I believe you are missing the point. There are players that take an opening book to memorize it without understanding the principles behind the opening. Beginners should not be taught the moves of an opening without the inclusion of the “why” for each move within the position. When I blast off my openings that I’ve been playing for 15 years, it’s not memory, it’s experience and understanding what I want my pieces to do within the context of that opening. There is a difference.
Also, keep in mind that when some of us were beginners, players under 1000 were very rare. And 500 level players did not exist.
We have similar problems with scorekeeping with our group. But you’ve got to get them to do it.
I’ve found the best reward is to promise them 10 minutes of bughouse at the end of your chess club session if they all keep score without grumbling.
Also, get them simple scorekeeping pads with nice big spaces in them. Kids write large, and messily.
I’m told the recommended pattern is: figure out the move, then write the move down, then check the move, THEN make the move. That’s what you’re moving them toward. If they miss a few moves, tell them to keep going.
Another coach who’s been at it a long time has told me it’s a waste of time to send them to rated tournaments unless they keep score. If they don’t keep score, the coach has no idea what’s happening during their games. (I think by this he means third grade and over.)
There are a number of coaches that have this same rule. Have watched a number of scholastic players, keeping score when they are in time trouble. For each coach there are a number of personal rules, like the two major ones: keeping score and always play till checkmate. Did talk to a personal friend of mine when this came up, he told me if they do not keep score or play till checkmate they are off the team.
Interesting. I’d stress the same, but I don’t think I’d kick a kid off the team just because he lost his place and his opponent didn’t want to let him copy his score sheet (or wasn’t keeping score). Still, I guess that is a good way to stress how important it is. Although, personally, I wouldn’t threaten to do something I don’t plan to do. But, every coach to their own liking. Would you advise to continue keeping score even when five minutes are left? I personally, at the scholastic level, will stop keeping score as soon as my opponent stops because he/she is feeling the time pressure (I don’t think I have ever reached the last five mins in a tournament game and wound up with less time - I just play too fast I guess)
I may miss the point Jeff; but respectfully, I hold fast to my reasoning and conclusion, which is that prohibitions against memorization is a (and I pick my word carefully here...) redundancy.
For one thing, if a player does not learn the PRINCIPLES behind the moves in any opening, you will defeat them in a game Jeff. Therefore, the prohibition against the other fellow memorizing means ?_?
The prohibition is almost a megalomaniacal injuction that all players must be required to win 100% of the time, or else. [Yet another redundancy].
Jeff, I think anyone can lose, by not understanding principles behind openings at all, and perhaps players will learn or not. There are thousands of chess books repeating the same perfectionist and absolutist redundancies.
Besides prohibiting Memorization, what if there were stated some absolutist prohibition against playing with Intuition? or Imagination? or even just plain old "carefree exuberance"? Such prohibitions are hardly useful and worse, they become so constraining as to be devoid of rational meaning.
If one pauses to consider the memory feats of Georges Koltanowski for example [Blindfold Simuls, Knights Tour, etc] they will all be seen to rely upon memorization.
On my behalf, I teach beginners chess, and what I would like to see is more beginners taking on faith the recommendations about openings, instead of disregarding all chess principles, and attempting to RE-INVENT-THE-WHEEL every time they sit down at a chess board. Their play would much improve by simple memorization of 6 or 7 moves just to start.
I must emphasize that all of this would be merely PEDANTIC and silly also, were it not for the unclear language as to the definition of a BEGINNER. This was the reason I pointed out that anyone rated 1200 is NOT a beginner. The majority of players in the Denver Chess Club are well ABOVE USCF 1200. Players from 800-900 are hardly beginners for that matter.
My contention is, if a great many of us appoint ourselves chess instructors and going about repeating prohibitions against MEMORIZATION
we are creating far more confusion than we are sense for actual beginners. It only makes logical sense if removing all memorization creates a spontaneous grasp of lofty principles which produces innovative and dynamic play. Huh-uh. That isn’t what happens with people. They do not produce much spontaneity and innovation until they acquire basic structures from which successful tactics emerge.
As I see it, the only beneficiary from prohibitions against memorizing moves are advanced players who win because beginners haven't a clue which piece to move at any given time in a game, and who must struggle to pull a perennial Rabbit-out-of-the-Hat-of-Principle.
Have no wish to build a scholastic team, dreaming what I would do with the team is a fantasy.
If someone is a scholastic player, I’m not going to force them to use a scoresheet if they do not understand how to use it. When a adult is paired with a scholastic player, will give the kid a number of breaks. Like the touch move rule, illegal moves and keeping a scoresheet.
If a scholastic player has less then 5 minutes on the clock, they have the right not to keep score. Very few scholastic players ever get into time trouble. If a scholastic coach tells their student to always keep score, they might not understand time trouble, or feel the student will not get into that problem and informing them would confuse the student.
With the coach wanting a full scoresheet so they can go over the game, is a job that sounds simple but harder then most people understand. After the tournament can go over all the scoresheets, only a few will be understood for all the moves. For any director, going over the scoresheets of the tournament will take a number of hours. Out of that, only a small number will or could be fixed to understand the whole game. This is with adult players, not the scholastic players that have less skills in notation.
You’re kidding, right? Just because someone is a new player or a kid, they don’t have to play by the rules? If I went to your tournament and you told me the kid I was playing didn’t have the rules applied to them, I’d report you to USCF.
ANY new player must follow the same rules. Touch Move, Illegal Moves, etc.
Well Thunderchicken, if you came to my tournament and paired up with a scholastic player, if you want to treat a child like a adult I have no right not to stop you. If you want me to enforce a touch move or illegal move, you have that right to make a claim. If you want me to enforce a rule with a scholastic player, you have to make the claim. If you’re paired with a child that does not understand the scoresheet, will take the 5% off the kids clock if you make the claim.
As a director, I cannot enforce the rules of touch move or illegal moves unless someone makes a claim. When a adult is paired up with a child, and the child is learning the rules of touch move or illegal moves – the childs rating should be around 100 - 500. Most adults feel they are going to win a game against a kid like this. The child is going to feel bad because they know they are going to lose the game, making the kids self-esteem feel bad for a few hours. Enforcement of the rules, is just going to lower that self-esteem greater. Most adults when paired with a child with a rating between 100 - 500, would find getting that two extra minutes for each illegal move as an over kill.
When I said touch move or illegal move, I was talking with scholastic player paired against me. For a few scholastic players, if having the time will place them in a extra rated game if they would get a bye. I do not mind being in a extra rated game against a child, if I have the time. Knowing adult players would find being paired with a child as not the pairing they wanted.
Do you give children special rules if they want to play like adults? Heck No. If a child wants to play, they have to follow the rules of the game. Taking notation is one thing, since it’s not required if they don’t know about it.
If you allow a child to play on a men’s basketball team, do you let him travel?
Under your logic, just because they’re new, they get special rules. I guess a 50 year old guy who is rated 100 doesn’t have to worry about touch move either.
If you watch scholastic players play chess, you will notice illegal moves and players touching everything. As a director I cannot say a word when a illegal move happens, or anything. Have watched scholastic players make illegal moves for white and black, there is nothing I can do to stop them. If they do not make a claim I have no right to correct the board.
When a adult is paired with a scholastic player, if the child makes a illegal move most adults just say thats illegal and tells them why. If you’re paired with a child that is learning, check rule 1C2, 1C2a and 1C2b on page 2 and 3.
That’s still no different, a child versus an adult. Just because someone is 8 shouldn’t get special rules. I’ve played against adults and children just learning the game, and I treat everyone the same. They’re not going to learn unless they know the rules. Period. So if the kid touches his queen, he has to move it. That’s the only way he learns.
Guess what, I TD’ed a national championship in which a current GM touched a piece and lied about it. Since I observed the game, he was forced to play that move, which ended up as a stalemate. He was 8 at the time. But according to you, since he’s a kid, it’s okay.
Two scholastic players playing against each other isn’t any different. If one makes an illegal move, the other says something, big whoop. That’s what a TD is for.
But if you want to make special consideration for kids, go ahead.
I re-read the entire thread and there was never a statement of “prohibition against memorization” only, but statements that underlying principles should be taught along with teaching opening moves. I think you are taking the statements out of context. I don’t see what about these statements has you all worked up.
It means focus on teaching principles first and when teaching an opening include the principles of that opening. Don’t just teach them 5-6 moves of the opening and send them to the wolves.
Now, you’re just reading something into these statements that’s just not there. When I work with beginners, I tell them that the best player in the room is generally the person that has lost the most games. They have taken their lumps and have a better understanding of chess principles because of it.
Are you claiming that Kolty’s understanding of chess had nothing to do with it? I don’t think that these were pure memorization tricks.
This statement makes me think that you did not read what I wrote. I think you are making a mistake to have beginner follow your openings on faith only because they will not know what to do after your 6-7 moves. What happens when their opponent does not follow your sceme?
I never said don’t teach openings, I said teach the “why” also. If you teach them to make these moves because of central control, piece development, king safety, etc., your students will be better able to handle the resulting positions. That is all I am trying to say, nothing more.
I don’t think you can just put a number on what is a beginner. You have to look at the individual and understand their grasp of the game.
I actually think the statement of no “memorization without principles” should be pointed at instructors and mid-range class players, not beginners. To the class player, don’t just memorize a bunch of opening lines from a book, understand what your pieces need to do within the context of that opening. To the instructor, it means teach understanding, not just memorization. The beginner is generally relying on the instructor to guide through their development in chess and the instructor does the player a disservice by not teaching principles.
I am not much of book-opening player; I know my game and try to steer openings into positions that I know. Several years back, there was a B-player that I played probably a half-dozen times over about a 3 year period. He would always get an advantage out of the opening because he had obviously memorized the opening lines. Once we got past the opening, he did not understand what he needed to do with the position and I was able to win every time. He wasn’t a beginner, but he could have benefitted from taking this advice.
If I take some of your statements here out of context, I could say that you are against teaching chess principles to beginners. Just have them memorize a couple of opening moves and they are good to go to the next tournament. But, that would be taking your statements to an illogical extreme. Hopefully, my post makes it clear that you have taken this “memorization” statement somewhere that it was not intended to go.
I completely agree with thunderchicken here. If a kid is ready to play in an adult tournament, then he’s ready to play by the rules, no matter what his rating is. I think that it is very sad if we are so worried about “self esteem” that we allow kids to cheat. I hope that’s not what is being suggested here.
Do know a child around 8 years old, he still place his fingers in his mouth during the game. He puts his fingers in his mouth then makes his move. Some times he touches one of his men then move a different piece. He will also not hit his clock all the time. He does use the scoresheet at this time. Not myself or anyone have made a claim against him.
If a adult was having his fingers in his mouth then move the men on the board – it would be annoying. If the adult was touching his men, and doing it a number of times – it would be annoying. If the adult was not hiting the clock after the move – it would be annoying.
Just to be equal with both age groups, would have to forfeit the game and expell the players from the tournament. Treating both as equals, that would be very harsh on the child.
What national championship and what 8 year old Grand Master?
If a kid I’m playing against puts his hand in his mouth then moves the pieces, that’s like me picking my nose then moving it. You can’t make special cases just for kids. You don’t think that’s annoying, do you?
You should tell your 8 year old friend to learn the rules. Then get a grammar check for yourself.
Child labor laws, laws to prevent children from having a drivers license. Laws to prevent children from drinking, or getting married, or joining the military, or getting a rifle. Myself do not find them annoying.
Society has moved away from being innate and absolute. There are a number of children that have the mental skills to understand the rules at full understanding. There are children just learning to read and write, and bringing up a rule in the book is not going to help them. Treating the rules of chess as being innate, is the most unrational argument anyone could make.
There are 3 year olds able to make a move, it does not matter who is on the other side of the board. If a parent wants to bring their 3 year old to a tournament, I have no right to tell the parent and child to go home. If Thunderchicken is paired with a 3 year old, would hope he would accept the 3 year old as a child with different standards. For Thunderchicken age does not matter, making chess as innate and always right and wrong. Thunderchicken should win against a 3 year old from the start, force punnishment on a 3 year old for not understand the rules of chess is very heartless.
Hey, making a 3-year-old play in a tournament when he doesn’t understand the rules is heartless.
I know adults who think their kid is great because they know how the pieces move, but it’s cruel to put them in an environment where they don’t understand what’s going on. I would be more likely to give the parent a piece of my mind for not preparing their child and letting them suffer. I don’t care about their self-esteem so much as I worry about them seeing chess as an unrewarding and agonizing game and think there’s something wrong with the game itself.
We shouldn’t let any child go out into the world unprepared, and yet some parents think nothing of doing so.
There is one child that has a better rating them myself and some day will be a master. Know a few children that play very well for their age group, and will be the next generation of strong players. Parents are moving into the non-scholastic tournaments, as they know thats the place to win rating points. There are parents willing to have their child be trained by FIDE titled players, talking at the age of 6 to 17 that I been with.
There are parents that drop their child off as its’ the only chess tournament in town. Organizers/directors have a huge problem with it, as it has made the tournament as a day care center. There is no rule for a director to say I’m sorry he is to young to play. In fact its’ illegal for a director to reject a player on the grounds of age. Do not know just looking at someone with a UNR how good they are going to play.
If a child is learning the game, and most players are not going to be rude to a child if the opening is 1. e4 h5 2. d4 Rh6 3. Bh6 gh6 and down the road the kid touch everything. Would talk to the parents about some scholastic events, but not going to punnish the child.
I am not dreaming about what I would do. I used the future tense because my team has not been to a tournament yet. Everyone that comes in my doors will be taught notation right after they know how t mvoe the pieces wether they want it or not.
You mention begining scholastic players having a rating of 200-500. Most of the players I have seen go through my system easily have a rating of about 500 after their first tournament (maybe 2-3 months of practice first). Why? Because they write the games down
I learned how to write my games down when I was about 13 (when I started going to a chess club in Mexico). Ever since then, when playing a serious game, I will write it down. Why? Because I know it is not hard to do, and I know that it helps my game. I am going to make sure that the kids I teach know how important it is, and I will make sure they at least try to write their tournament games down.
As far as the rules are concerned, I’m not real sure what the rules are (I get confused with USCF rules and rules that the organizers in Mexico made up), but let me say this. If a kid wants to play in an adult section, he aught to abide by adult rules. If his adult opponent feels sorry for him, and doesn’t enforce the touch-move rule, reminds him to hit his clock when he forgets, and doesn’t complain about the kid not writing it down, then that is fine. But if he isn’t that nice to him, and wants him to play by the rules, then the kid must play by the rules. Rules were made to be obeyed, not to be bent/broken.
Anyway, that is my opinion on this sizzling debate
When thinking of my first year of going to chess tournaments was back in 1980. Being at the time 14 years old, Jackson Michigan is not a big city with a huge amount of tournaments. During my whole scholastic years, never went to any USCF scholastic events. I’m not even sure they called them scolastic events back then. For years always went to events and paired with adult after adult. During my scholastic years did understand notation, and my first notation I understood was computer notation.
Scholastic events have changed a great deal in the last 25 years. Scholastic events are not as common as most people think they are, as its’ run during the winter season or early spring. Only a few organizers/directors are willing to perform such a task. The larger scholastic events are only once a year. When a scholastic student does go to a scholastic event, they have a coach and go to the scholastic chess club.
For the scholastic chess players I’m talking about, not understanding the rules of chess. I’m talking about the scholastic player and the parents, never till the day of registeration know the USCF was an organization. They never went to a chess club. Never even seen the book not to speak read the official rules of chess. Have no clue what a chess clock even looks like. Not even know about chess notation and its’ their first time they even seen a scoresheet. Do not have a clue what other tournaments are out there. This problem has happen at my events, it has happened at other events, it has happened or will happen to any director.
Can recall the shock treatment of always going to scholastic events as a child. Did have the support of the members of the Jackson Chess Club, they did spend time with me to teach me openings, notations and the rules. Then see scholastic players starting much younger then myself, without the support of any local chess club. I’m not going to tell a parent you’re child does not understand the rules of chess, and take your child and go home till you’re child learns the rules. Not all scholastic players start out in scholastic events.