# Thinking Skills Test 2 (Part 2)

Last week I introduced the first four questions in my second Thinking Skills Quiz. This week I’ll take a look at how children answered the last four questions

Question 5 is another standard tactical idea which comes up in many openings, and where the correct move is often overlooked. The complex thought processes which enable the children to find a3, the only move to avoid losing a piece, are too hard at this level, unless they’ve seen the idea before. Several of my sample chose to castle, wanting to unpin the knight and expecting to be able to save it next move. Again, a typical thinking error with young children, thinking “I go there, then I go there” rather “I go there, then you go there”.

Question 6 is a random mate in 2 position. Can they find a fairly simple mate in two if they’re not told specifically that it’s a checkmate puzzle? A few of them managed to find the correct answer: Nf6. They recognized the typical King and Rook v King checkmate position and saw that they could get checkmate next move by moving the knight out of the way. In some cases this was, I suspect, a lucky guess. You have to control g8 to stop the black king escaping, and blocking off the black bishop also speeds up the mate, but I’m not sure that they were all aware of these points.

Question 7 is another defensive question, and another typical opening idea. When faced with two threats children will automatically react to the first threat they see without stopping to see if there’s another threat that should take priority. So in this position most children will spot the threat to the knight on e5 and move it to the most obvious square, f3, where it threatens the black queen. Even when I prompted some of them to find a knight move which defended f2 some of them found it hard. Eventually they noticed that Ng4 fitted the bill, but didn’t stop to ask whether or not the move was safe. The question you should be asking (and you really had to ask yourself before playing Nxe5 the previous move) is “Do I have a knight move which defends f2 and is also safe”. But this is a complex cognitive operation which is too hard for most young children with little experience of chess.

Finally, Question 8. Several of the students didn’t get this far in the time allocated for the exercise, but those who attempted the question played 1. Qc6+, expecting something like 1… Nd7 2. Nxd7 Qxd7 3. Qxa8+. They probably hadn’t noticed the bishop on h3. It’s often been pointed out that backward diagonal moves are the hardest to spot. In fact the bishop on h3 is the key to this puzzle. White can trap the bishop by playing the rather unusual discovered attack g4.

Again, these puzzles exemplify some of the typical thinking errors made by less experienced younger children.

• They only consider one criterion when choosing a move, and choose the first move meeting that criterion.
• They either fail to look more than one move ahead or think ‘I go there, then I go there, then I go there’ rather than ‘I go there, you go there, then I go there’.
• They are unable to see relationships between pieces in different parts of the board.
• They fail to notice their opponent’s threats.
• They overlook discovered attacks.

Now this poses a couple of questions. Can we teach young children more efficiently by concentrating on these areas? Or do we put it down to their cognitive development and expect them to improve naturally? Should we be repeating and reinforcing typical tactical ideas in the opening such as Questions 2, 5 and 7 in this quiz and Questions 6 and 7 in the previous quiz?

And what about less experienced or lower rated adult players? Do they make the same type of mistake or is there a difference? Young children learn mainly through memory and mimicry rather than through genuine understanding, but it should be easier to teach older children and adults to understand abstract concepts and more complex cognitive skills. I don’t know as I have very little experience teaching adults. If you have any views or experience on this, please let me know.

Richard James

This entry was posted in Articles, Children's Chess, Richard James on .