Teaching Chess to Kids

[billbrock]

@xplor

Make it fun first. If you explain something and don’t see smiling faces you have lost them.

That’s why tactics are great! I used to start with pawn endings (after the elementary mates) because I believed that it, like Fiber One, was good for them. And I discovered that most kids liked pawn endings (at that stage) about as much as they liked Fiber One.

The best of both worlds is to combine tactics and endings. In rook endings, e.g., the last move of the Saavedra study (Kc2-b3) is a double threat in a “quiet position” Kc2 Rc8 v Ka1 Ra4).

Or the famous skewer (White: Ra8, Pa7, Kh2 Black: Kf7, Ra1) 1.Rh8! Rxa7 2.Ra7+

One of Pandolfini’s great gifts as a teacher is boiling ideas down to their essence (we see that every month in the supplementary quiz to Chess Solitaire): his books are full of such examples.

OTOH, there is something to be said for “creating a romance” that is conducive to learning. Beautiful stuff (Morphy vs. Duke & Count, Saavedra position, Légal’s mate, Réti-Tartakover offhand game Qd8+!, Evergreen Game etc.) may be (objectively) too hard for relative newbies, but you can give them an idea of how cool a game chess is & come back to it later. And all of these are standard fare in beginner’s books…

A little of that goes a long way, and it’s best to stay with material appropriate to the level. (I’ve gotten my share of both smiling & puzzled faces…) Teaching kids from 5 to 10 can be rather daunting! I think I’m an excellent teacher for students in the 800-1600 range, but I also think I have a LOT to learn about taking the kids from absolute beginner to 800. And I think that strong players have a lot to learn about teaching chess from Class E players who are good with kids.

[tmagchesspgh]

When I was in Canada several years ago, I was told that the Coakley books were used by the Chess and Math organization to teach chess in the schools. The Canadian kids seemed more tactical and practiced in making combinations than American kids of similar ages. The explanations in the book, “Winning Chess Strategy for Kids” were well thought out and pitched to the reading level of younger children.

In dealing with piece values, I have used something that the young kids know and like in order to establish values. For example, pawns are called “cookies”. Since many kids have seen Sesame Street, they catch on early that you want to eat “cookies”. Pieces can be “candy bars”. Since kids like to capture things regardless of the cost, a piece to them is only a piece. But when a rook becomes 5 candy bars, and exchanging for a knight only gives you three candy bars back, I’ll ask them if they really want to give me 2 candy bars for free. When they capture one of my pawns, they like to call out “Cookie, yum, yum, yum!” Later, when they get a little stronger, I show them how getting greedy and going after too many “cookies” can make their King sick from being attacked. I have also shown values by getting a handful of pennies and having the kids place them on the board to see how many sqares the piece attacks. Since younger kids are very tactile in their learning style, this works out fine. We almost always use large rather than small analysis set pieces as the kids like to touch and hold the big pieces after they capture something.

One of my favorite analogies involves attitude in defense. I ask them whether they would rather be an armadillo or a wolverine. I explain how an armadillo rolls up into a ball to defend itself, which works against smaller predators (lower rated) but not against larger animals. A wolverine on the other hand defends itself tenaciously, fights back, and have been known to chase even bears (masters). This leads us to the computer to find pictures and more information. Then I ask them again which way is better to defend After one such lesson, one of the little girls I have taught made a T-shirt with a picture of a wolverine surrounded by chess pieces which she wore to tournaments.

[kevin_bachler]

@billbrock

@xplor

Make it fun first. If you explain something and don’t see smiling faces you have lost them.

That’s why tactics are great! I used to start with pawn endings (after the elementary mates) because I believed that it, like Fiber One, was good for them. And I discovered that most kids liked pawn endings (at that stage) about as much as they liked Fiber One.

These can be made to be fun - in limited quantities.

[ztz2]

@Bob McAdams

@ashik4chess

once I teach them how to move, should I let play against each other or against me or against a computer software with rating set as the lowest possible?

Probably all of the above. Players learn the most by playing players who are substantially better than they are. But they typically get the most enjoyment out of winning. Adults may be mature enough to tolerate losing all of the time in practice so that they can later win at tournaments, but young kids are rarely that mature. So it’s best if the kids can get a mixture of learning games (i.e., games they lose) and ego boosting games (i.e., games they win).

Do I teach them a little bit about end game first and then development in openings and then puzzles about middle game tactics?

Once you’ve covered all of the rules of the game, I’d suggest showing them some very short demostration games, such as:

1. g4 e5
2. f3 Qh4#

or:

1. e4 e5
2. Bc4 Bc5
3. Qh5 Nf6
4. Qxf7#

or:

1. Nh3 e5
2. Na3 d5
3. f4 Bxh3
4. gxh3 Qh4#

This will give them a chance to see what an entire chess game looks like, and will also demonstrate to them that it’s possible to lose a chess game very quickly if you’re not careful.

Bob

Wow, this post seems to have initiated quite a squabble! Hopefully without provoking anyone, I would suggest that the children should primarily play against each other, and preferably against someone with comparable strength to themselves. Playing someone much worse than you promotes overconfidence and poor playing, while playing someone vastly superior will often just be an overwhelming haze in which the poor child realizes that their position quickly became cramped and crushed without much understanding of how that happened. However, playing someone (i.e. another child student) of comparable strength should allow both students to try to be creative and careful not to blunder. However, I would then follow this up with a session in which you go over the game with the players and attempt to show them what they did well and where they went wrong.

I would recommend not using a low strength computer program as these usually do little more than help teach simple tactics. Even the simplest of plans can often overwhelm the computer, and beating a computer requires less creativity than playing an unpredictable, human opponent. With that said, computer programs do in fact help reinforce tactics, and also force accurate play. Therefore a computer can help in tactic training. However, I would not recommend using the program as such a tool until the students have become somewhat proficient at the game.

[billbrock]

@tmagchesspgh

When I was in Canada several years ago, I was told that the Coakley books were used by the Chess and Math organization to teach chess in the schools. The Canadian kids seemed more tactical and practiced in making combinations than American kids of similar ages. The explanations in the book, “Winning Chess Strategy for Kids” were well thought out and pitched to the reading level of younger children.

In dealing with piece values, I have used something that the young kids know and like in order to establish values. For example, pawns are called “cookies”. Since many kids have seen Sesame Street, they catch on early that you want to eat “cookies”. Pieces can be “candy bars”. Since kids like to capture things regardless of the cost, a piece to them is only a piece. But when a rook becomes 5 candy bars, and exchanging for a knight only gives you three candy bars back, I’ll ask them if they really want to give me 2 candy bars for free. When they capture one of my pawns, they like to call out “Cookie, yum, yum, yum!” Later, when they get a little stronger, I show them how getting greedy and going after too many “cookies” can make their King sick from being attacked. I have also shown values by getting a handful of pennies and having the kids place them on the board to see how many sqares the piece attacks. Since younger kids are very tactile in their learning style, this works out fine. We almost always use large rather than small analysis set pieces as the kids like to touch and hold the big pieces after they capture something.

One of my favorite analogies involves attitude in defense. I ask them whether they would rather be an armadillo or a wolverine. I explain how an armadillo rolls up into a ball to defend itself, which works against smaller predators (lower rated) but not against larger animals. A wolverine on the other hand defends itself tenaciously, fights back, and have been known to chase even bears (masters). This leads us to the computer to find pictures and more information. Then I ask them again which way is better to defend After one such lesson, one of the little girls I have taught made a T-shirt with a picture of a wolverine surrounded by chess pieces which she wore to tournaments.

Funny stuff!

[Bob_McAdams]

@kbachler

@tmagchesspgh

The first book shows a number of poorly played mini-games. Contrary to what Mr. Bachler says, this approach works well with kids. Very young players (Age 4-8) have great difficulty grasping concepts of good play. They learn through emulation and repetition of good moves. Their understanding of these take time. With young players it is often is necessary to show them really bad moves and games so that they can see what can go wrong. The “Fools Mate” and “Scholars Mate” mini-games show them what not to do, much like showing a small child what happens if they touch a hot stove.

Yet interestingly enough, when starting with a group (not 1, but a large group) of young kids, we never did this, and none of the kids learned anything about such mates for several months and yet never fell victim to them, because instead we focused solely on what TO do, not on what not to do. This is much more productive, especially early.

Brains are not wired to “not think” about things. They are wired to think about things. Try to “not think” about pink elephants.

But there are two things that are just as important as learning what to do. One is learning why it should be done. The other is learning what to do if your opponent doesn’t know what to do. And the short games I listed can be used to teach both of these things very effectively.

The first thing all three games do is to instantly (and, usually, permanently) break players out of what I like to call a checkers complex. It’s amazing how many kids, after having it carefully explained to them that the object of chess is to checkmate their opponent’s king - not to capture all of their pieces (as in checkers) - respond to this by trying to capture all of their opponent’s pieces other than the king, and don’t start thinking about checkmate until all or nearly all of their opponent’s pieces are gone. The single most important lesson of these three games is that you need to be looking for checkmates from the very beginning of the game - both ways in which you can checkmate your opponent and ways in which they can checkmate you - and if you don’t, it can lead to disaster.

The second game illustrates several important things: First, it illustrates that the f pawns are weak pawns at the beginning of the game because they are only protected by their respective kings, which cannot move into check. Second, it illustrates that copying your opponent’s moves (as black seems to be doing) is a recipe for disaster, since your opponent, if they are at all clever, can force you to break out of that (as white does with Qh5) and can do it in a way that leaves them with an advantage. Third, it illustrates the urgency of developmental moves. Nf6 is actually a good defense against Qh5, but to work it needs to be made one move earlier. When black moves Nf6 after white has already moved Qh5, he is effectively closing the door to the henhouse after the fox is already inside.

I at one time thought that the first game was just a curiosity (a way of answering the idle question “What’s the fewest number of moves in which an opponent could be checkmated?”), and didn’t entirely understand why Bruce Pandolfini includes it at the beginning of both of his Chess Openings: Traps and Zaps books. But that was before I saw the third game. The important principle in both games is that moving the f pawn while the king is still surrounded by the queen, bishop, and d and e pawns leaves it open to an attack along the e1-h4 diagonal which can only be blocked by the g pawn.

The third game (which is a game I actually played against a 14- or 15-year-old boy) utilizes this same principle, but provides a way of teaching how principles like this can be used in more complex ways. White’s strategy of moving out his knights first is not inherently unsound, although moving them to the a and h files is weak for several reasons, one of which is illustrated by this game. When white moved f4, he was presumably expecting me to move exf4, which he could answer with Nxf4. But I saw his move, instead, as a gift of a free knight, since moving the f pawn effectively negated the g pawn protection of the knight (since the g pawn was now needed to guard the e1-h4 diagonal). White’s failure to see this threat of checkmate caused him to immediately lose the game. But even if he had seen it and had moved accordingly, I would still have gained a knight advantage. What he should have done was move Nf3 instead of Nh3, and now we have walked a 4-move game all the way back to a principle of opening game strategy!

Bob

[kevin_bachler]

@Bob McAdams

@kbachler

@tmagchesspgh

The first book shows a number of poorly played mini-games. Contrary to what Mr. Bachler says, this approach works well with kids. Very young players (Age 4-8) have great difficulty grasping concepts of good play. They learn through emulation and repetition of good moves. Their understanding of these take time. With young players it is often is necessary to show them really bad moves and games so that they can see what can go wrong. The “Fools Mate” and “Scholars Mate” mini-games show them what not to do, much like showing a small child what happens if they touch a hot stove.

Yet interestingly enough, when starting with a group (not 1, but a large group) of young kids, we never did this, and none of the kids learned anything about such mates for several months and yet never fell victim to them, because instead we focused solely on what TO do, not on what not to do. This is much more productive, especially early.

Brains are not wired to “not think” about things. They are wired to think about things. Try to “not think” about pink elephants.

But there are two things that are just as important as learning what to do. One is learning why it should be done. The other is learning what to do if your opponent doesn’t know what to do. And the short games I listed can be used to teach both of these things very effectively.

Nothing I said was intended to imply that we did’t focus on the reasons behind things - of course we did (because in my view that’s part of what to do!) In addition, that level of understanding (and being asked about it later) is in fact an answer to your second comment - and to a third which is “what to do when you have no idea what to do.”

My comments on short games are being taken way out of context at this point. As I noted in a prior post of course a short game (or any game for that matter) can be used to illustrate breaking principles and how to “punish” poor play. My point is that LEADING with such information, before there is a solid framework of principles is typically a poor idea because it becomes an invitation to bad play, or an invitation to “hoping for your opponent’s bad play” rather than an illustration of what not to do. In general, going from a general statement to a specific example - especially early in the process when knowledge is still building - is much more effective than giving a series of specific examples and asking the student to draw a general conclusion. Thus, it tends to work better, especially early, to use the game to reinforce the principle, rather than to use a series of games to discover a principle. The latter course can be time consuming, ineffective, and demoralizing when the student doesn’t quickly see the principle.

@Bob McAdams

The first thing all three games do is to instantly (and, usually, permanently) break players out of what I like to call a checkers complex. It’s amazing how many kids, after having it carefully explained to them that the object of chess is to checkmate their opponent’s king - not to capture all of their pieces (as in checkers) - respond to this by trying to capture all of their opponent’s pieces other than the king, and don’t start thinking about checkmate until all or nearly all of their opponent’s pieces are gone.

I understand the point of the games. My point is that one would use them AFTER outlining the principles at work. It would often be weeks after a novice started before we begin showing them games because their repretoire of principles is insufficient to give the game context. Instead of showing them games, show them a series of basic mates (thus no captures at all) or get into a few short problems where a capture is forced and a mate occurs. General → specific, not specific → general. And I’m not saying the latter won’t work, I’m saying that overall it’s less effective.

@Bob McAdams

The single most important lesson of these three games is that you need to be looking for checkmates from the very beginning of the game - both ways in which you can checkmate your opponent and ways in which they can checkmate you - and if you don’t, it can lead to disaster.

But there are so many lessons to learn prior to that. We teach that there are 4 things to do in the opening. The 4 things are very general in nature. These games would reinforce the 4 things, but one would have a much more diffult time (especially as a young player) deriving the 4 things from a series of games.

@Bob McAdams

The second game illustrates several important things: First, it illustrates that the f pawns are weak pawns at the beginning of the game because they are only protected by their respective kings, which cannot move into check. Second, it illustrates that copying your opponent’s moves (as black seems to be doing) is a recipe for disaster, since your opponent, if they are at all clever, can force you to break out of that (as white does with Qh5) and can do it in a way that leaves them with an advantage. Third, it illustrates the urgency of developmental moves. Nf6 is actually a good defense against Qh5, but to work it needs to be made one move earlier. When black moves Nf6 after white has already moved Qh5, he is effectively closing the door to the henhouse after the fox is already inside.

I at one time thought that the first game was just a curiosity (a way of answering the idle question “What’s the fewest number of moves in which an opponent could be checkmated?”), and didn’t entirely understand why Bruce Pandolfini includes it at the beginning of both of his Chess Openings: Traps and Zaps books. But that was before I saw the third game. The important principle in both games is that moving the f pawn while the king is still surrounded by the queen, bishop, and d and e pawns leaves it open to an attack along the e1-h4 diagonal which can only be blocked by the g pawn.

The third game (which is a game I actually played against a 14- or 15-year-old boy) utilizes this same principle, but provides a way of teaching how principles like this can be used in more complex ways. White’s strategy of moving out his knights first is not inherently unsound, although moving them to the a and h files is weak for several reasons, one of which is illustrated by this game. When white moved f4, he was presumably expecting me to move exf4, which he could answer with Nxf4. But I saw his move, instead, as a gift of a free knight, since moving the f pawn effectively negated the g pawn protection of the knight (since the g pawn was now needed to guard the e1-h4 diagonal). White’s failure to see this threat of checkmate caused him to immediately lose the game. But even if he had seen it and had moved accordingly, I would still have gained a knight advantage. What he should have done was move Nf3 instead of Nh3, and now we have walked a 4-move game all the way back to a principle of opening game strategy!

Bob

You likely also have a student who has lost some framework and clarity.

[billbrock]

Again, there’s a natural tension between the approaches to teaching described above.

According to one school, “Chess is a concrete game: it’s impossible to generalize, one must deal with each specific case.”

But another school of thought advises: "Learn a few (few dozen) (few hundred) general rules. While they don’t apply to every case in the opening / middlegame / endgame, these rules are so useful that considering them before you make your move will make you a much stronger player."

Both statements are true. Different pedagogical methods will imbue your students with styles markedly different than those of the students of other instructors (at least in the short term).

My personal inclination is towards rules-based teaching. But whatever method one chooses, one should occasionally be teaching against one’s chosen method. Getting students to internalize this dialectic is a good thing.

[tmagchesspgh]

Bill, completely agree with you and Bob McAdams. What works often depends on the age and maturity of the child as well as the learning style. Older kids can handle a more formal approach based on rules and principles. Younger children, on the other hand, look on glassy-eyed as the instructor gets caught up in creating an Aristotelian structure of categories, laws, and principles. They want to play chess and learn by doing. By making mistakes and seeing the mistakes of others, they develop their own concept of how to play chess and why some moves and ideas are better than others. That is something that stays with a player.

[ashik]

Thank you all for helpful references and advice. I already started teaching chess to 6 kids since 13th October. The very first session I showed them the famous Opera Game by Paul Morphy to use it as a frame of reference for my next sessions. I used chess demonstration board and the kids looked interested. Today will be the second session and this time I plan to let them play each other a little bit and revise with them how the pieces move.

I like Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess and plan to use it after a few more weeks. I will keep you posted on how things are going.

[xplor]

You can start with King,Rook and King endgames. Add other pieces later when they understand their movement.

[kevin_bachler]

@tmagchesspgh

Bill, completely agree with you and Bob McAdams. What works often depends on the age and maturity of the child as well as the learning style. Older kids can handle a more formal approach based on rules and principles. Younger children, on the other hand, look on glassy-eyed as the instructor gets caught up in creating an Aristotelian structure of categories, laws, and principles. They want to play chess and learn by doing. By making mistakes and seeing the mistakes of others, they develop their own concept of how to play chess and why some moves and ideas are better than others. That is something that stays with a player.

And yet we’ve found methods that work quite well even with children under age 4. This isn’t a lecture-based approach, and they do learn by doing. I don’t know why you keep leaping to a conclusion that it isn’t.

A big part of an approach that involves learning basics first is creating the trend. Kids do what they see other kids do. If the approach is - “the kids over there playing in the weekly club tournament all learned this basic stuff first” guess what happens?

I remember the first year I returned to coaching after a long layoff. The kids had to learn a number of things before playing in a tournament. We got to our first tournament, and all of our players, from age 4 - age 12 knew basic opening principles, knew how to use a clock, knew how to keep score (take notation) knew basic tactics. Even many of the third graders we faced that first tournament couldn’t keep notation at all, much less accurately.

Parents and coaches all wanted to know how we did it. The answer was simple - we set an expectation, we didn’t tell the kids it was difficult, and we always made sure that they knew we were there to help them learn.

Kids can get general principles pretty easily in my experience. The have difficulty with it primarily if you set them up to have difficulty with it.

I understand that this runs counter to what you’re used to teaching. The results were quickly quite good and stayed very good over a long period of time, and results includes how the students performed, how their chess knowledge grew, how they were able to transfer that learning to other topics, how much they enjoyed the game, and how successful it was in encouraging additional students to join. Rather than quickly criticize that and state that it can’t work (which it obviously did) I’d think you’d want to at least learn more before rejecting the approach. It’s probably NOT as different as you think, and mainly uses subtle shifts in approach to accomplish more because of the establishment of an earlier positional framework.

[tmagchesspgh]

Yet you continually disrespect our multiple approaches which are based on research, experience in teaching, and results in practice. Principles can be taught without the formalistic approach. Why? Because it works for us. It is based on the developmental level of the students. It matches their learning style. I am not sure how Bob constructs all of his lessons. My own lessons are customized for the individual student or for a small group to create a heightened sense of engagement and participation. When a student “discovers” a principle, he or she tends to make it a fundamental part of the thinking process. From what I have learned from trainers, and others who instruct children in chess, the process they use is to teach “with” and not “at” their students. I have found that this collaborative process is very successful. This not to say that other approaches cannot work and cannot be successful. I have tried a number of other approaches depending on the student’s make up and needs. Lessons are adapted to the child. It you have a group of mature, motivated kids who can handle a more formalistic stucture, go for it. If that works for them, then that is what you should do. Just do not expect that approach to work for everyone else.

One of the general problems in education today is to attempt to graft a one size fits all approach to all students and expect them all to be successful at the same level. The politicians have gotten to pat themselves on the back for their “simple” solution, even though they have done enormous damage to the development of children’s thought processes and creativitiy. The educational research, which is often ignored, is that kids respond to different approaches and need more individual instruction. Some need more hands on work. Others like and prefer lectures. Some like to work on their own and prefer independent study. Quite a few like to work in small groups to learn concepts and adapt better to peer learning. Today’s kids are more visually an aurally oriented. They are used to being stimulated by images and music. Their focus can be on several tracks at the same. They can multi-task in a way that previous generations were not asked to do. To teach kids today to maintain their attention is an enormous challenge.

[tmagchesspgh]

The retention levels for age 4 and under in chess varies. There may be outlier kids who can grasp simple concepts, but in general these kids have a difficulty in maintaining anything complex for a long period of time. They learn by repetition and by emulation. Explanations that take longer than a minute or so are often lost on them. Their ability to “chunk” information has limitations. I have taught children as young as three, but they were really special cases. I also had to clean the pieces since they got them sticky. The youngest I was asked to “teach” was two. She learned how to move the pieces. She also got mad whenever one of her pieces was taken or exchanged. Unfortunately, she wasn’t able to remember anything except the piece names two days later. That was a small success.

I have replicated experiments done in Europe on how young children see and grasp the ideas of squares, lines, and the center. Kids under age five are good at seeing four and sometimes up to nine squares at a time. Anything larger creates difficulties as their brains are not yet ready to “see” the whole board. This is why many young players miss long moves by the bishop, queen, and rook. When a threat is immediately near their King, they can see it. If that same threat is on geometric lines and is a distance away, they often miss it. The same is true for adult beginners, but the adults can overcome this faster through an explanation of what is occurring. The child on the other hand, faced with the same threat on another day, may still not be able to “see” it. As they age and their brains become more capable of grasping multiple squares and objects, they can start to see more of the board and “chunk” information. To enhance their leaning, I tell them funny stories and use unusual depictions of the pieces to aid them in memory. Pawn are “cookies”. Enemy pieces that cross the center line or “river” are “alligators” to be dealt with. Broken pawn structures have special funny names. Rooks on the 7th rank are “piggies”, and so on.

I have been careful with putting very young players into a competitve environment. I know organizers who operate on the theory that “if they can breathe, they can play,” and exploit parents to get entry fees. It is a rare child who is emotionally as well as technically prepared to play. I do not recommend to parents that they have their child play in tournaments until they can demonstrate certain skills, have some acquaintance with the rules of play, and can deal with winning and losing. I even have a checklist for the parents so that they know how to behave during a tournament and do not embarrass themselves and their child.

[KeithAmmann]

Parents and coaches all wanted to know how we did it. The answer was simple - we set an expectation, we didn’t tell the kids it was difficult, and we always made sure that they knew we were there to help them learn.

Ding ding ding!

Here’s a little trick of the teacher trade: “Hmmmm. I wonder if you’re ready for . . . [fill in the blank].” Kids will fall all over themselves to prove that they are. (Young kids, at least – it starts to wear off around seventh grade.)

[kevin_bachler]

@tmagchesspgh

Yet you continually disrespect our multiple approaches which are based on research, experience in teaching, and results in practice.

How? I have said several times that both methods work. I have noted that getting principles across early tends to work better. How is that being disrespectful?

@tmagchesspgh

Principles can be taught without the formalistic approach.

Again, why would you describe the approach as formalistic? Clear, yes. Formalistic? That seems like a gross overstatement of anything I said.

@tmagchesspgh

Why? Because it works for us. It is based on the developmental level of the students. It matches their learning style.

1. No one claimed it didn’t.
2. I have noted several times that my approach ALSO matches the developmental level of the students and their learning style.

I keep wondering what you’ve read - or filled in from pre-conceived notions in your own head - that you’ve drawn such interesting conclusions from information that was never stated? It really feels like you’re much more interested in finding a reason for disagreement than an honest discussion of the differences.

Are some principles more difficult to get across than others at different ages? Absolutely! Children don’t really grasp abstract thinking around age 11, so earlier attempts are difficult - but not impossible. Working to create a good approach, constructing conversational repetition help a lot.

@tmagchesspgh

I am not sure how Bob constructs all of his lessons. My own lessons are customized for the individual student or for a small group to create a heightened sense of engagement and participation.

Ditto.

@tmagchesspgh

When a student “discovers” a principle, he or she tends to make it a fundamental part of the thinking process. From what I have learned from trainers, and others who instruct children in chess, the process they use is to teach “with” and not “at” their students.

Ditto.

@tmagchesspgh

I have found that this collaborative process is very successful. This not to say that other approaches cannot work and cannot be successful. I have tried a number of other approaches depending on the student’s make up and needs. Lessons are adapted to the child. It you have a group of mature, motivated kids who can handle a more formalistic stucture, go for it. If that works for them, then that is what you should do. Just do not expect that approach to work for everyone else.

We aren’t doing proofs here. Where did you get the idea that this was SOOO formalistic?

@tmagchesspgh

One of the general problems in education today is to attempt to graft a one size fits all approach to all students and expect them all to be successful at the same level.

But the approach we use doesn’t do that.

@tmagchesspgh

The politicians have gotten to pat themselves on the back for their “simple” solution, even though they have done enormous damage to the development of children’s thought processes and creativitiy. The educational research, which is often ignored, is that kids respond to different approaches and need more individual instruction. Some need more hands on work. Others like and prefer lectures. Some like to work on their own and prefer independent study. Quite a few like to work in small groups to learn concepts and adapt better to peer learning. Today’s kids are more visually an aurally oriented. They are used to being stimulated by images and music. Their focus can be on several tracks at the same. They can multi-task in a way that previous generations were not asked to do. To teach kids today to maintain their attention is an enormous challenge.

Nothing I said eliminated the various approaches you mentioned above. My comment was on content, not teaching style.

[kevin_bachler]

@tmagchesspgh

The retention levels for age 4 and under in chess varies. There may be outlier kids who can grasp simple concepts, but in general these kids have a difficulty in maintaining anything complex for a long period of time. They learn by repetition and by emulation. Explanations that take longer than a minute or so are often lost on them. Their ability to “chunk” information has limitations.

I don’t disagree with any of this.

When we were regularly running an elementary school club we typically had 125-150 kids, as many instructors (or parents trained in specifica areas) as possible, and we had a number of kids below age 5. Our results never appeared to apply to a few outliers. Rather, the results appeared to be robust.

@tmagchesspgh

I have taught children as young as three, but they were really special cases. I also had to clean the pieces since they got them sticky.

I agree. Even 4 is a fairly special case

@tmagchesspgh

The youngest I was asked to “teach” was two. She learned how to move the pieces. She also got mad whenever one of her pieces was taken or exchanged. Unfortunately, she wasn’t able to remember anything except the piece names two days later. That was a small success.

I have replicated experiments done in Europe on how young children see and grasp the ideas of squares, lines, and the center. Kids under age five are good at seeing four and sometimes up to nine squares at a time. Anything larger creates difficulties as their brains are not yet ready to “see” the whole board. This is why many young players miss long moves by the bishop, queen, and rook. When a threat is immediately near their King, they can see it. If that same threat is on geometric lines and is a distance away, they often miss it. The same is true for adult beginners, but the adults can overcome this faster through an explanation of what is occurring. The child on the other hand, faced with the same threat on another day, may still not be able to “see” it. As they age and their brains become more capable of grasping multiple squares and objects, they can start to see more of the board and “chunk” information. To enhance their leaning, I tell them funny stories and use unusual depictions of the pieces to aid them in memory. Pawn are “cookies”. Enemy pieces that cross the center line or “river” are “alligators” to be dealt with. Broken pawn structures have special funny names. Rooks on the 7th rank are “piggies”, and so on.

I agree with stories; there are stories about “long pieces” that help them to see threats. I have had a VERY few students below age 5 who immediately saw lines of force (one could tell by their eye movement.) Finding a youngster who can concentrate well is less rare than finding a youngster who sees lines of force.

One can, however, make many principles illustratively concrete by using methods similar to what you describe above. Do they instantly retain? No. Is it possible to see incremental retention at work and to stress it through positive discussion? Yes.

I’m not claiming, nor have I ever claimed that the kids should get a purely theoretical approach. That seems to be what you’re hearing, even though I’ve stated otherwise several times.

What I am saying is that a positive focus on basic correct principles early leads to a better framework and foundation, and once that process has started, everything you’re mentioning works even better.

@tmagchesspgh

I have been careful with putting very young players into a competitve environment.

Sorta ditto…I see nothing wrong with a “club” tournament once they have the basics down where the focus is not at all on competition so that the experience is used to learn that competitive environments can be mainly about the experience of playing, rather than experiencing the competition.

@tmagchesspgh

I know organizers who operate on the theory that “if they can breathe, they can play,” and exploit parents to get entry fees. It is a rare child who is emotionally as well as technically prepared to play. I do not recommend to parents that they have their child play in tournaments until they can demonstrate certain skills, have some acquaintance with the rules of play, and can deal with winning and losing. I even have a checklist for the parents so that they know how to behave during a tournament and do not embarrass themselves and their child.

Agreed. You’ve probably seen hpchess.org/index.php?option … &Itemid=74 which has been quoted a few places.

[tmagchesspgh]

Who said we are not using a positive focus in teaching principles? You imply that we do not have a proper “framework or foundation” for what we are doing to teach chess to kids. Whether what you do works “better” is arguable. You have no way of proving that what we do is worse. How one gets to the final destination of their learning chess is not as important as that they learn. Very likely everyone would come up with similar measurable results. That’s fine.

I find it interesting that you say that I am “more interested in finding a reason for disagreement than an honest discussion of the differences.” You have not been an honest broker in almost any discussion on these forums. You parse every word and phrase of other participants. This makes it seem that only you are the final arbiter of the quality of ideas and discussions. It is an annoying style.

There are many areas where we agree on teaching kids. What we differ on is the ways in which it may be done. I am comfortable with many different approaches. I do not believe any one way is more “correct” than others. It depends on many factors. What you do works for you. What I and others do works for us. As one of my Chinese students would say, there is no one way to the Tao, there is only the Way.

[kevin_bachler]

@tmagchesspgh

Who said we are not using a positive focus in teaching principles?

You did, unless I misundestood horribly. You gave the impression that you advocated/condoned using negative examples early.

As this brought up the original discussion, I would have thought you would have clarified this if there were a misunderstanding.

@tmagchesspgh

You imply that we do not have a proper “framework or foundation” for what we are doing to teach chess to kids.

No, I said that if one provides negative examples (don’t do this) early, as then it lacks framework, and that such examples work much better when there is a framework.

@tmagchesspgh

Whether what you do works “better” is arguable. You have no way of proving that what we do is worse.

Perhaps. I do know what I discuss with other strong instructors; I do know how our approach contrasted in terms of results versus others who seemed to do what you seemed to be advocating. Based on your description, I can only let the results speak for themselves.

@tmagchesspgh

How one gets to the final destination of their learning chess is not as important as that they learn. Very likely everyone would come up with similar measurable results. That’s fine.

I agree that how one gets there is important, which is exactly why I’ve been making the point I am making. Since some coaches have consistently better results, I don’t think the statement
“Very likely everyone would come up with similar measurable results.” is true. At least, it doesn’t appear to be at first blush.

@tmagchesspgh

I find it interesting that you say that I am “more interested in finding a reason for disagreement than an honest discussion of the differences.”

Given that you have hotly criticized an approach which you seem to have mis-stated (and hence indicated a lack of understanding about) in nearly every post, it seems to be a reasonable conclusion.

@tmagchesspgh

You have not been an honest broker in almost any discussion on these forums. You parse every word and phrase of other participants. This makes it seem that only you are the final arbiter of the quality of ideas and discussions. It is an annoying style.

Now you raise the discussion to a meta-discussion. You say that I have not been an honest broker - yet hear I am trying to insist that terms get defined. On what basis do you make such a claim? Oh - I parse every word - etc. etc. - OTOH, when we see you mis-state what I have said (and others have pointed it out in this thread) what do you expect? Would it be better for me to let you build a straw man of things I didn’t say so that you can attack them? Or is it bette for me to try to clarify where your confusion is, so that the discussion can be sorted out? And just what is “dishonest” in trying to develop clarity? Again - your language shows a lot of anger at me - but WHY? Because I’m trying to ensure that what we are talking about is being clearly communicated? Now there’s a reason to criticize me.

@tmagchesspgh

There are many areas where we agree on teaching kids. What we differ on is the ways in which it may be done. I am comfortable with many different approaches. I do not believe any one way is more “correct” than others. It depends on many factors.

I disagree that we differ on approach. As I have said - even as recently as today - I agree wth many of the approaches.

What we differ on is CONTENT (and probably even more specifically, on the timing of the introduction of certain content. After a long time of teaching I slowly found that more basic positional concepts can be taught to younger players much earlier than I initially thought and I continue to push this. What I have found is that - done well - with an emphasis on ensuring clarity - it forms a better overall basis for learning. That’s not to say other content cannot be successful - it can. But 1) I believe it generally makes the job more difficult 2) It generally povides less in both near-term and long-term results.

@tmagchesspgh

What you do works for you. What I and others do works for us. As one of my Chinese students would say, there is no one way to the Tao, there is only the Way.

No one is claiming there is only one way - but some ways may be shorter and just as robust (or more robust) than other ways.

I guess the difference here is this - I acknowledge your approach. From what you’ve described - I’ve USED that approach. Then various circumstances led me to try more and to grow beyond that approach with good results. My criticism here is that I don’t hear you even considering that approach. That’s fine. But then please, at least stop criticising me for things that I did not say.

[billbrock]

@tmagchesspgh

I find it interesting that you say that I am “more interested in finding a reason for disagreement than an honest discussion of the differences.” You have not been an honest broker in almost any discussion on these forums. You parse every word and phrase of other participants. This makes it seem that only you are the final arbiter of the quality of ideas and discussions. It is an annoying style.

I don’t disagree with anything said above. But I don’t think it’s particularly helpful for this conversation to be taking place on a forum thread that is open to the public and of particular interest to parents and teachers.