Introduce myself - beginner looking to learn

Originally posted by sonhouse
It seems to me to be a good way to at least see all the immediate moves on the board. You have to put yourself in the mind of a beginner, they don't automatically see where the pieces move like we do, we glance at the board and at least see where all the pieces can move to, attack and defense, we see as a matter of course when a piece is under attack. You c to walk before you can run. It's not meant to be used for 5 years running for krikey sake🙂

They don't see the moves, because they've never memorized the patterns of the
pieces. The best way to do this, is on a board where the piece's value is elevated,
so they can understand its maximum potential.

This happens in the end of the game.

Originally posted by EirikK
Hi.

My name is Eirik, and I am a 33 year old architect from Norway.
I studied architecture in Australia (Newcastle) and I live in Germany with my German wife and our daughter since 2007. I work in Luxembourg as an architect at www.polaris-architects.com

I know the basics of chess and enjoy it once in a while with friends. My hardest games are against my dad, we usually play in the holidays, and unfortunately I usually lose... He is an avid attacker, and neither my defense or attack is grandmaster class.

I am interested in correspondence chess because it might offer me a good opportunity to get to know nice people and to improve my game.

If anyone is interested in playing against a beginner and maybe give a few tactical tips and a quick analysis after our game is finished, I would be very happy to play.

See ya over the chessboard.
Cheers, Eirik

Beginners should all start in the same place,
the ending. Study endings, the basic mates, the basic pawn endings, and then
move onto rook endings.

This study should be supplemented by studying Master Games that are well
annotated. Play through master games, analyze your own games, and play
through lots of endings.

I don't think any decent player will tell you not to do any of these.
Everything else is just "excess" that "might" make you slightly "stronger". When
starting out however, these are the fields you should begin with. Use books,
use websites, use whatever you like to satisfy these three principle areas of Chess
study.

-GIN

Originally posted by Nowakowski
They don't see the moves, because they've never memorized the patterns of the
pieces. The best way to do this, is on a board where the piece's value is elevated,
so they can understand its maximum potential.

This happens in the end of the game.

[quote]Originally posted by EirikK
[b]Hi.

My name is Eirik, and I am a 33 year old archite ...[text shortened]... use whatever you like to satisfy these three principle areas of Chess
study.

-GIN

Couldn't agree more, but to an absolute beginner you should see where the pieces go.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Couldn't agree more, but to an absolute beginner you should see where the pieces go.

Our friend would have school children start with Dovertsky and then wean them onto Szabo! 🙂

Isn't studying strategy and tactics the best way to learn were and how the pieces go?

I agree with Nowa and would add opening principles

-learn basic mates
-learn opening principles (takes 2 minutes) and try to apply them (the tricky part is to know when it's to your advantage to break 'em and mastering that will probably take you the rest of your playing career)
-rook endings.it's the most common ending in practical play and therefore the most important
-play over games.Start with the old masters (Philidor,Blackburne,Morphy etc..) and work your way up to present day.This is a study that never ends
-analyse your own games
-any area you enjoy to study

Originally posted by sonhouse
Couldn't agree more, but to an absolute beginner you should see where the pieces go.

'where pieces go' is by and large dependent on the pawn stucture and known opening theory for the specific opening. both topics far beyond the beginner's reach. the best way to build up the intuition for that is studying how the big boys do it. pick a master with a style that appeals to you, and start trying to copy it. in time, you'll start to get the hang of it. there's no easy fast way to do it, no quick fix, no shortcut.

a point counting scheme will just distract the focus to the totally irrelevant task of point counting, when the beginner desperately needs to be concentrating on the chess.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Our friend would have school children start with Dovertsky and then wean them onto Szabo! 🙂

My friend, with how much Dvoretsky are you familiar?

...you do mean Dvoretsky, right?

Until you know whats in between the covers; you shouldn't judge its material, or those
whom are already familiar with it.


I've given many opinions many times, on many issues, and I've given mine here.
Do you have something you can add to it?

-GIN

Originally posted by EirikK
Thanks for your welcomes, and for the players who have challenged me and with whom I have begun to play. I guess I have enough on my hands now with 3-4 games. Great! : )

nawadaP, great tip about the chess club. there is a cafe in town where they have monday evening chess, when I find time amongst my baby girl, wife, studies and full-time job, I will go the ...[text shortened]... by Move - John Nunn), and it turns out that he plays as well, so he invited me to play as well.

John Nunn is one of the best chess writers around. You will enjoy his book much.

Originally posted by smaia
John Nunn is one of the best chess writers around. You will enjoy his book much.

I second this. I own most of Nunn's books, and I feel like he has been my personal chess instructor over the years. This is subjective, as each of us may "connect" with certain writers better than others, but Nunn is very clear and enlightening to me.

He was also World Class in his prime, and that never hurts!

Paul

Originally posted by wormwood
'where pieces go' is by and large dependent on the pawn stucture and known opening theory for the specific opening. both topics far beyond the beginner's reach. the best way to build up the intuition for that is studying how the big boys do it. pick a master with a style that appeals to you, and start trying to copy it. in time, you'll start to get the hang sk of point counting, when the beginner desperately needs to be concentrating on the chess.

I think we are talking about two different things here. Maybe I should have been a bit more clear: When I say 'where the pieces go', I mean like the queen moves diagonal like a bishop and horizontal and vertical like a rook at the same time. This guy ErikK started a game with me and I had him just try to figure out the space point tally and he consistently got it wrong which means in his head he isn't seeing all the squares a piece can move to, it's like a bishop in the corner where it has a free hand to go from corner to corner but the last place it can go is blocked out of his head so if he has a rook there, he would not notice the bishop attacks the rook. That's all I am trying to get him to do and he is not seeing all the moves. That seems to me to be a minimum of what you need to even LEARN the more advanced stuff. I don't see why you guys object to that. I am not saying this is the end all of chess, just the barest beginnings, a short term thing so the beginner can at least see where all the moves are of the pieces. How can you learn the openings or endgame if you don't even see the full extent of the piece moves? You guys are seeing this from a way too advanced viewpoint. ErikK is a real beginner and you need to teach some really basic basics first before you start shoving openings and strategy down his throat.
He doesn't even know about tempo for crist sake, I am explaining that stuff as we go along in our game.

Originally posted by Nowakowski
My friend, with how much Dvoretsky are you familiar?

...you do mean Dvoretsky, right?

Until you know whats in between the covers; you shouldn't judge its material, or those
whom are already familiar with it.


I've given many opinions many times, on many issues, and I've given mine here.
Do you have something you can add to it?

-GIN

do i have something to add to your opinion? no i think it speaks volumes by itself.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I think we are talking about two different things here. Maybe I should have been a bit more clear: When I say 'where the pieces go', I mean like the queen moves diagonal like a bishop and horizontal and vertical like a rook at the same time. This guy ErikK started a game with me and I had him just try to figure out the space point tally and he consistently know about tempo for crist sake, I am explaining that stuff as we go along in our game.

there are various exercises for beginners in the chessmaster suite which advocate sunhouses approach. For example there are lessons where one is to find all the squares where a piece can move to legally in a given position, this gets the student used to and familiar with the operation of the pieces, the space these pieces control which i think we agree is an excellent first step because when we begin we tend to think in terms only of the pieces and those other pieces which they may capture, not in terms of the space they control. This is especially apparent in young kids. Also the space is evaluated according to its relative value, space we control, space our opponent controls, neutral space and dangerous space, which again is an excellent step in viewing the board as a composite whole with different constituent parts.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
there are various exercises for beginners in the chessmaster suite which advocate sunhouses approach. For example there are lessons where one is to find all the squares where a piece can move to legally in a given position, this gets the student used to and familiar with the operation of the pieces, the space these pieces control which i think we ag ...[text shortened]... is an excellent step in viewing the board as a composite whole with different constituent parts.

Thinking about this, I am trying to get him to see all the piece moves at once, not just a scan of each piece in turn and seeing it goes thus and thus, but the correlation of all the pieces at once. That allows the beginner to start seeing in terms of double attacks, forks and the like. If you just see in your mind an incomplete data set of how the pieces move, you are unlikely to be able to visualize the 4 dimensional nature of piece co-operation. Not that I do that on any kind of master level but I would like to get that idea across to beginners. Seems to me a viable way to teach, like seeing a bishop on one side of the board attacking F7 and a queen on the other side of the board also attacking F7 and possible mates. If they only see the queen bearing down on F7 and not the bishop, there is not much of a chance of them seeing combinations, now is there?

Originally posted by sonhouse
I think we are talking about two different things here. Maybe I should have been a bit more clear: When I say 'where the pieces go', I mean like the queen moves diagonal like a bishop and horizontal and vertical like a rook at the same time. This guy ErikK started a game with me and I had him just try to figure out the space point tally and he consistently ...[text shortened]... know about tempo for crist sake, I am explaining that stuff as we go along in our game.

I think it's more about the point system being confusing and irrelevant.

this is what a rank beginner should learn instead:

1) opening principles: develop fast, castle early, control centre, etc.

2) read what tactics are: http://www.chesstactics.org/

3) train tactics daily, even a little: http://chess.emrald.net/

and play a lot.

What a beginner should know

1 - the pawn moves vertically, but captures left or right. On its first move it may leap two ahead. When the pawn reaches the opposite side of the board, it transforms into a second queen.

2 - the horsie moves like an l.

3 - the king and rook combined may make a fancy move.

4 - start off the game with a pawn in the middle and hope the best of it.