Once students have advanced to the point that they are ready to actually learn openings, what ones should they be pointed to. I assume they should have one for white. They should also have two as black-one against e4, and one against d4. What openings do you recommend?
I would tell them to pick a great player and model their game after. It’s not the point of the opening, it’s why you do the opening and what happens later.
Simply memorizing a few lines isn’t going to accomplish anything until you figure out what the opening does.
So if they pick Kasparov, they should find a couple of books by him, then model their game around that opening, and the ideas behind that which should have more ephesis on their game.
Not sure about that, thunder. I like to teach double king-pawn (as white - 1. e4) and double-queen pawn (as black responding to 1. d4) openings to the beginners. This teaches tactics, which are very important. I see far too many kids trying to play positional openings.
The openings are very important, but prbably the best place to start is at the end(game). Teaching mating patterns with Q+K, R+K and R+R+K is probably the second thing they should be taught, the first being how the pieces move, of course.
So, the classics like:
1). Two-Knights’ Defense
2). Italian Game (Guioco Piano)
3). Ruy Lopez (take it easy on this one, as there’s so much theory to learn)
Of course, since they need to learn how to respond (as white) to the different openings black will shoot at them, i.e, Sicilian, French, Pirc, etc., I guess teaching them the basic principles of openings will prepare them best.
Sum it up: teach them tactical, open positional openings. Teach them how to gain and control space.
A book I recommend is: The Ideas Behind The Chess Openings, by Reuben Fine. An indispensible primer for the beginning player, in my opinion.
I’m not an expert or master here, so maybe one or more could jump in. Ben?
Great book.
I’m just saying, yea, you can memorize opening books, but what’s more important is to figure out what to do with that position.
Too many times when I was a 1200-1400 player, I would think, OK, my opening is done, now what? I would have no plan.
For beginners, simple is the best. After I learned a few chess basics, I decided to create an opening repertoire. I tried to memorize obscure lines to confuse ppl, but only ended up confusing myself most of the time. I switched to simple openings, ex. 1. e4 e5 (leading to 4 knights, ruy lopez, italian, etc), and had much more success.
For the openings, play with the person and see what they do. Most players find a opening they like, not knowing the name of the opening they play. When having a game with someone, they would use a opening they play without knowing the name. Find out what they understand, then point out the kind of opening they do have and then let them learn this opening.
Another good book is Yasser Seirawan’s, Winning Chess Openings. This book covers the basics of a wide variety of openings in an easy and enjoyable manner. Excellent for beginners.
I remember Josh Waitzkin being asaked what would be a good opening for a beginner to use, and his advice was to not concentrate on the openings so much as to study endgames.
He said he found a lot of players would learn maybe 10-12 moves of the opening and then not know what to do to get into a favorable endgame. Once he started working on his endgame more he improved a lot. And knowing how to get into a good endgame helped him work out strategies in his middlegame.
Radishes
Learning the opening is very important, just as much as the middle and endgame. Would take the idea of the opening as the say way IM Finegold could state it: “You can study the opening as much as you want, the other player does not have to play it.” If just dealing with book openings, the other person can take it right out of book on the first few moves. From a direct quote from FM Lindsay: “New move wrong move”.
Finding the error of the player, not the out right blunder (out right blunders – as they are so clear) but the small blunders. It is only a blunder, if and only if the other player can or is willing to take full advantage of the board.
An interesting subject. Many of the ideas given here are terrific. The problem is trying to apply them to such a broad spectrum of experiences.
I come from the perspective of teaching mostly elementary school children (under 1000 rating, most under 600). Having taught chess for over 30 years I have developed a number of effective teaching strategies for beginners. I begin teaching as Capablanca recommended, with the end-game starting with Kings (the most important piece) and pawns (the most difficult for beginners to master). I add the Rooks, Bishops, Queens, and Knights in that order through a series of specific lessons and exercises. I should mention that all my students learn to record their moves early in their instruction.
Once they have mastered (a relative term) how the pieces move I present a curriculum of general opening principles distilled from many classic sources. It is called ]“7 Things To Do in the First 10 Moves.” [/i] The summary of this curriculum is available at no charge as an e-mail attachment and is very handy as a handout for new players. It is an introduction to the idea of “specific openings” which presents things that many openings have in common. Here is a summary:
7 THINGS TO DO IN THE FIRST 10 MOVES
(Summary)
Develop:
both center Pawns (2)
both Knights (2)
both Bishops (2)
castle (1)
• The order in making these moves is variable. There is no “right order.”
• Every chess maxim or general directive advice that you hear carries an addendum (usually unstated) “…unless there is a good reason to do otherwise!”
• When playing the white pieces pick either 1. e4 or 1. d4 and for six months use only that opening.
• When playing the black pieces I recommend picking one particular response for 1.e4 and one for 1. d4.
• Moves such as 2. c4 in the Queen’s Gambit, 1. … c5 in the Sicilian Defense, and g3 or b3 (or the corresponding Black moves) in order to place a Bishop on g2 or b2 (“fianchetto” the Bishop) are normal and popular. That’s why ten moves are allowed for in achieving the seven things.
• Develop Knights before Bishops.
• Develop Knights to their “best” squares, c3, f3, c6, and f6.
• “A Knight on the rim is grim!”.
• Bishops, unlike Knights, do not have a “best square”. The best place for a Bishop must be determined during the course of play.
• Most players consider Bishops to be slightly stronger than Knights (especially two Bishops as opposed to two Knights in an endgame).
• Castling removes the King from exposure in the center and at the same time develops one of the rooks, preparing for the “middlegame” where players struggle to gain further advantage and bring their “major” pieces (Rooks and Queen) into play.
• It is more important to castle early in an “open game” (where center Pawns have been traded creating “open files” for Rooks or the Queen to occupy for purposes of attack). In a “closed game” (where the center Pawns block the files) castling may be delayed but is still advisable. When castling has not taken place the Rooks are more difficult to “connect” (place on squares where they protect each other) and coordinate.
• Cooperation between Queen and Rooks may be more difficult when castling has not taken place.
Related are some general principles:
SOME OPENING PRINCIPLES
There are a number of general principles involved in the opening of a chess game. The following opening principles are well known and have been condensed from many sources.
• Initially White has a very slight advantage because he moves first.
• White’s opening problem is to develop and increase his advantage.
• Black’s opening problem is to develop and achieve equality.
• Develop quickly and with a plan.
• Develop to get control of the center.
• Develop minor pieces before major pieces.
• Learn the “7 Things To Do in the First 10 Moves” and try to do them.
• Try to develop with threats.
• Two threats are better than one and three are better than two, etc.
• Seize, or maintain the initiative by the use of threats.
• Don’t move the same piece twice if you can help it.
• Don’t exchange without a good reason (What are some good reasons?).
• If you must exchange, try to develop a piece.
• Don’t make too many Pawn moves or useless Pawn moves.
• Don’t develop your Queen too early (What is too early?)
• Don’t rely on traps but be aware of them.
• Always assume your opponent will find the best reply.
• Become aware of “tempo”. It’s very important in the opening.
• Your task in the opening is to reach a playable middlegame.
• In “open” positions King safety is paramount.
To improve your play:
-
Know all the rules (including castling and “en passant” pawn captures.
-
Learn how to read and write chess notation and then record the moves of your games. This is fundamental!
-
Play through your games. Seek to identify errors (from both sides) so you can avoid making similar ones in the future.
-
Play over other games from books and magazines. Identify both good and bad moves and learn from them.
I hope this may be useful. I think this site will prove to be very useful as it becomes better known.
The kids in my elementary school chess club find it difficult and slow to record their games, thus, they don’t like it.
I taught it to the group of them trying to get their Cub Scouts Chess Pin and a few others, but mostly they didn’t want to do it. I taught it again to the more advanced players in grades 4-6.
The question is this – in your elementary school chess clubs, do you make it less fun by making them record their fun games, do it just for tournaments, just over a certain grade level, or what? Any suggestions? We have kids in grades 1 though 6, so certainly the 1st graders should probably be excused from recording…
I don’t want to make it less fun or discourage the kids who are just learning. (note: I have heard that some schools with professional instruction do just that, make it less fun and more work.)
Dorothy
I think honestly most kids at that age don’t really care about learning, they just want to play and see who they can get in the 4 move mate the fastest.
Just from when I remember being in school (about 15 years ago), it was extremely boring since being more advanced than other students, I didn’t get anything out of any broad instruction in the classroom. If I were to teach, I would let the kids learn what they want to, and let them go from there. Trying to teach beginners and skilled players at the same time is impossible.
LOL – I do have some kids who, even when told not to do that, do use the Scholar’s Mate on everybody they can… and they either win games or get killed when they run into a stronger player (particularly from another school).
I have them separated into 5 groups from beginners (we call them Pawns) on up. Our rating scheme is this: if you don’t know the moves, you’re a Pawn. Then you’re promoted to a Knight (and get a new badge with a Knight on it). 25 points and you’re a Bishop, 50 and you’re a Rook, 75 a Queen, and 100 a King. That takes most of the school year and we got a handful of kings last year out of 70 kids. I give points for wins but also for other things, like watching a video or recording a game (1 point for the 1st 20 moves, 2 points if they stick it out through the entire game). Points are popular.
I think that at least some of the kids would be interested in getting rated if I could figure out how to do it. What is the “critical mass” of rated kids I would need to find in order to run a tournament and get the other participants rated? Can you do it with 10%? 50%? …
Thanks,
Dorothy
Dorothy (if I may be so bold),
Hey, I like your idea of awarding points to your kids and will have to try that in my scholastic clubs!
Now I have two clubs, one for 5th and 6th grades and the other for 7th and 8th. Most of the older kids have already been through basic so I have to challenge them. I have started letting those who just want to play do so during club meets, but then set up the demo board in another part of our meeting area and those who want can listen in.
As for scoring, I have had the same problem. Once again, I really like your idea of awarding points for doing this. I haven’t asked them to record games during club meets, but am thinking this is really the time they should be learning the skills needed for tournament chess, besides it being good for their own development. Most of the scholastic tournaments I’ve been to don’t require notation for those in K-3 grades.
As for ratings, you should check out some of the free material on the USCF site. I seem to remember a simple rating calculation that can be used for small groups that has nothing to do with USCF ratings, but is good enough for clubs, and simple enough some of your math whizzes could work it out themselves!
Radishes
The rating scheme I use is simple but different from USCF:
3 points for a win
2 points for a draw
1 point for a loss
That way even the kids who don’t win aren’t sitting there with a zero… and they get points for the experience.
25 points = Bishop
50 points = Rook
75 = Queen
100 = King
It takes them the entire school year to become a King and only some of it make it.
But we have done this for a year, so the kids who were Kings last year are ready for advancement, and I think that should be USCF ratings in addition to what I’m doing, which is working towards a gold king vs. a brown king.
I put their rank on their badges with their name (helps me learn names and also do quick pairings). So I try to have Kings play Queens or Kings but not Pawns or Knights…
I just built a little Access database to pair kids for their first match each week, then after that I re-pair on the fly as games finish. We record results on a scoresheet that I then key in before the next week, and I post a printout of everyone’s scores on the wall.
Also I calculate their “win ratio”, which is in some cases a better indicator of performance than just a point tally where some points are for losses.
So I have a pretty good idea of who is a stronger player.
But now I want to move on and try some rated tournaments.
Okay, I must admit I think I’ve misread what you are trying to do with your club. You want them rated because you already have an idea who the strong players are in your club, right? And you want them to be USCF-rated instead of using a separate rating system?
It’s great if you can get them to join the USCF, but even then you might have some kids who can afford it and some who can’t. That’s the situation in my clubs. But say you can get them all to be USCF members. Then you can enter them in USCF tournaments, hopefully scholastic, and they would get USCF-rated.
If you wanted to run the tournament yourself, then you would also have to become a USCF member, read the rulebook, and follow the steps to become a club director.
Or you could just do as I first suggested and that’s set up your own rating system and do it that way. Using software like SwissSys or WinTD would help establish ratings for your students as they played tournaments you directed using the software.
You had asked about how many others would you need to “seed” the ratings. I would ask around the other schools or contact your local chess club and ask about students in K-12 who are USCF members. Choose them to be in your tournament to help establish ratings. Then all your students could be unrated and play against rated players in a non-USCF tournament. The USCF members wouldn’t mind because they wouldn’t be losing USCF rating points, and your students would be able to better gauge where they stand. I don’t think you need a certain number, but it would be best if you were able to have a third of your total number of tournament players be USCF rated.
In the above scenario, you would probably need to have a six-round tournament to spread the rated players around. Which means a weekend event unless you could get the USCF members to agree to a different schedule. If you have 30 players and ten of them are USCF-rated, in a six-round tourmnament enough of them are going to get around to playing most of your unrated students.
I hope this helps. Use all advice with caution. Your mileage may vary! 
Radishes
PS Check your messages.
Dorothy,
You might also try the JTP program for tournaments ran within your own school involving your own students (students from other schools would not be allowed to participate in order fro your students to get the JTP)
The following is from the USCF website: uschess.org/ratings/info/events.php
------ [b]Home-School, Scholastic-Only Events; and Primary-School-Level Events
There are two exceptions to the USCF membership requirement: [/b]
-
Home-school, scholastic-only events (all players are from the same school, which is the site of the tournament).
-
Primary-school level tournaments, or primary-school sections of larger events, with the exception of the National Scholastics (“primary” means grade 3 and below).
In these cases, participants may choose the Junior Tournament Player (JTP) option, available to anyone 20 or younger and grade 12 or below who has never been a USCF member.
JTPs pay no membership dues and receive no benefits except for a USCF rating. JTPs may not compete in rated events outside of their home school unless they become USCF members. Chess Coach certification is all that is needed to be a TD (emphasis mine) of a home-school, scholastic only, and primary-school level event (except the National Scholastics; call or write to the USCF Scholastic Coordinator to receive a Certified Chess Coach application).
The TD should complete a JTP registration form for each player choosing this non-member option (who has not already been JTP-registered) and should forward the green copy to USCF. The number on this form becomes the player’s permanent USCF ID number, and must be used on rating reports. Please note that former USCF members under age 20 retain their previously assigned ID numbers. TDs, coaches, and organizers should keep ID number records for future reference.
Every effort must be made by coaches, TDs, and organizers to insure that players are issued only one ID number. Cases of players being issued several ID numbers under different names (such as J. Frederick Smith, Freddy Smith, and Jonathan F. Smith) continue to cause serious rating problems.
Although the JTP program is useful in exposing new players to rated chess, TDs and organizers should make every effort to encourage USCF membership, especially for those who have already experienced USCF-rated competition. ------------
Also, as indicated in the emphasis above, Chess Coach certification is all that is needed to be the TD. I don’t believe USCF membership is required for this certification, as it is with a club TD (I may be wrong about that, though). USCF affiliate dues would, however, be required for your school.
Terry,
I like this idea, too, and the JTP program must be the most secret program USCF has! But I have to ask, does this mean then that holding a tournament within the school club that currently has no USCF-rated members can be done?
I’ve heard of non-rated tournaments before, but to have all players unrated wouldn’t work, would it? And if they did join USCF, I suppose they would keep their ratings, or would they have to start over again?
And from what I understand, the Chess Coach Certification costs $5 and that’s all it takes to get this piece of paper; no test, not even a requirement to read the rulebook, unlike the Club TD requirement.
I think I need to look into this some more!
Radishes
I think they should learn several openings for white and black, not the moves but how to play them. And once they have a specific style chosen then they can memorize the moves etc. Me, I like to take risks and make the game fun. My style is Sicilian for black and Kings Gambit for white.
There is always a perrennial objection to “memorizing moves” that is cited for “beginners”. There is even a post here where mention is made of “when I was rated 1200” etc.
I’m sorry, USCF rating of 1200 is NOT a beginner. Beginners are lucky to have a rating of 500, let alone 750, and they cannot even compete with a player rated 1200.
My objection to prohibitions against memorization are that they always come from chess players, who can play from memory, their game of choice, with routine responses. In fact, the first thing I did to improve was to learn the first 5 or 6 moves in Giucco Piano scenarios. Then Sicilian scenarios, then King’s Indian Defense Scenarios. Without the memorization, I would not even have been competitive. So for me, the frequently cited prohibitions against memorized moves are redundant.