The Opposition (we’ll talk about it later.)
Show examples. Eventually expand the list not only to talk about the opposition (in conjunction with a simple K+P v K ending) but explain that there are always 2 ways to beat a pin: Pile-on or remove a defender.
Combinations then become nothing more than combining the 5 ways to do tactics it keeps it simple.
Concrete analogies help. Kids tend not to see lines of force early - it is the exceptional student who will do this, so you need to articulate the concept. A good way is to explain that Rooks are like cannons. If there were a cannon on the other side of that wall, aimed at you - would you feel like the wall protects you? Every kid will say no. Then you can explain that Rooks are like that - that sometimes they will force other pieces right out of the way to get at you, so that you have to learn to look through pieces.
You can continue the analogy to explain why Rooks work well at a distance: If you were in a fight up close - you wouldn’t carry a cannon with you. 
At some point explain the 4 elements of chess: Space, Time, Material and Pawn structure. Focus on the last one later, but get them to talk in terms of the elements. It forms a vocabulary and a frame of reference for all future discussions. When they waste a move they create a disadvantage in time - so that’s what their opponent should attack.
Find interactive concrete analogies to illustrate points. For example, how do you explain that a phalanx is the best pawn structure? Take 3 kids, put them next to each other. Ask them to hold their arms out in a “V” shape. Now explain to everyone that these are pawns, and that they defend each other, like barb wire. Then move the center pawn up 2 squares and watch the chest become uncovered - making a hole in the barb wire. Playfully attack the pawn, illustrating how you can get to the pawn from a direct frontal assault. This will be interesting, interactive and playful.
Remember to put everything you are teaching into context, and try to build on what they know. The phalanx material above goes back to Pawn Structure in the 4 Elements of Chess. The fact that a pawn is worth 3 moves illustrates that time can turn into material - and vice versa – and again relates to the 4 Elements.
Always find a frame of reference, and always work on getting them to articulate - on building a chess vocabulary.
Good luck. Feel free to PM with questions.
I should also note - STRESS getting them to SEE things more, and to calculate less. Everyone wants to calculate, but often it is primarily vision that needs work. A good example for this is to show how the opposition works with the square of a pawn, so that they don’t have to calculate anything, they just need to see “the T”. You can initially illustrate the T with two pencil placed on the board. This will help when you are trying to get them to SEE weak squares, bad pieces, etc. Introduce this concept early. You can illustrate that with the square of a pawn they can simply SEE if the pawn can be caught without counting moves. You can start with the extreme and show that for a 1x1 square the opposing King must be able to move inside the square to catch the pawn, and then back up from there to larger and larger squares. (Be sure that when you go to the 2x2 you show that there are 2 squares.)
This idea of SEEING what is on the board is key.
That said, TONS and TONS of tactics puzzles are important for them to see first one move, then two move, then 3 and 4 move tactics and mates.
AFTER they have played some, AFTER you have established a some initial language (goals of the opening, ways to do tactics, even the elements of chess) THEN you can start to show examples of how things can go wrong, but more importantly ASK WHY and ask them to articulate it in terms of the language they are developing.
If you want to learn to bake a cake, we’ll tell you the ingredients and give you instructions to bake a cake. After you do a couple, we may start showing you how things can go wrong. We don’t start by teaching you HOW NOT to bake a cake. Errors are shown to be errors within an established reference frame, and best of all, we’ll ask YOU to explain what the errors are, reinforcing the reference frame.
Isn’t the revised scale something like B=N=3.25, add 0.50 for two bishops, Q= 9.75? Beginners don’t need to know this; advanced beginners need to know that in the middlegame, B+N > R+P
Edit: I’m think of Kaufman’s famous CL article (referenced here). This would be a good one to have on the USCF website permanently.
Dan Heisman talks about not hanging pieces & other mundane counting skills as the basis of tactics. What is second nature to us is not trivial: the bishop on d5 may be attacked twice and defended twice, but it’s not protected if the attackers are P & N and the defenders are R & Q. We don’t think about these things, but we need to teach them.
I’m just blown away by the quality of recent instructional books. Jeff Coakley in particular is a delight: Winning Chess Exercises for Kids is so good (fresh, real world problems), but too hard for true beginners (= Level 2-3 in Step method?).
How to Beat Your Dad at Chess is wonderful for teaching mating patters, and is great fun. Many strong adult players (USCF 1600 and up) would benefit from reading these books: I’m not embarrassed to say that I’ve learned a lot from them.
There are various ways to revise this or address for compensation - my focus was on simplicity given that he’s starting out with a group of beginners.
Another trick to get kids to focus more is to multiply the scale by $100. Kids will leave a pawn go because it is only worth one. They become more stingy when its worth $100.
The Kaufman article is online here. Certainly not an issue for absolute beginners, but fascinating.
Make it fun first. If you explain something and don’t see smiling faces you have lost them.