Advice for True Beginners

Originally posted by Eladar
Join a chess club isn't always possible. Even when you can, not all chess clubs have people there who want to help beginners. The club that I visited a few times just met at a book store's coffee shop type place and played some games for a while.

I was able to hold my own against most of them and they weren't much help to me.

The trick is to find people a bit better than you are and play more games (ideally all!) games with them.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The trick is to find people a bit better than you are and play more games (ideally all!) games with them.

I know this is the standard advice given to players who want to improve, but I think there is a lot to be gained from playing weaker players as well. You won't be winning all the way through most of the time and will have to learn how to fight back from lousy positions and to somehow create imbalances in sterile positions.

I play in the same team as a strong woman player. She has represented her country at Olympiads many times and is used to playing titled players, generally getting decent results against them. However she performs terribly against weaker players, often losing on time because she's spent too long in the opening. I, on the other hand, beat beginners and ordinary club players with ease but don't do well against the stronger ones (i.e. anyone over, say, ECF 200 or FIDE 2200).

Originally posted by Fat Lady
I know this is the standard advice given to players who want to improve, but I think there is a lot to be gained from playing weaker players as well. You won't be winning all the way through most of the time and will have to learn how to fight back from lousy positions and to somehow create imbalances in sterile positions.

I play in the same team as a st ...[text shortened]... se but don't do well against the stronger ones (i.e. anyone over, say, ECF 200 or FIDE 2200).

It sounds like she struggles against players who don't follow book lines as far.

Your scenario sounds more like what happens when playing a stronger player. In particular, the lousy positions seem to happen a lot less against weaker players. 🙂

When considering playing people that you consider weaker than you, I recalled a wonderful book I read many years ago called "Those about to die" where the author, Daniel Mannix, describes how big cats were trained to fight humans in the Roman circuses. You can read it here:
www.octobot.net/library/Those About To Die/chapter05.htm

One of his jobs in the school was to train a leopard to be a man-eater. This was a complicated process as none of the big cats willingly attacks humans. The first part of the training consisted in overcoming the leopard's instinctive dread of human beings. For this purpose, a leopard bom in captivity who had never learned to fear people was far preferable to a wild caught animal. A particularly mean, half-grown cub was selected and a bestiarius, heavily padded, approached the animal deliberately pretending to be nervous. As soon as the leopard made a swipe at him, the bestiarius fell on the cage floor, rolling in apparent agony. The sight of a prostrate victim will generally encourage any aggressive animal to attack and also the man had bits of meat tied to his padding. In this way, the leopard was taught to be a killer. The animal always won in these combats and the trainer was careful never to strike or discipline him in any manner whatever.

The leopard was always fed human meat—there was plenty of that around the arena—and later encouraged to attack slaves. These men had their arms broken and teeth knocked out so they could not injure the animal. A desperate man can kill a leopard with his bare hands (Carl Akeley, the African explorer, accomplished this feat) but even if women or children were used the animal had to be convinced that he could always win without trouble. Finally, when the animal was completely confident of his powers, he was given uncrippled slaves to kill. If the slave put up too much of a struggle, the watching bestiarius helped the leopard out by a quick spear thrust.

Originally posted by Fat Lady
When considering playing people that you consider weaker than you, I recalled a wonderful book I read many years ago called "Those about to die" where the author, Daniel Mannix, describes how big cats were trained to fight humans in the Roman circuses. You can read it here:
www.octobot.net/library/Those About To Die/chapter05.htm

One of his jobs ...[text shortened]... struggle, the watching bestiarius helped the leopard out by a quick spear thrust.

Sounds like chess training is little different than bully training.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The trick is to find people a bit better than you are and play more games (ideally all!) games with them.

That's why I play on line.

Chess clubs also don't work for me because gas prices are too high and I have to work nights that they meet. That's not a good combination.

Hi Fat Lady.

I think I know the girl you are talking about.
There are loads of good players like this out there.

They have developed back-to-front. Usually we start off with gambit trappy
play and pick up all the tic-tac-toe tricks.

Then when our hairy attacks are hitting brick wall against good players
we seek other ways to win and play what they call full rounded chess
often keeping the ½ point in the back pocket and going for the grand slam
attack if the position demands it.
(some stay with the hairy scary style.......guilty.)

Nothing wrong with this safety first rock solid approach.
She is analysing the good expected replies and when the lemon comes
she is taking it on in a positional manner.
League chess time controls tend to be quicker than International Chess
so that is where she is drifting into TT.

She could bo doubt teach most of us a thing about the game but needs
sharpening up and have more faith in her ability (which she will have)
to play quicker and punish slack moves tactically.

The solution is b7


With the White pieces on the board you cannot set up a legal checkmate
with the Black King on b7.
(g2 is the mirror square that is why I placed the White King on g2.)

Originally posted by kaminsky
My rating has dropped lately by 100+ pts , I don't study or play through games or do puzzles but recently I've been playing blitz. Up until playing blitz I'd played 200 games in my entire life , and just on this site .My blitz rating is poor , a loss is a loss ,but I have a tendency to enjoy a glorious defeat . My point is this , any chess is better than n ...[text shortened]... that I enjoyed the game much more when I stopped thinking it as an intellectual competition.

Most of my CC games are pretty boring too. I like to play too fast and rarely do you have people playing many moves a day. My problem is that I play blitz between moves, then come back to the board and make a move without getting used to the board again! CC is a different animal in that respect.

Having said that, I did just finish one very fun game. You guessed it, that means I won. 😀 But still it was very exciting for me and got caught with a check I wasn't expecting. So CC games can be fun, as long as your opponent is willing to take chances too! (Or gives you a way in)

Originally posted by gambit05
My advice for any level: Play (slightly) stronger opponents.

Amen to that. You won't learn anything by winning games. You have to lose to get better; sounds paradoxical, I know. Your goal in chess is to get beaten by stronger and stronger opponents.

Originally posted by Fat Lady
I know this is the standard advice given to players who want to improve, but I think there is a lot to be gained from playing weaker players as well.

I would agree with that. Playing opposition that is weaker (but not so weak that your opponents beat themselves) is good practice in learning to deal with oddball weaker moves, developing ones killer instinct, and also avoiding complacency.

As a player always seeking to improve, playing only stronger opponents would not be as productive to my chess improvement as playing both stronger and weaker opponents, just as playing only weaker opposition would not be helpful to my chess development either.

Thinking more on this thread, as a true beginner in the past, one who had only learned the moves and like all beginners would set themselves on fire in only a short number of moves, I do not think the importance of the absolute basics can be stressed enough. By absolute basics, I mean the basic principles of opening moves and development, the basic tactical devices, and the basic mates.

Luckily, I had a stronger opponent who would allow me to take back any weak move or blunders when we played, which allowed me to get a grasp of the above basics very quickly, and actually understand how and why I was being beaten. For a true beginner without such opportunity, the alternative would be to get a good book with basic illustrative games, that explain every move.

Once you can thread water, you can then focus on some basics of improvement as a beginner. Limit yourself to one opening as black and one as white initially, expanding it to two perhaps for variety, once you feel more comfortable doing so. Study tactics and tactical devices as much as you can, as this will enable you to both land blows on your opponent and also be begin to be aware of the blows your opponent can land on you.

By this stage, you should be getting closer to being able to diagnose the areas in your game that will benefit most from improvement. Starting to focus a little on the basic rudiments of strategy, and also the basic rudiments of the endgame should begin to fill in some of the most important remaining gaps in your play, and from here, you will be on your own as to the areas in your game you focus on as you seek further improvement. Simply ask yourself, and continue to ask yourself, why you are being beaten, and this should keenly identify the areas in your game that need improvement.

Lastly, having discovered Yasser Seriwans excellent book series recently, I can only reflect on how useful I would have found them as a beginner, and would recommend them as a very good place to start as a beginner to chess. Play Winning Chess is the first book in the series if I can remember correctly, and would be a great place to start for any true beginner.

Just play the game. You will get better if you just keep playing.

Never mind all this you must play better players gubbins.
You will end up being a chess snob only playing players you deem worthy
to play you.

These players who put a no lower than bar on who they take challenges
from (2000+ etc etc) are not being fair.
(I only accept challenges from under 300 players.)

The lad you beat will be a better player because he has learned from his defeat.
(well that is theory you are all going by.)
If you want a so called worthwhile opponent then that is what you helping
to create.

You are playing because you love playing.
Getting better is a bonus, it helps you understand the game even more
so you can enjoy it even more.

Don't get too good because then you start worry about things you never
worried about before. 🙂

Just remember the perfect game of Chess has yet to be played.
Every game you play may be your unpainted Mona Lisa, your masterpiece.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Fat Lady.

I think I know the girl you are talking about.
There are loads of good players like this out there.

They have developed back-to-front. Usually we start off with gambit trappy
play and pick up all the tic-tac-toe tricks.

Then when our hairy attacks are hitting brick wall against good players
we seek other ways to win and play wha ...[text shortened]... with the Black King on b7.
(g2 is the mirror square that is why I placed the White King on g2.)

Does this mean that b7 and g2 are good squares to place the King? How does this teach a beginner to know what is meant by placing the pieces on good squares and how to recognize them?

The Instructor

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Just play the game. You will get better if you just keep playing.

Never mind all this you must play better players gubbins.
You will end up being a chess snob only playing players you deem worthy
to play you.

These players who put a no lower than bar on who they take challenges
from (2000+ etc etc) are not being fair.
(I only accept challenge s has yet to be played.
Every game you play may be your unpainted Mona Lisa, your masterpiece.

That's always the reaction. "Oh, well that's not very egalitarian of you." You know what? If you are a new player trying to get better quickly, I say, screw egalitarianism, and don't worry if you are perceived as a 'chess snob'. Let all of the myriad players who stopped trying to improve years ago take on the task of educating the weaker players.

Then, when you peak, you may go back to playing against more people below your own strength.

(Edit: and a thought about 'just play the game' - if that was enough, then all these people who have played their dad and siblings a million times would be masters, revolutionizing the game with their favorite 1.h4 2.Rh3 opening.)

Hi SG.

I have assumed the player has joined a chess club.
Then you play against anyone and everyone.

You will find a chess buddy fairly quickly but never knock back
a skittles game v a weaker player because he is a weaker player.
Every game you play does not have to be a lesson taking you to your GM title.
Nor does it have to be a waste of time. You are playing and thinking from the off.

The chances are when you play your stronger opponent the first part
of the game you will be going though the motions recalling often played theory.

Hi RJ.

"Here is a piece of nonsense that will keep you amused for hours."

I never claimed it would help.