What openings to teach?

Chess Clubs
41

And how, pray tell, do you teach them the rules of chess if you don’t enforce them when the kids break them. Last weekend I had a tournament where there was a 62-year-old playing in his first tournament. Would you also have given him breaks?

I’d be willing to bet that players of any age learn the rules faster if they are enforced. Eventually a kid (or anybody) will run into someone who insists on playing touch-move, so how are they supposed to know when the rules will be applied.

When I directed a scholastic tournament in Kansas in December there were some kids who called touch-move and illegal moves. I’m certainly not going to tell them that the rules don’t apply because their opponents are too young.

You always have the option of not calling the director with any opponent, but I think that it is ridiculous to expect others to do so IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

Alex Relyea

42

The 62 year old man should have been around chess for a number of years, I’m sure he has been at the chess clubs, and a number of un-rated blitz events. When someone comes to the club or more important to a tournament, not knowing them and they are a UNR. Will ask the person how long they have been playing chess.

If you want to make a touch move claim. If a UNR or the 62 year old man being the UNR, if its’ a touch move will foce the move and give you 2 extra minutes (rule 1C2a) on you’re clock. If you and the person you’re paired with agree the piece was touched. If you and the person you are paired with do not agree will reject the claim.

Mister Relyea, looked at you’re record, you are a Class A player. It should not be hard for you to win against a child under the age of ten, when its’ the childs first tournament. Would use rule 1C2, 1C2a and 1C2b.

1C2. Directors discretion. In areas in which the director has discretion, it is appropriate to be strictest with rules enforcement and penalties in events that are stronger or offer large prizes. Being harshly penalized over a trivial rules violation can be sufficiently upsetting to deter a beginner from future chess participation.

1C2a. Standard penalty. Except where specifically noted in the rules, the standard penalty assessed by the director is to add two unused minutes to the remaining time of the opponent of the player not following the rules of chess.

1C2b. Non-standard penalties. Except where specifically noted in the rules, the director may assess penalties either more or less severe than the standard penalty (1C2a). It is often more appropriate for a director to issue a warning(s) before applying 1C2a in cases involving young or inexperience players. A director may assess a more severe penalty in cases involving players who repeatedly do not follow the rules of chess.

Mister Relyea, if you are paired with a child thats very inexperienced, you should win the game without a problem. Give a warning to the child, and talk to the parent after the game. If the child touch the a pawn then moves the h pawn to h4 on the first move. If you want me to make the child move a4 and give you two extra minutes of a G/60 event. If the child touch piece after piece, you want me to forfeit the child because of inexperience? If that child rating going to be safe to say 100 or close to it after rating, would not a warning be better from you, and a talk with mom and dad after the game. Or you can talk to me, and I will talk with mom and dad.

43

The Lindsborg Chess Club, with the founder being GM Anatoly Karpov, with important FIDE title players being the coachs is not the typical scholastic chess club. They are going to understand the rules of chess, as they have coachs as being FIDE title players – they will understand the rules – before they even have their first rated tournament. The parents that have placed their children into this chess club, are spending good money with a lot of contact hours with the staff and interaction with the child. For the members of the Lindsborg Chess Club, would enfore all the rules. With all that special training, would forfeit and expell a player for the second offence.

Why not try this the next time you have a scholastic tournament. Why not go to a inner city school were the drop out rate is over 50%. The majority of the students have a single parent. The average income of the family is below the poverty rate. There are scholastic coaches out there in that type of area. They are not looking at Joey to become the next international master. They want Joey to do something else then going out and joining a gang and selling drugs. They want Joey to live longer then 21 or not end up in prison.

My father was a corrections officer, and my cousin is one today. Grown up seeing the worst in mankind, grown up with the worst type of people you can ever dream. If I had a choice and the time, would rather work in the inner city schools to teach chess then the Lindsborg Chess Club. Have a very good idea were Joey is going to be as a adult if he lives that long. I’m not thinking of Joey being a FIDE title player or even play tournament chess as an adult. Just want Joey doing something else then joining a gang, selling and use drugs, being killed or even killing you.

The only reason why I’m a director, so I can change a life for the common good.

44

Mr. Forsythe,

Perhaps I’m missing your point. If little Joey is playing another ten-year-old who has never played in a tournament before, then I don’t see how it is fair to Joey’s opponent not to make Joey play touch move.

If I’m playing in a tournament, it is at least partly for my own enjoyment. How much enjoyment would you receive from playing a game where your opponent constantly touched all the pieces before he decided which one to use, and the TD wouldn’t even make him follow the rules. If I were directing a game such as you describe, I would mention to the player that he had to move the piece that he touched first so that he might learn something about the game. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

I’m not going to guess anything about the abilities of the players in the games that I direct. I’m going to attempt to enforce the rules in a way that is fair to all the players, both beginners and experienced players.

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Alex Relyea

45

The majority of the touch moves are taken care of at the players level. If you’re opponent touch a piece, then moves a different one, its’ taken care of at the board between the players. Most of the time when it happens with a adult and a child, the child is in check and does not know – its’ a illegal move but also a touch piece. There are children being in the tournament for the first time not knowing any of the rules.

Players understanding the rules, if they are both ethical will take care of the touch move between each other. In the last year, only had two claiments make a claim. In both claims, white and black had agreement of the touch move, and corrected the board before I made a judgement. For the person that made the claim gave two extra minutes on their clock.

Mister Relyea, very sure you have little enjoyment being paired up with a child under the age of 10. If you notice the child touch one piece then the other, tell the child and he or she should move the piece before even asking the director. The touch move rule in most part are settled between the players. Have watched boards from time to time, and noticed between child and adult illegal moves or touch pieces, and adult and adult illegal moves or touch piece. If a child touch a piece and you want the child to move the piece, tell the child and in most cases the child will move the piece. If you still want to make a claim after the correct piece (first touched piece) is moved on the board, all I can give you is two extra minutes on you’re clock.

If on the other hand, white and black disagree on the claim, I would deny the claimant. If the claimant has a witness, then I would accept the claimant: force the opponet to make a legal move with the piece and give you two extra minutes.

If you’re opponent constantly touch all the pieces, and its’ a adult player would on the 3rd touch move claim – forfeit the game and expell the person from the tournament. If I was the organizer at the SuperNationals III, making it a rule that a 3rd touch move claim in a single game, would forfeit the game and the player is expelled from the tournament.

When someone comes to me as a director to take care of a touch move claim, its’ going to be as a disagreement between white and black, or the claimant wants the two extra minutes on the clock. If white and black are in disagreement and do not have a witness, will reject the claim. In 25 years only know of one game between white and black end in disagreement between the two parties.

If a child does touch pieces on the chessboard, and you want me to be equal with a child like a adult. All I can do after the 3rd touch move is forfeit the game and expell the child from the tournament.

46

If you have new people playing, you explain the basic rules BEFORE the game starts. When i host tournaments with new players, I remind them of the rules before the tournament starts, not while their game is going on.

Do you let a child play basketball and let him continue to travel? No, you correct him and if he continues, you don’t let him play. Why should kids be different? What does that teach the kid if you let them get away with breaking the rules without showing them the correct way?

I think I’ve learned arguing with you is just a waste of time. I don’t know why every time Doug posts we go off into some la la land of poor english and Michael Jackson Enuendos.

Going back to the original question, I’ve learned valuable information this weekend after a good 8 hour lesson with a GM, which goes back to my original post. Teach the child about openings, but not specific openings. Focus development and control of the center. Teaching them specific openings is only going to confuse the child. Keep it simple
[/b]

47

You want me to give the players a test of the rules during registeration?

48

You should highlight the major rules of touch move, touch take to new players, such as 60 year olds or 6 year olds.

49

Jeff Aldrich:

You’re straining at gnats and swallowing camels my friend. Beginning with your insistence on that a chess “beginner” be given no specific definition, therefore, everyone from “learning-how-the-pawn-moves” to someone rated 1200 has to be termed “beginner” to support your exaggerated logic.

Moreover,  your logical inferences and un-stated assumptions reveal that you are seeking to impose specific values upon everyone.    For example,  you make reference to a chess player being "best".     Such generalized terms are never defined.   Who is "best" Jeff?  The one who wins the most?   

 Perhaps I could emphasize that I value ALL chessplayers.  Those who win and those who lose also.   Those who infer that losing is "wrong"  are operating within a special and selective logic that is uncommon to the entire community of chess players.
50

Alrighty then. Now, I see where you are coming from with your posts. If you want to have a discussion where you don’t read into statements something that is not there and you don’t put your twisted spin on the comments, that’s great. Until then, I’m done with you.

51

Jeff Aldrich,

You’re “done with me” not because I’m making inferences that are not there, but for the simple reason that the first principle of rational dialog is DEFINITION OF TERMS. Given that you insist upon only the broadest of all definitions of the classification of “BEGINNER” there could be not other outcome than a general agreement that I am wrong and you are absolutely. Unfortunately, under your broad and unlimited definition of "BEGINNER, the point you make means nothing. Which is, of course, as I said at the outset, (if you recall), a “REDUNDANCY”.

 Finally,  all objections to "MEMORIZATION" are further flawed,  because by any context,   all opening "PRINCIPLES"  are   only identifiable through   a singular human faculty of mind, which is....(guess what?...)      MEMORY.   The human mind acesses all knowledge via the faculty of MEMORY.
52

I and most other reasonable players would consider beginners to be in the 0-800 range. Someone 800-1200 should be consedered not a beginner, but an advanced beginner or a weak intermediate player. Players at the 1000 level are usually the weaker club players. Most intermediate club players tend to linger in the 1500-2000 range. Anything over that is beyond the scope of this discussion.

So as Nawanda says, it is probably safe to begin memorizing some opening systems at the 1200 level. I have never seen anyome C-class or above able to play at that level just based on “principles”. A certain degree of memorization is required at that point since otherwise the player who does not know the openings always emerge with the inferior middlegame position if they have not already taken significant losses to a trap.

Suppose after a 15 move opening sequence, you as black have lost a pawn to a opening tactic/trap, have a cramped position, bad structure, and less active pieces than your 1600 rated opponent. Now unless you possess master level (2200+) middlegame and endgame skills, you probably will not be able to win this game unless the opponent makes a terrible blunder somewhere. This is why opening memorization is actually quite important if the beginner wants to take the next step towards improvement.

53

When I played in my first USCF rated tournament 20 years ago, I lost all my games and still received a rating of 880. It was a scholastic tournament. Back then, players rated under 800 were rare to non-existent. Beginners did exist back then, so how you would classify a 1200 player 20 years ago? How were beginners classified by players then? All I was trying to say is that you have to understand the context of the discussion before someone goes flying off the handle.

I am not sure what Nawanda is really trying to say, but he is definitely not saying to wait until 1200 to learn openings. Apparently, he is arguing that beginners should be taught to play a handful of opening moves on blind faith without understanding the principles behind those moves and then be thrown to the wolves of tournament chess. The other point I think he is trying to make is that memorization automatically leads to understanding.

You can teach me to memorize a phrase in another language without teaching me the translation in english. How useful will that phrase be if I were to find myself in a place that only speaks that language? Too many players buy opening books and just memorize the book lines without understanding the positions that result or what those moves do within the context of the opening. This was the main point that I was trying to make about rote memorization when Nawanda went in the weeds. I also said that this point applies equally to players beyond beginner.

Personally, I hit Expert for 3 years without ever “memorizing” an opening. I learned the basic framework of a couple of openings that fit my playing style. Through, trial & error and picking up ideas from magazines, I got to know what moves to make in these openings. I never sat down with a book and memorized a bunch of opening lines.

54

Of course I meant knowing the reasons behind each opening move. A GM would probably be able to figure out the reasons behind each move in a long opwning sequence, but anyone weaker than that will require some explanation. That’s what I mean when I say memorizing moves. I don’t know what Nawanda’s definition of memorization is, but my definition is knowing the move and all of the concepts behind it. Hope you understand what I mean now.

Secondly, you obviously have a lot of talent to become an expert within 3 years. Obviously good tactics, strong positional play, and good endgame knowledge is needed to reach the 2000 level. Unfortunately for many others, stuff like that does not come as easily to them. I know because teach some of the kids in high school. They just can’t “see” those 5 ply tactics no matter how many tactical puzzles they solve. Or they might tend to misevaluate complex positions. For these types of people, I really do believe memorizing (my definition) openings to a certain degree is required. I try not to teach past 10 moves deep and keep away from the ultra-theoretical stuff. I usually show 3 or 4 different main lines and go over main ideas and plans such as where the pieces belong in this certain opening and what the critical pawn breaks (if there are any) are.

For me (and most other amateurs I suppose), chess is for pure enjoyment. I have an established ~1700 rating, which makes me a weaker player than you, but I’m still 17 years old and learned chess when I was 15. I am one of those hardcore opening specialists; I actually think studying massive opening theory is fun. Studying an extremely theoretical sequence and then outplaying my opponent right from the beginning feels great for me. For example, when I played that computer novelty of the Caro-Kann Short system as white, or that Marshall attack that went into 28 moves of theory where my book knowledge was better than my opponent, or that game where I played an offbeat variation in the Levenfish attack and caught my opponent in a tricky trap. These great moments are the ones missed by those who do not study openings.

I am not saying that your approach to the game is wrong Jeff (however you like to study chess is ok), but I am saying that memorization can also be very rewarding too.

55

Nawanda was objecting to someone saying that just memorizing a few lines is not the right approach for teaching beginners. In that context, that person was referring to memorizing just the moves, while not understanding them. I would say what you are doing is not memorizing, but studying, learning, and understanding the opening. Until now, I have always heard “memorization” in the chess context as referring to just memorizing the moves or lines of the opening and not understanding them.

I guess I wasn’t clear about my experiences. I hit 1700 just as I graduated high school. I didn’t hit 2000 until after college and only lasted 3 years. Then, life got in the way as I got married and now have a little one. I have spent most of the last 6 years hovering around my rating floor at 1900.

I think that the way you are teaching the openings makes sense and is what I advocate. Basically, I was saying this more generallly in my responses. You are teaching moves with the principles behind those moves.

Sounds to me like you doing just fine. If you keep at it, I have no doubt you pass me soon.

I’ll never stop playing, but I now spend more on the administrative aspect of the game. I run the local club. I organize and direct tournaments. I’m on the state board and edit the state magazine. Maybe when my son is old enough to play, I can get to basics and work on my game as I teach to him.

56

I used opening books when I just started playing, and I think that it helped me jumpstart my improvement by giving me a sense of direction. I’m not saying that you should have kids memorizing every single line in a book, but just to buy an opening book and after your games, and check their opening books to see where you played something that was out of book. They should take the challenge of figuring out why some of the out of book moves are bad and learn how to refute them. My rating when from 988 to 1755 in a little over a year, so I’m just letting you know what worked for me.

Other than openings, I consider tactics to be more important than endgames. I wouldn’t worry about endgames too much until when they get to around 1400.

57

“Nawanda was objecting to someone saying that just memorizing a few lines is not the right approach for teaching beginners. In that context, that person was referring to memorizing just the moves, while not understanding them. I would say what you are doing is not memorizing, but studying, learning, and understanding the opening. Until now, I have always heard “memorization” in the chess context as referring to just memorizing the moves or lines of the opening and not understanding them.” -Jeff Aldrich

Jeff,

The crux of the issue regarding “prohibitions” against memorizing a few moves, rests in a single issue. That issue is CONSEQUENCES.

Whether one has memorized the Giucco Piano, 1. e4 2.Nf3 3. Bc4, 4.0-0 or althernatively, has “memorized” a few generalized opening principles

[i.e. 2 pawn moves, Knights before Bishops, Secure the King, etc ]

the consequence of doing either poorly, is a LOST GAME. A lost game is rather like the valuation of art. To one, it may be a mere nothing. To another, it may be priceless. In point of fact, to society at large, anyone’s loss of a chess game carries no particular significance whatsoever. That my friend, is the CONSEQUENCE of playing by either methodology, poorly. WINNING also, is a consequence, of indeterminate social value, other than a thrill to the victor. At no point can anyone PROHIBIT losing, because the only way to prevent that is just not play the game; ergo, there is a redundancy in the prohibition.

 Chess is a conflict of opposing forces.  For whatever the reason,  someone will lose regardless

I believe you will find Jeff, that it is entirely true, that any chess player using any CHESS OPENING, has…MEMORIZED it. To oppose this statement, would be to declare that peope, even generally, do not employ memory function, but generate effective sequences, SPONTANEOUSLY, never employing memory. I do not believe anyone claims this.

 What I am trying to communicate  is  a cautionary note  against   a general prohibition that might be fine but for the simple fact that  many people learn differently.   My position is that many beginners deserve the benefit of  knowing a good opening  / defense as a starting point.
58

"Too many players buy opening books and just memorize the book lines without understanding the positions that result or what those moves do within the context of the opening. This was the main point that I was trying to make about rote memorization when Nawanda went in the weeds. I also said that this point applies equally to players beyond beginner. "-Jeff_Aldrich

Exactly Jeff,  and your quote here is appropriate to my comment about bringing the entire discussion into a common focus point.  That focus point, as stated in my last post to you,  was about the CONSEQUENCES.  You do not complete your thought, but you do suggest it.  Saying that:

“Too many players buy opening books…etc, etc…etc…”

FIRST QUESTION:
Therefore, we ought perhaps to ask, "So what are the CONSEQUENCES of “memorizing the book lines”?

SECOND QUESTION:

And equally to the point of our discussion of teaching OPENINGS to BEGINNERS, must we believe that it is “many” BEGINNERS that are going out and buying OPENING books and memorizing lines?

Answering the First Question is where I come to the conclusion that warnings against memorization are redundant Jeff. The CONSEQUENCE of doing anything ineffective in chess is…you LOSE. That, per se, does not mean anything at all, ergo…it’s a redundant matter. Everyone loses until you MEMORIZE sufficient board smarts.

Answering the Second Question again begs the question I stated many weeks ago: What is the definition of BEGINNER? From all I’ve seen, there are NO beginners buying opening books and memorizing lines.

What I am talking about here,  is that in addition to learning TACTICS & PRINCIPLES at the BEGINNER LEVEL,  the beginning chess player can much benefit by basic openings like:

Giucco Piano 1.e4 2. Nf3 3.Bc4

or (for Black):

Petroff 1. …e5 2. …Nf6

or King’s Indian, 1. …Nf6 2. …g6 3. …Bg7 4. …d6

or perhaps a Sicilian 1. …c5 2. …e6 etc etc

  If any beginner  MEMORIZES and plays  a basic opening,   and applies his basic tactics & principles to the game,  he will  improve his chances by a wide margin, and his learning will be more focused.

I think it unfair to employ terms like "MANY BEGINNERS" and "MOST BEGINNERS" ...  commit this or that  study error,  when in fact,  Most beginners are foggy about openings, let alone buying many  books or memorizing lines, variations,  traps,  etc etc. .and a very advanced beginner might actually have   a couple of openings down,   at least as far as 5 or 6  or 7 moves deep.

Anyway, my philosophy is this: “Every opponent is a Teacher; and every time I lose, everyone should give me sympathy & hugs!”