Originally posted by robbie carrobieGood luck having a beginner punishing an opponent for making a passive move. As I mentioned earlier, the beginner's problems with chess do not stem from the opening. The beginner's problems with chess stems for lack of chess skills.
the principle of maximum activity comes into play, that is, we place our bishops on
squares where they have the greatest influence. This is the beauty of teaching a
beginner principles, when their opponent violates a principle, they will be immediately
be aware of it and punish them for it.
3 edits
Originally posted by EladarI posted a game which demonstrated the fact that a beginners problems stem directly
Good luck having a beginner punishing an opponent for making a passive move. As I mentioned earlier, the beginner's problems with chess do not stem from the opening. The beginner's problems with chess stems for lack of chess skills.
from the opening, in fact, my opponent made five weakening pawn moves, developed
nothing, failed to connect her rooks and to make castling and she was lost by the sixth
move, all i had to do was open the position and it was over. I can show you zillions of
similar games. Sorry i have failed to detect any reason why playing passively is to be
preferred to playing actively, you have not given a reason why it should be preferred.
- Joined
- 20 Feb 11
- Moves
- 8839
2 edits
Hi...
Firstly I applaud the OP for taking time out to talk to the beginners. Everyone has their opinion on how to teach amd it's rather easy to pick holes in posts like this, because teaching is...well...so damn hard.
So to lessen the blow, I'll quote greenpawn instead... 🙂
"Black breaks 3 golden opening rules. He ignores development. (6...Nf6) He goes pawn snatching and he is has just moved a piece twice in the opening without a valid reason. Nicking a pawn at the cost of development is never a valid reason."
"Golden rules"? Hm...
I think it's good that new players have heard of these opening principles. I think it is very important that they don't follow them 🙂. Which player learnt most from the game "greenpawn - Rene Pogel RHP 2008" ?
To labour the point, saying you should not grab material in the opening ever by moving a piece twice is obviously incorrect. What if the opponenet blunders their queen? The problem is judging the piece activity against the material. I am sure Rene was surprised at white's piece activity. A litany of surprises like that will build judgement - as long as it's framed by the principles.
The OP is rather fomulaic. The principles should suggest a trade off and guide your evaluation. They cannot make the evaluation for you. Otherwise you would never play the Najdorf poisened pawn or Najdorf Polugeavsy. Or even the Sicilian. A non developing pawn move at move one? Sheesh...I mean...really.
Principles are derived from many concrete cases. I think they are learned the same way. It's also more fun that way. If we all follow them blindly then we will all be playing Guioco Pianissimo's or Four Knights defences for the rest of our days and the richness of the opening phase of the game would be closed to us.
yours, Marcus
3 edits
Hi Lastcraft
You are right '"teaching is...well...so damn hard." (though enjoyable and there
are things one can learn and pick up when preparing.)
Even harder is posting. One small slip, one word out of place and a crowd gathers.
Usually the poster states something that is obvious to him but not to others.
(Robbie and the cursed 5.f3. If he had left out this bit then none of what followed...would have followed.)
We are all guilty of this but going into deep explanations and having to show
examples etc etc is not always feasible.
I did say: "Nicking a pawn at the cost of development is never a valid reason."
Taking a hanging Queen is different.
I also said somewhere else on here you must show the 'rule breakers' that win games.
A typical example (and there are many of them) being....
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think you missed my point. I'll try to be more clear.
I posted a game which demonstrated the fact that a beginners problems stem directly
from the opening, in fact, my opponent made five weakening pawn moves, developed
nothing, failed to connect her rooks and to make castling and she was lost by the sixth
move, all i had to do was open the position and it was over. I can show you zillions of
si ...[text shortened]... s to be
preferred to playing actively, you have not given a reason why it should be preferred.
I do not believe that teaching a beginner how to open is of primary importance. There is nothing wrong with teaching a beginner how to open, but teaching the beginner to see the board and play chess is much more important.
By teaching a beginner how to open, you are simply telling the beginner how to start a game. When I first started out playing chess I was told to study openings, but I always ran into a problem- "what do I do now?"
I had no idea what to do. Many people would probably say I still have no good ideas, but I can tell you that at least I have an idea of what I want to do. Having an idea is better than having no idea, even if the idea is bad. You get better when you find out why your bad ideas are bad and can find something better (before you make the move!).
Teach the beginner to look and think.
Once again, I do not think that teaching opening ideas is a bad thing. I'm saying simply teaching opening ideas and telling the beginner to simply punish the bad opening of your opponent doesn't work. It doesn't work because the beginner is incapable of punishing because the beginner doesn't have a clue.
Edit:
When you teach the beginner to think, you'll need to give the beginner concrete things to think about. Teach the beginner what to look for and how to react. There are many reasons why beginners are bad. Board vision is definitely one reason and having no clue is another.
- Joined
- 08 Apr 09
- Moves
- 20250
Originally posted by EladarIt's so funny that everyone is talking about another type of beginner. Clearly robbie was not aiming at a beginner beginner, but at a rather inexperienced novice chess player.
I think you missed my point. I'll try to be more clear.
I do not believe that teaching a beginner how to open is of primary importance. There is nothing wrong with teaching a beginner how to open, but teaching the beginner to see the board and play chess is much more important.
By teaching a beginner how to open, you are simply telling the beginner ho ...[text shortened]... because the beginner is incapable of punishing because the beginner doesn't have a clue.
Probably very many people have tried to list the levels of chess playing ability. Something like this:
- lvl 0: a player that has never played the game, never watched it, does not know how the pieces move nor what the goal is.
- lvl 1: knows all the above, but has no clue what to do in a given position (the opening position is one of them). Is probably aware of the idea that losing own pieces is not good, just by analogy with other games. Might capture pawns with a queen just for fun.
- lvl 2: is aware of the idea that some pieces are more valuable than others, because of the way they move. Likes the queen because it can move everywhere.
- lvl 3: is aware that the valuable pieces (i.e. the queen) are not only fun, but also very vulnerable to attacks by minor pieces.
- lvl 4: will try to exchange as much pawns and minor pieces, so that he can finally use the queen. Realizes that some structure in the game is required, maybe someone should explain him general opening principles.
- lvl 5: uses general opening principles, but doesn't really understand why. Will have fun playing the game against other lvl 5'ers, since he has discovered the middle game.
- lvl 6: same as 5, but knows what a pin and a fork are, but above all: counts defenders. Will crunch all lvl 5'ers with this magic.
- lvl 7: finds out that his opponents have been looking at opening lines and will do the same. He fails though, because his opponents also know a few tricks and traps.
- lvl 8: these are of course the guys that know a few traps. However, since traps look likes mistakes, i.e. violation of opening principles, they will completely forget about principles.
- lvl 9: rediscovers general opening principles and gets the logic behind them.
- lvl 10: improves his tactics.
I stop here, because it's already longer than I planned. I didn't mention endgame stuff on purpose, that's obsolete untill this point. Tactics should have deserved more attention in these first levels, but I wanted to focus on things related to the opening.
Please tell me if more experienced people have tried to make lists like these.
2 edits
Originally posted by Eladarhi, i am not professing to teach anyone any openings, I was interested in applying
I think you missed my point. I'll try to be more clear.
I do not believe that teaching a beginner how to open is of primary importance. There is nothing wrong with teaching a beginner how to open, but teaching the beginner to see the board and play chess is much more important.
By teaching a beginner how to open, you are simply telling the beginner ho beginners are bad. Board vision is definitely one reason and having no clue is another.
universal opening principles which appeared to me were applicable in any situation,
that's the beauty of a principle over a concrete variation. On the contrary its vital that a
beginner knows how to open, otherwise they will lose making useless pawn moves as i
have clearly demonstrated. It appears to me that you are confusing opening principles
with specific opening lines and variations, they are not the same thing. If a beginner
adopts these principles they will get a playable middle game and what is more they will
recognize and try to punish violations of these principles. Principles are both concrete
and flexible, applicable to many situations.
Originally posted by tvochessIt's so funny that everyone is talking about another type of beginner, yes indeed, i was
It's so funny that everyone is talking about another type of beginner. Clearly robbie was not aiming at a beginner beginner, but at a rather inexperienced novice chess player.
Probably very many people have tried to list the levels of chess playing ability. Something like this:
- lvl 0: a player that has never played the game, never watched it, does n ...[text shortened]... pening.
Please tell me if more experienced people have tried to make lists like these.
going to do a how to play a middle game based upon principles but the controversy and
hostility, with a few welcome exceptions, has put me off the idea for ever.
- Joined
- 20 Feb 11
- Moves
- 8839
2 edits
I did say: "Nicking a pawn at the cost of development is never a valid reason."Hi...
Taking a hanging Queen is different.
Of course I was over exaggerating your statement (but then we would never accept a gambit). Obvioulsy my point is that positional play is all trade-offs and the real building block is the relative judgements, not recipes.
Good judgement comes from mistakes and mistakes come from poor judgement is (roughly) the old adage. My point is that deliberate practice (Josh Weinstien style) should involve deliberate mistakes. If you are not sure whether you should grab a pawn, well, just grab the pawn. You will win or learn. You will learn more post game if you can frame the loss in "lack of development", but I personally believe you still have to make the mistake. Suffering is only understood first hand.
yours, Marcus
- Joined
- 08 Apr 09
- Moves
- 20250
Originally posted by EladarI don't think a child or adult are that different in the phases they have to go through to learn the game. Maybe an adult will already think more of his own instead of doing.
It appears to me that you are thinking about this from a beginning child's point of view.
Your descriptions do not describe me as a beginner. When I say a beginner I mean someone who now wants to learn about chess and understand the game.
My descriptions may seem quite childish, but that was intended. I wanted to line up the progress of understanding, not the lessons a teacher would give. The progress through the first levels can go fast in the eyes of the teacher, but it takes time to sink in the student's mind.
Of course not every player is learning according to the same route. But I think it's more or less possible to determine a path of competences that have to be acquired in sequence. Some things cannot be learned before others.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI was interested in applying universal opening principles which appeared to me were applicable in any situation.
hi, i am not professing to teach anyone any openings, I was interested in applying
universal opening principles which appeared to me were applicable in any situation,
that's the beauty of a principle over a concrete variation. On the contrary its vital that a
beginner knows how to open, otherwise they will lose making useless pawn moves as i
...[text shortened]... these principles. Principles are both concrete
and flexible, applicable to many situations.
There is no principle in chess, applicable in any situation, without exceptions.