Category Archives: Children’s Chess

Queen Against Pawn

Last time we looked at a pawn ending played between two young players (about 1500-1600 strength) at Richmond Junior Chess Club. After various misadventures, during which Black miscalculated badly in a position where he had a simple win, this position was reached, with White to play.

Before we continue looking at the game, some basic endgame knowledge. Everyone needs to know the ending with queen against pawn on the 7th rank supported by the king. If the pawn’s on a centre file or knight’s file the queen wins. You force the king onto the queening square and advance your king. Against a bishop’s pawn or a rook’s pawn, though, it’s a draw unless your king’s close enough to take a hand in a checkmate. With a bishop’s pawn, the defender can move his king into the corner so that taking the pawn will result in a stalemate. Likewise, with a rook’s pawn, the king in the corner will be stalemated.

Another piece of basic knowledge is that you can stop a pawn on the 7th rank easily if you can put your queen on the promotion square. All you have to do then is approach the pawn with your king.

Bearing that in mind, let’s see what happened in the game, with White to play his 60th move.

Black has the potentially drawing c-pawn, and two others as well, but his king is on d3 rather than d2. White has several ways to bring home the full point. A nice winning move is 60. Qh3+, when Kd2 walks into 61. Qe3+ Kd1 62. Qe1#, while moving back to, say, c4 allows Qe3, controlling the queening square. White can then follow up with Qc1 and just take all the black pawns. A similar idea is 60. Qh6, again followed by Qc1. But instead the game continued:

60. Qd8+ Kc3 61. Qxf6+

In some lines White might want to keep the f-pawn on the board to prevent the stalemate defence, but after this White’s still winning.

61… Kd3 62. Qf3+ Kd2

Allowing an immediate mate, but otherwise the king will be cut off on the fourth rank.

63. Qe2+(?)

Missing the mate in 2: 63. Qe3+ Kd1 64. Qe1#. White’s still winning at the moment, though.

63…Kc1 64. Kxg2?

This is the move that throws away the win. It’s not so easy at this level, but the winning idea was 64. Qb5 (avoiding the stalemate defence) Kd1 65. Qb3 Kc1 66. Kxg2 Kd2 67. Qb2 Kd1 68. Kf2 c1Q 69. Qe2#.

64… Kb1 65. Qd3 Kc1?

Now White’s winning again. Instead, Ka1 was drawing.

66. Kf2?

It looks natural to move the king in but now Black has the chance to revert to the stalemate defence. Again, the win was to be achieved by occupying the b-file. For example: 66. Qb3 Kd2 67. Qb2 Kd1 68. Kf2 Kd2 69. Qd4+ Kc1 70. Qb4 Kd1 71. Qe1#.

66…Kb2 67. Qd2 Kb1 68. Qb4+ Kc1?

The final mistake. Black still had a draw by moving to the a-file.

69. Ke3

White had to be careful: Ke2 and Ke1 were both stalemate. There was another mate in two, though: 69. Kf1 Kd1 70. Qe1#.

69…Kd1 70. Qd2#

Once more, then, a lot to learn from this game. These endings with pawn on the 7th rank against queen are so important and essential for understanding many pawn endings. As I tell all my students, you can’t understand other endings until you understand pawn endings, you can’t understand middle games until you understand endings, and you can’t understand openings until you understand middle games.

For the record, here’s the complete game.

Richard James

Share

Pawn Endings in Practice (2)

It’s been far too long since the first article in this series, but here’s a very instructive ending between two of Richmond Junior Club’s stronger members (both about 1500-1600 strength) on 22 March.

We start here, with White considering his 41st move. Should he trade rooks or not? First lesson: you have to calculate the pawn ending before trading the last pieces. So before you can play any ending well you have to understand pawn endings. In this case the pawn ending is won for Black, so White should avoid the trade. Although Black has a slight advantage I guess the rook ending should be drawn. We teach our pupils to move their king up into the centre of the board in the ending but here the correct plan for Black is to move his king to b4 to attack the c-pawn. This is an important position type, with the two immovable pawns on the c-file. Black can attack c4 from either b4 or b3, but Black can only defend from d3, so when he runs out of pawn moves on the other side he’ll have to capitulate.

Let’s see whether our gladiators were up to the challenge.

41. Rxb7+? (Now Black’s winning.) Kxb7
42. Kf1 Kb6
43. Ke2 Kc6? (Now it’s probably a draw. Ka5 followed by Kb4 is winning for Black.)
44. f4? (The computer gives 44. Ke4 as leading to a queen ending where White has a slight advantage.) f5? (Kb6, followed by Ka5 and Kb4 is winning again for Black.)
45. Kf3? (White can draw by moving onto the d-file. Now Black is winning again.) Kb6? (Good plan but poor timing. Black should have played h5, and then Kb6 etc.)
46. Ke3? (White can draw here by playing g4, when both players will promote.) Ka5 (Finally Black is on the winning track.)
47. Kd2 Kb4
48. Kd3 Kb3
49. g4 (Desperation) fxg4
50. g3 h5 (The last few moves have been fine for Black.)
51. f5 h4?? (All he had to do to win was play Kb4 when White is zugged. Interestingly, when I demonstrated this ending at the club the following week quite a few of the class made the same mistake. I guess they were already familiar with the idea of sacrificing to obtain a passed pawn but failed to calculate the resulting position. Now White is winning.)
52. f6? (Now it’s a draw. Instead, White can win by just capturing the pawn. His king can stop the g-pawn by entering the queening square, and then he can play f6, sacrificing to create an unstoppable passed pawn.) gxf6? (Black errs in turn. He could have draw by playing hxg3, when both players queen. Black will have an extra pawn but White has a perpetual check on the other side.)
53. gxh4 g3
54. Ke3 Kxc4
55. h5 (White has one pawn against three, but he’s going to promote first.) g2
56. Kf2 Kd3
57. h6 c4
58. h7 c3
59. h8Q c2

The last few moves have all been self-explanatory. When the pawn ending was reached, Black was winning. After a series of mistakes on both sides he found the winning plan, but then miscalculated badly. Now we reach an ending with queen against three pawns, two of which are on the seventh rank. White should win from here, but did he actually manage to do so? Don’t miss next week’s exciting episode.

Meanwhile, what lessons can be learnt from this ending so far?

1. You have to calculate the pawn ending before trading or proposing a trade of your last piece.
2. Being able to activate your king first is often decisive in pawn endings, but the centre is not always the best place. In this game Black’s winning plan (at least it should have been winning) involved marching the king down the a-file.
3. Learn the position type with two fixed pawns on the same file. If you can activate your king first you can attack the pawn from two squares, but it can only be defended from one square. Then all you have to do is run your opponent out of pawn moves and he’ll be zugged.
4. Sometimes you can win by sacrificing to obtain a passed pawn.
5. Positions with passed pawns on both sides need to be calculated accurately. You can’t just guess but really have to work it out. There may not be much point in sacrificing to get a passed pawn if your opponent’s king can move into the queening square.
6. Sometimes pawn endings can become queen endings. You have to be really good at queen endings as well as pawn endings.

Richard James

Share

Queen Traps

The other day one of my pupils showed me a recent tournament game in which he had the black pieces.

I can’t remember the exact move order, but it started something like this.

White opened with the queen’s pawn but neither player really demonstrated much understanding of the subtleties of the opening. At move seven Black decided to attack the white queen. At this level children tend to play threats in the hope that their opponent won’t notice rather than trying to put pieces on better squares. But this time White was sufficiently alert to move his queen and decided to throw in a check on b5. Qd2 instead would have been fine. Black might, I suppose, have replied with c6 but instead he found, possibly without realising why, the correct move Bc6. Suddenly, White’s queen is trapped in broad daylight, in the middle of the board. Black eventually went on to win the game with his extra queen.

Last week I demonstrated this to a group of children at Richmond Junior Club, and asked them what lessons they could learn from the game. They were all eager to tell me the lesson that you have to look ahead before playing your move, which of course is perfectly correct. There were two other lessons I wanted them to tell me about as well, but I had difficulty getting the replies I was looking for.

I was hoping they’d tell me that it’s often dangerous to bring your queen out too soon, one reason being that she might get trapped. I’m sure most of them have been told this many times, but they weren’t able to relate this piece of advice to the game in question. The second thing I hoped they’d tell me was that you should beware of playing random checks. Probably not all of them are aware of this. They’ve been taught to look for every check, capture and threat so not playing random checks seemed like strange advice to some of them. What we mean, of course, is that you should look at every check – it might be checkmate, lead to checkmate, be a fork or whatever, not that you should always play a check should you have one available.

This reminded me of a very short game I first saw in Chernev’s 1000 Best Short Games of Chess many years ago.

In this game White started with 1.e3. Children often play this, illogically, because they’re scared of Scholar’s Mate. Then he went for a queen attack on move 2, but as his e-pawn had only advanced one square Black correctly took over the centre. On move 4 White played his queen to what seemed to be a random safe square, but it wasn’t safe at all. Again, the white queen was trapped in the middle of the board, in record time.

In both these games, White learnt the hard way about the dangers of bringing your queen out too soon.

Richard James

Share

Asking Questions

The chess student’s oath: Repeat after me, “If I don’t understand something, I will ask the instructor to explain it again and again and again if necessary.” All joking aside, asking questions seems to be a problem for many chess students. I teach my students to question everything. I also teach them that the only bad question is the one not asked. I’ve recently been observing my stronger students and asking myself the question, what is it that sets them apart from their classmates.

Of course, my more advanced students have arrived at their destination by working hard at their game, putting a great deal of time into their studies. However, there is more to it than that. One thing I’ve noticed is that these students ask a lot of questions. Why is asking questions so important to one’s success both on the chessboard and off the chess board (as in life)? The answer is surprisingly simple! You’ll learn more by asking questions!

When I teach my classes, I’ll present a master level game that demonstrates specific key concepts. Because my young beginners are new to the game, I’ll concentrate on the opening mechanics, middle game tactics and basic endgame play. In the opening for example, a series of obvious moves will be played that aid in controlling the board’s center. This makes perfect sense since our job in the opening is to control more space than our opponent. If we cannot control as much space on the board as our opponent we try to take squares away from the opposition. While is it relatively easy to see how certain moves help us in our opening goal, there are some moves that don’t immediately do this. To the beginner these moves may seem to be out of place, making no sense. However, to the more experienced player, these moves are seen to help set up a greater control of the board’s center later on in the opening. These moves are stepping stones leading to a stronger opening position. Yet many beginners will not raise their hands and ask the question “why was that move made?” Simply asking that question would help shed light on that move and help the beginner improve his or her game. However, they don’t ask and are suddenly lost, missing the bigger picture altogether.

I suspect that many people, both young and old, feel that asking questions makes them appear to be uninformed. Some people even feel foolish asking simple question because they don’t want to appear to be stupid to those around them. I went to a chess lecture once and, while the start time was listed, there was no end time mentioned. While sitting down, waiting for the lecture to start, I overheard I number of people asking when the lecture ended. When the head of the chess club came out to introduce the guest lecturer he welcomed us and asked if there were any questions. No one raised their hand to ask the obvious question on the minds of many participants, when the event ended. Of course, I raised my hand and asked the question. I was surprised that a few of those I overheard earlier asking about the lecture’s ending time now scoffed at my question. This was a good example of why many people don’t ask questions. If given the choice between being informed and being foolish, I’ll take being informed!

If you undertake the process of learning something, it is your job as a student to ask questions. While experienced teachers can anticipate many questions and answer them before they’re asked, they’re not mind readers. This means you, the student, have to take it upon yourself to ask any questions you want an answer to. Asking questions leads to a better grasp on the subject matter. A better grasp on the subject is how you start the journey to mastery.

If you’re studying an opening with your chess teacher and understand the first eight moves but get stuck on the reasoning behind the ninth move, don’t assume that move nine will make sense a move or two later. Stop and ask your teacher why move nine was made. It may be the case that your question will be answered by playing through the next few moves. However, your teacher will now know that you had trouble understanding move nine and focus his or her explanation of the next few moves around your question. As a student, you have to let your teacher know when you’re having difficulty understanding something.

One idea that helps both student and teacher is to clarify your questions. Rather than ask a vague question, try to ask a question that gets to the heart of the matter. If move seven of a specific opening for White makes no sense to you, ask the question “why did White move the c pawn to c3 (for example) on move seven?” This is a clear question that can be addressed by the teacher as opposed to saying “I’m not sure about that c pawn move.” Clear questions get clear answers. If the teacher’s answer doesn’t make sense, ask them to explain it again. I have no problem with going over a position a few times with my students and appreciate the fact that they obviously want to understand the lesson being taught!

If you’re a self learner, you probably work with books and DVDs. While you can’t ask the author of a book or lecturer on a DVD questions, you can write questions down on a piece of paper while reading the book or watching the DVD. This is important! Too often, we read a chess book or watch a chess DVD, think of a question and then forget about it later on. As you read the book or watch the DVD, jot down every question that comes to mind. Often, with good authors and lecturers, the question is answered soon after you’ve written it down. However, there are times when it may not be addressed. If this happens, try to find an answer to question elsewhere, such as online. Then go back and reread or re-watch the section where your question first came up. Of course, this means you’ll take longer to complete your studies but you’ll be far more knowledgeable by doing so. We have access to huge world of chess information and can use it to our advantage if we ask simply ask questions. Asking questions is the key to truly understanding a subject and by asking questions, your understanding of the subject will be greatly improved. Remember, no one masters a subject without dedication and hard work. Here’s a game to enjoy until next week.

Hugh Patterson

Share

Steps Revisited (3)

Revisiting the Steps Method has encouraged me to think again about the best way to teach tactics. Assuming, of course, that our students have developed excellent chessboard vision and understand the basic principle that (other things being equal) Superior Force Wins.

Steps is very thorough at outlining every possible tactical idea to win material and providing excellent puzzles to reinforce each concept before the students move onto the next idea.

But there’s not so much, at least in the main part of the course, about the actual thinking process. I teach my pupils to look at every check, capture and threat by telling them to use a CCTV to look at the chessboard. The first C stands for Checks, the second C for Captures and the T for Threats. Checks, Captures, Threats and Violent moves, or, if you prefer, for those of you who correct children who ‘kill’ their opponent’s pieces, looking for Checks, Captures and Threats leads to Victory.

I think it was Purdy back in the 1930s who introduced the concept of looking for Checks, Captures and Threats. “Examine moves that smite!”, he said. “A good eye for smites is far more important than a knowledge of strategical principles.”

In the 1970s, Kotov’s book Think Like a Grandmaster was hugely influential. Kotov advised his readers to identify ‘candidate moves’ and form a tree of variations, taking each forcing move in turn and trying to analyse each sequence of checks, captures and threats until quiescence is reached, then assessing the resulting position. As time went on, though, Kotov’s work was criticised by other writers who claimed that this was not really how chess players thought.

Well, perhaps it was how Kotov thought. I certainly found it helpful for improving my play when I first read it 40 years ago, although I usually forget to look at all checks, captures and threats in my own games! My method of teaching tactics uses a similar approach at a much lower level. The Steps Method takes what I think is a slightly different approach, emphasising the different tactical ideas rather than the thought processes you might use. In a sense it’s the same principle as “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for life”. By using CCTV you can in theory solve any tactical position.

Perhaps, at least for some players, learning the thought processes will be more efficient. If you learn, say, Philidor’s Legacy you can remember it and use it yourself, but it won’t help you with any other position. If, on the other hand, you learn to analyse all sequences of checks, captures and threats, you will, in theory, be able to solve very many positions.

There’s a third method, as well, which might be used: intuition. You might well think of someone like Tal in this context. An intuitive player will play a move because it looks right, or even just because it looks interesting, without precise calculation.

Ideally, we need to use a combination of methods when teaching tactics. We need to teach the specific thinking skills – analysing all checks, captures and threats for both players. We need to teach visualisation skills to enable students to look ahead and calculate accurately. (As it happens, the Steps people are developing a new series of workbooks designed to develop this skill.) We need to teach the basic tactical ideas: forks, pins, discovered attacks, deflections and so on, which the Steps course does outstandingly well. We also need to encourage our students to develop intuition, creativity and fantasy, partly by encouraging them to play open games where tactical opportunities will abound: something that is encouraged within the Steps course.

Richard James

Share

Learning from Chess History

I noticed a great deal of commentary at various chess sites lately regarding the fact that younger players know little about chess in a historical context. I’m not talking about the game’s origins but about the many fantastic players that elevated the game to its current status. I decided to see just how little many (but not all) younger chess players know about previous generations of players by asking a room full of junior players to name some chess players from the past few centuries. Of course, Bobby Fischer was mentioned as well as Paul Morphy and a handful of other well known players (of course, Nigel Davies is always mentioned by my students). However, I was shocked that the list of names was so small. A parent asked me later, why a knowledge of chess players was important, after all isn’t it about just playing the game? While I had to shut my mouth to keep any snarky commentary from pouring out, I did think long and hard about this question. Here’s my answer.

If you want to really understand an opening, for example, you have to understand it mechanics. To fully understand those mechanics, you need to study the opening’s evolution. This means starting with the earliest incarnation of the opening and following it through its history. Here’s an analogy: When I purchased my first car it was used or previously owned. Sure enough, it broke down after about eighteen months. I took it to the mechanic who told me it would be $800.00 to fix. I knew nothing about cars, except how to drive one, so the mechanic could have been cheating me for all I knew. Chess openings are like cars. You may be able to drive your car but driving that car doesn’t give you any real insight into the underlying mechanics. Therefore, I took an automotive repair class. The teacher took us through the history of the combustion engine. Of course, someone asked why we were studying outdated and obsolete engines and our teacher sternly stated that you could not understand the complexity of a modern engine until you understood the basic mechanics of simpler engines, such as those from the past. The same holds true with chess openings. So what does this have to do with chess players from the past? Well, who do you think developed these chess openings and improved upon them? That’s right, many brilliant chess players from the game’s rich history.

In the classroom, we’ll spend two or three weeks looking at the history of an opening and the chess players that contributed to that opening, from early practitioners to modern players who refined it. I usually choose the Italian Game, one of the oldest known openings, because examples of this opening can be found from the late 1500s. It is also an opening that is played by master level players today. Here’s an example of an early game I use in our exploration of the Italian Opening:

The game was played in 1575 between Polerio and Lorenzo. I set the stage for this game by talking about what the world was like back then, especially as it relates to chess. Of course we talk about chess players from this time period. Chess players today are spoiled by the wealth of chess information available to them. I point out that simply acquiring a chess book in the 1500s was next to impossible. Chess knowledge was gained through playing the game. Early pioneers of the game had to gain experience in battle rather than refer to the theory books! While there are some rather clumsy moves made in the above game, we also see moves that lay the foundation for more modern versions of this opening such as 4.c3. In the above game, the move 4.c3 provides support for the eventual push of the d pawn to d4. After going through a few more games employing this opening from later centuries, we find ourselves playing through a more current game:

I remind my students of the first four moves in the first game we looked at, pointing out that even though over four hundred years has passed, the game’s initial four moves have remained the same. What does this mean to the beginner? It means that this opening has stood the test of time. While it may not be a Grandmaster favorite, it can work well for the beginner. We discuss the players of the above game, examining a few informative facts about each of them.

We compare each game we study with the previous game studied, looking at the evolution, in this case, of the Italian Opening. Surprisingly, my young students enjoy what might be considered a tedious task by less than enthusiastic adults because there is history involved. We look at the bigger picture while studying the smaller one. We talk about Italy in depth and the players that changed this opening into what it is today.

As a final examination of the Italian Opening, I set up two chessboards. On one board, we’ll play through the game from 1575 and on the other, the game from 2008. We play the games simultaneously, move for move. White makes the first move on board one and board two, then black. When we get to move four for black (on both boards) we see a parting of the ways so to speak. We look at the placement of the Queen in front of the King (1575 4…Qe7) and talk about the dangers of such a placement. We compare that to the smarter and more active move 4…Nf6 (2008). We continue to play through both games simultaneously, comparing moves. I’ve found that examining an opening from a historical perspective helps my students further understand the opening’s underlying mechanics and appreciate the players who developed them. Like my auto shop teacher said, you can’t understand a complex engine until you master the workings of a simple one.

I’ve also instated a new extra credit exercise in which my students have to research historical chess players and tell me a bit about them. The extra credit points can be redeemed for additional chess lessons from me. I don’t want my students to be ignorant of the many brilliant players that helped shape the game I love so much. I also encourage them to work at their game because one day they might be one of the game’s great players! They might become a part of the game’s history. Chess has a wonderful history whose great players have shaped. Let’s not let this history fade into obscurity. See you next week.

Hugh Patterson

Share

Steps Revisited (2)

Continuing my thoughts about the very different chess education philosophy represented by the Dutch Steps method, let’s consider an extract from the Step 4 Manual for Chess Trainers. This would be for children aged about 12-13 who have been studying chess seriously for three years.

This section discusses when children should move into adult chess. I’m paraphrasing a bit (and I hope I’m not misunderstanding) because the translation isn’t very good.

Bear in mind also that the course is most often used within a chess club. Dutch chess clubs (and European chess clubs generally) operate more like football, rugby or cricket clubs here in the UK, with an adult section and a junior section.

“The drawback with training in small groups is that it is impossible to organise a good competition. It’s boring to play the same opponents over and over again. In many clubs this is solved by letting the students play with the adults. The problem of moving children to the adult section is essentially the same as that of allowing children to go to bed late, or of forcing them to adapt socially to their seniors (consider 11-13 year olds). The children’s chess development will stagnate because they will subconsciously adapt their playing style to that of adults. Their sharp attacking games give way to careful play, so that they will not lose too quickly.”

The authors go on to suggest that it might be good to allow young people of 15 or older to play against adults, but for 12 year olds or younger it’s not a good idea.

This seemed when I first read it, and still seems now, pretty startling. At Richmond we used to run rapidplay tournaments every two months precisely to encourage those players who were good enough to compete against adults. We also ran teams in the local (adult) chess league for the same purpose. Our experience was very much that children gained enormous benefit from playing against adults as long as they were good enough players and had sufficient emotional maturity. It was good for them to meet opponents with a wider variety of styles and a wider range of openings than they’d encounter in junior tournaments. And of course many of the adults were scared of playing children: they had little to gain and much to lose when sitting opposite a small child. We’d encourage children to play tactically and to unleash their favourite gambits against their unsuspecting adult opponents. Putting children in a position where they had to learn to adapt socially to adults also had its advantages, although it could on occasion backfire when children breached the etiquette of adult chess.

It’s also interesting to note at what point simple endgames are taught. Basic king and pawn v king endings are only encountered in Step 3, and basic rook endings such as the Lucena and Philidor positions in Step 5, by which point the students will be strong tactical players.

So the principle of the course seems to be a small group of children developing tactical skills in a cocoon, not mixing with the outside world or playing against adults, learning no opening theory and only dealing with basic endings. I’d be interested to know to what extent the system really does work like this in real life. During the nearly 30 years it’s been in operation, though, the Dutch have produced an impressive number of strong young players, and the course is still being developed with more material being added to each step. So, however strange it may seem to us, its success cannot be doubted.

Certainly, the tactical material is highly impressive: well thought out, logically structured and extremely thorough, although I suspect there are different approaches to tactics that might be considered.

Here in the UK, though, and no doubt also in the United States, we take a more practical approach, teaching children openings and perhaps endings early on in order to prepare them for tournaments.

My view is that, as with most things, the best approach is somewhere in the middle. Regular readers will be aware of my view that in this country we put children into competitions too soon at the expense of skills development. Although I can’t see many teachers in the UK adopting anything resembling the Steps method it doesn’t mean we can’t learn a lot from the way it emphasises and develops tactical ability.

Richard James

Share

Steps Revisited (1)

I’ve recently been revisiting the Dutch Steps method, written by Cor van Wijgerden and the late Rob Brunia. The whole philosophy behind the course is very different from what we are used to here in the UK and no doubt also in the United States. Neither better nor worse, just different.

The course was developed in 1987 for children from age 9 upwards, and comprises six steps, each of which would typically take a year to complete. The course material is dominated by tactics. The first step is concerned with the ability to see what’s on the board in front of you, the second and third volumes involve two-move tactics and the later volumes deeper tactics. There are preliminary ‘Stepping Stones’ books for children aged between 6 and 9 to complete before they start on the main course.

The teachers’ manual for Step 2 includes the following game played between two children at the beginning of the second step. So they’d be 10 years old and would have been playing for a year.

Yes, a lot of tactical oversights as you’d expect from children who haven’t been playing long, but what is noticeable is the lack of knowledge of opening principles. It’s interesting to note that opening principles are not covered at all until almost half way through Step 2, when pupils are taught the three golden rules: put a pawn in the centre, develop your knights and bishops and castle your king into safety.

We, on the other hand, tend to teach the three golden rules more or less straight away, so this will seem very strange to many of us. We’ll probably also show them Scholar’s Mate, explain how to stop it, and perhaps the first few moves of one or two openings, probably starting 1. e4 e5. We also, of course, usually start children at 6 or 7, rather than at 9, the age at which children should be starting Step 1.

You’ll see that Josina and Danielle, playing a lot of pawn moves and not developing their minor pieces or making their kings safe, reached a highly tactical position. My typical beginners’ games, on the other hand, will probably be Spanish Four Knights and Giuoco Pianissimo type games where the minor pieces are developed, the king is castled – and they reach a stodgy position where they find it hard to think of what to do next.

It may be very different from the way we approach teaching children about openings, but given the large number of strong young players produced in the Netherlands over the past couple of decades, it’s hard to argue with success.

Perhaps we need to consider taking a middle course. I’ll take another look at our two very different chess philosophies next week, but meanwhile do tell me about your experiences and about how and when you think we should teach openings to beginners.

Richard James

Share

When I Become Frustrated

Recently I got an enquiry about personal coaching and the first question was how useful chess is for brain development? I got very annoyed and replied that you should Google it and you will find many other tools for answering. I understand and agree that chess is useful for brain development but this is just a byproduct of chess and not the only reason that you should find a chess coach for your kids. The basic and key thing is kids’ interest in chess, otherwise it will become like more school homework for them.

I usually teach kids a particular topic and give notes about it for them to revise. Once they’ve revised it I give some additional test positions for homework and advise them to play chess games. Many of them don’t follow this path because they don’t have enough time.

I’ve also observed that some of them are genuine while many are doing large numbers of other activities like swimming, dancing, cricket, football etc., the kids are very busy but without particularly investing themselves in anything. They are therefore not able to focus on anything in particular and become jacks of all but masters of none. Well who is responsible for this? Of course it’s the parents, as they want to keep their kids busy.

Some parents know how to play chess and ask me to teach their kids tactics, though this can often be before they know how to move the pieces. What would your reaction be? Parhaps to ask why they hired a chess coach. I say that you should let the expert work without interfering. And give him enough time as chess is not a game that you can become expert overnight.

What about complaints that a kid has been learning chess at your academy for a year and not made any significant progress? I show them attendance where more than 50% of the time the kids were just physically absent. You can’t expect to improve when you are not consistent at your work. And maybe suggest reading the story about the Hare and the tortoise!

Ashvin Chauhan

Share

Thou Shalt Not Kill

A very simple question for you today. If your pupils talks about ‘killing’ rather than capturing or taking a piece, should you correct them?

I recall at least one book which says you should, ‘for obvious reasons’.

When I’m teaching a class I’ll use ‘capture’ or ‘take’ rather than ‘kill’, and will usually continue to do so, even if my pupils use other words. A few months ago, though, I was in a primary school classroom with a (female) class teacher who was using ‘kill’ all the time. If I’m teaching a private pupil I’ll start by using ‘capture’ or ‘take’ but if my pupil uses ‘kill’ I’ll probably join in. This is to some extent connected with last week’s post about the two types of teacher. When I’m doing one to one teaching I’ll try to get inside the mind of my student, in a sense almost to ‘become’ him. A colleague who saw me doing some one to one teaching a year or so ago commented that I was like a child, which is exactly what I try to be. So if the child sees a capture as ‘killing’ an enemy piece then I’m happy with that as well. Children are well aware of the difference between reality and fantasy, even if adults think they’re not. It always seems to me that adults spend a lot of time inventing problems that children don’t really have, while sometimes neglecting children’s very real (to them) problems.

I did once have a problem in this sort of area though. I was supervising a class doing a verbal reasoning paper. There was a code question which led to the answer ‘divorce’. This upset one boy whose parents were going through a particularly difficult divorce at the time. So it’s probably a good idea to be aware of individual circumstances.

There also seem to be interesting cultural differences. In my experience, children whose families originate from the Indian sub-continent, girls as well as boys, tend to say ‘kill’. French children, on the other hand, often say ‘eat’. I have no idea why – is ‘manger’ used in French?

Don’t forget that chess is a symbolic representation of a battle. If you’re fighting a real battle you might, according to circumstances, either capture or kill your enemy. You wouldn’t ‘take’ them, whatever that might mean, and you certainly wouldn’t eat them. If you capture your enemy they might escape, or you might, if feeling merciful, decide to release them. If you kill them, though, they’re out of the battle for good. The same is true of chess. The only way a piece can reappear is via pawn promotion, but, as we’re allowed more than one queen, it is very specifically a conversion of one piece to another rather than a lost piece coming back into the game.

So, in principle, I have, except in specific circumstances, no problem with ‘kill’, and I’ve never met a child who has a problem with the word either. As I’m aware that some adults do have a problem, I’m careful about when I use it. If a child leads I will follow. In a group environment I’d probably continue to use other words, but I wouldn’t correct any child who said ‘kill’ for ‘capture’. And, just in case you’re interested, I’m a lifelong pacifist.

Richard James

Share