PDA

View Full Version : Training the children



cjcampb
30-08-2005, 11:16 AM
Hi all,

i am new to the site and am just rekindling the excitement of playing chess myself.

what i am interested in though is ehat is a good age to start training kids chess and what are some good teaching aids/methods.

my kids are 3 and 4, the 4 year old loves playing draughts and i would like to start her at chess but do not want to confuse her.

Colin

Mischa
30-08-2005, 12:20 PM
My kid started to teach himself at age 6...a great help to him then was a comp. game called Leggo chess.
He is 11 now and plays chess regularly

Mischa
30-08-2005, 12:25 PM
Actually he was 5 now I think on it

jenni
30-08-2005, 01:15 PM
Hi all,

i am new to the site and am just rekindling the excitement of playing chess myself.

what i am interested in though is ehat is a good age to start training kids chess and what are some good teaching aids/methods.

my kids are 3 and 4, the 4 year old loves playing draughts and i would like to start her at chess but do not want to confuse her.

Colin

You can start kids at any age, but be guided by their enthusiasm not yours.

I have 3 and for the older 2 chess became a passion very quickly. My middle one learnt to play at school when he was 5 and his older sister quickly became hooked as well. The little one was always hanging around watching and by the time she was 3 could set up a chess board and knew how the pieces moved. However chess wasn't something she wanted to play until she was 7 and I think she only really became interested around 10.

It is tempting to push them, when you see talent, but I think it is important it remains under their control. Of course other parents would say I was wrong - that kids need to be driven if they are to achieve at a high level.

There is a balance - if they become interested enough to want to compete at the Aus Juniors etc, then a little nagging about study and practise has to happen! Some kids seem incredibly self motivated, but I have to admit mine are a lazy lot and would do no work at all, if I didn't hassle a bit!

Spiny Norman
30-08-2005, 01:51 PM
I was taught the moves by my Dad when I was 5 ... but I have no recollection of that today, so I don't recall whether I ever played real games against him. I'll ask him some time. Of course, he may not remember either, he's turning 80 this year.

jenni
30-08-2005, 02:56 PM
what are some good teaching aids/methods.
Colin
There is heaps of software around - we used TASC quite a lot. It starts from the absolute basics and very simple interactive puzzles to quite sophisticated combinations.

I also understand that IM Gary Lane is about to release a piece of software with puzzles and stuff, called Martika.

http://www.chessaustralia.com.au/index.cfm?p=detail&o=LCWM


We have another home grown product called "Good Move" produced in South Australia.

http://www.knightsandbytes.com.au/prodsvs.htm

I don't know whether Maurice Ashley teaches chess is still around, but that was a very basic and fun piece of software for beginners.

There is free stuff available on the net

www.chesskids.com (do not add an AU or you will gt a local site that does not have free resources) and www.chesscorner.com are worth a look. As they get older the CT-Art software is good.

Alana
04-03-2006, 06:27 PM
I can remember that I first learned how to play chess in year 2. There was a teacher at our school and he took some of us chess inthusiasts to play at lunchtimes. Then there was a schools tournament and I wanted to go to that, but we could only take 12 people along and I, unluckily, was No. 13 :( very sad. I was crying in the car on my way home :( . Then I didn't continue until Yr 6, where a new teacher to the school encouraged us to play during lessons. I have been playing ever since!

Vijayendra
15-05-2006, 03:45 AM
Lev Alburt suggested PawnGame. It is very useful. For Kids we need to introduce first the chessboard, coordinates, brief introduction of pieces, startup position and then introduce Pawn Game. The object of the game is to reach the last rank. Whosoever makes it first, wins
There is a likely hood of locked up positions and zugzwangs. Usually black wins if it mimics white then white lands up in zugzwang.
Try to introduce imbalance by removing e-pawn for white and say d-or-c pawn for black. Try to setup pawn structures as they occur in standard openings and tell kids to play the game instead of usual starting position.
After thoroughly experiencing the pawn game(if they are interested you may introduce the enpassent move to make it more interesting at this stage;usually it is taught at later stages)
Then introduce Rook and ket kids play Pawn Rook game. This time who ever gobbles up other's pawns wins. Introduce pawn promotion. Similarly introduce other pieces one by one. Bishop Queen, Knight(is bit complicated so KnightPawn game should played more no times without other pieces) finally King should be introduced, then checkmate,stalemate and castle. chesscorner.com can give you all the details.
Note: Insist on writing the moves from day1

antichrist
15-05-2006, 10:10 AM
Note: Insist on writing the moves from day1
04-03-2006 07:27 PM

I would not mate. You want to make it interesting for them at that age. If supervising after they have finished you can re-set up the board and show them any bad moves. Or after they have completed the move, you take it back and show them, then just reset the board. They want action. I always tried to keep my lessons interesting, not too much of one thing - and I always kept my students.

Go over combos so that they start looking for them. It gives them thrills when they pull them out in games.

bobby1972
15-05-2006, 10:18 AM
does it matter how strong a player the teaching parent is? i mean how can you teach something you dont understand.:owned:

antichrist
15-05-2006, 10:27 AM
does it matter how strong a player the teaching parent is? i mean how can you teach something you dont understand.:owned:

One only has to be able to understand basic books for beginners. Much more important for beginners and youngsters that the lessons be structured, logical, presented well and interesting and varied.

Whacko, you have given me the chance to boast again how my team and myself, never having played a comp game in our lives, beat the team of an ex-state champion who was being paid big bucks by an exclusive private school.

I considered my roll to bring them up to a standard where they could understand books themselves which many did progress to and kept going all the way to even winning major comps.

Some chess mates (2000 rated) were surprised how myself, a low player, produced solid players.

bobby1972
15-05-2006, 10:51 AM
i think playing is all thats required when they are young if you play enough games they get the hang of it just play play play .

antichrist
15-05-2006, 12:23 PM
i think playing is all thats required when they are young if you play enough games they get the hang of it just play play play .

Yes but in a slow and imcomplete manner. I introduce openings for both colours and responses for both colours and all the traps and combos assoc with those openings. How they flow into middle game and principles and pressure points assoc with such openings. So when they get stuck they think now what is the principle assoc with this opening and it gives them a way forward.

No flies on my players - and were they proud. (as were the school principles)

bobby1972
15-05-2006, 02:33 PM
playing is best.because a game has everything tactics,positional.opening etc.if you get a 5 year old to play 2 games a day against a 2100~ player in very short time you get incredible progress because all basic mistakes are pointed out,how can a 1700~ player understand some positional ideas that they keep loosing game after game ,not everything is in books,to understand the games of masters in books you need to be at least 2200~ or else all the notes in the world are not going to help you.

MichaelBaron
15-05-2006, 06:01 PM
I can remember that I first learned how to play chess in year 2. There was a teacher at our school and he took some of us chess inthusiasts to play at lunchtimes. Then there was a schools tournament and I wanted to go to that, but we could only take 12 people along and I, unluckily, was No. 13 :( very sad. I was crying in the car on my way home :( . Then I didn't continue until Yr 6, where a new teacher to the school encouraged us to play during lessons. I have been playing ever since!

If I would be aloud to play chess during lessons i would never graduate :owned:

MichaelBaron
15-05-2006, 06:05 PM
Yes but in a slow and imcomplete manner. I introduce openings for both colours and responses for both colours and all the traps and combos assoc with those openings. How they flow into middle game and principles and pressure points assoc with such openings. So when they get stuck they think now what is the principle assoc with this opening and it gives them a way forward.

No flies on my players - and were they proud. (as were the school principles)


Teaching players about traps first may deliver some quick results..but it is unproductive in the long-term. This approach is part of the reason that majority of australian players have some flair for tactics but very limited positional understanding. Aus-bred players often have to rely on natural resourcefullness and talent rather than solid schooling. Australian club players who have solid positional understanding are few and far between. Why? Lack of Proper coaching thats why :hmm:

Vlad
15-05-2006, 10:52 PM
playing is best.because a game has everything tactics,positional.opening etc.if you get a 5 year old to play 2 games a day against a 2100~ player in very short time you get incredible progress because all basic mistakes are pointed out,how can a 1700~ player understand some positional ideas that they keep loosing game after game ,not everything is in books,to understand the games of masters in books you need to be at least 2200~ or else all the notes in the world are not going to help you.

Unfortunately, that is not as trivial as you think. Playing 2 games a day against 5 year old after a very short period of time will make him never play chess again. Why? Well, because you will beat him in each of them. It is quite possible that there are some kids who enjoy loosing but I have never seen such kids.:)

AC is making a very good point. It is more important to get kids interested rather than to be a strong player yourselves. A father being strong player would make a big difference for say 9-12 year old but certainly not for 5 year old.

I am currently teaching my son, who is 5 year old. Until recently he has had a good opponent - his mom. But now he starts beating her consistently. So it looks like he needs to find somebody else to play against. (It is actually quite funny to see 5-year old smashing an adult with a PhD degree.:))

A month ago I used to play against him Q+2R down but now I get smashed under that formula. So, the formula has been changed to Q+R down, which was at first a little bit hard for him, but recently he has had a few good wins against me even under a new formula. I can not play with him with all the pieces because he just would not play with me.:( He needs at least some hope for winning; getting smashed in 10 moves is certainly not what 5 year olds wants. I understand, on the other hand, that using a formula is not the best either. It teaches him to exchange all the pieces as soon as possible, sometimes even such exchanges that one would not do in a normal game, say a rook for a knight for example. This is in short why I think at this stage I am less useful in teaching my son then somebody who has a 1000 rating.

Another practise which I have tried recently was to play together against 1600-1800 players when one white move is made by me, the next white move is made by my son, next white move is made by me and so on (we do not talk during the game and each side has 5 minutes). Surprisingly, we had a terrific result, something like 4 wins and 1 loss. But again this practise has its own merits and its own problems. :rolleyes:

bobby1972
17-05-2006, 10:20 AM
When it comes to coaching in chess its all very funny.ev:) ery one is a hero no matter how poorly they play,its something that not measurable.why teach a 5 year old about winning or loosing just play ,no result just learning thats all,so much crap written by people who don`t play.they are just not real ,in the real world things are measured,i work in electronics so it works or it does not, no crap just the science,in chess we should not allow every one to claim magical coaching powers when they can`t understand chess to a good level when i am ill i go to the doctor not the faith healer.

Vlad
17-05-2006, 10:54 AM
The first lesson you teach a kid is "before you touch a piece think twice". If this notion is applied to other non-chess situations it would be something like "before you open your mouth think twice". What is the point of your message? You are claiming that you are a better player or that you are a better coach? Or both? :wall:

bobby1972
17-05-2006, 11:07 AM
not claiming to be better at anything.my idea of coaching could be wrong,one thing chess has taught me is that its so easy to be WRONG so very easy.:)

Rincewind
17-05-2006, 11:33 AM
not claiming to be better at anything.my idea of coaching could be wrong,one thing chess has taught me is that its so easy to be WRONG so very easy.:)

Well it depends on how many ways there are to be wrong. In a true/false question it is just as easy to be right as wrong, but as the options increase the chance of being right reduces and the chance of being wrong increases. However when you have enough options you start to get answers which, while not entirely correct, are close enough.

antichrist
17-05-2006, 11:48 AM
Well it depends on how many ways there are to be wrong. In a true/false question it is just as easy to be right as wrong, but as the options increase the chance of being right reduces and the chance of being wrong increases. However when you have enough options you start to get answers which, while not entirely correct, are close enough.

Yes Minister.

bobby1972 :
..in chess we should not allow every one to claim magical coaching powers when they can`t understand chess to a good level ..

A/C
What is a good level? 2200?

But some low players (maybe due to lack of career only) can be good teachers for beginners and do have runs on the board.

MichaelBaron
17-05-2006, 11:57 AM
Yes Minister.

bobby1972 :
..in chess we should not allow every one to claim magical coaching powers when they can`t understand chess to a good level ..

A/C
What is a good level? 2200?

But some low players (maybe due to lack of career only) can be good teachers for beginners and do have runs on the board.

I guess 1700-1800 standard should be a minimum. Coaches should have at least some basic positional understanding

Denis_Jessop
17-05-2006, 10:28 PM
I guess 1700-1800 standard should be a minimum. Coaches should have at least some basic positional understanding

FIDE's requirements for a FIDE Instructor are two years' training experience and an ELO Rating of 1800 and for a FIDE Trainer, five years' experience and an ELO Rating of 2300. The FIDE Senior Trainer title is honorary for outstanding achievement (most of them are GMs).

DJ

bobby1972
18-05-2006, 11:48 AM
thats more like it

Vlad
20-05-2006, 07:59 PM
Attached is the most recent game the 5-year old had against his mom.

MichaelBaron
20-05-2006, 08:55 PM
Which side was the Dad supporting? :hmm:

Vlad
20-05-2006, 09:38 PM
Dad was busy playing on ICC, could hardly follow the game.. Was quite impressed by 9 0-0... and how quickly he found 15 Be8X

bobby1972
20-05-2006, 11:06 PM
having seen that game by the 5 year old,i think he is great i mean thats a book mate,how are you training him ,it looks very promising method ,my method does not seem to work as well ,playing may not be best after all ,or maybe i am not strong enough a player.

MichaelBaron
20-05-2006, 11:35 PM
Dad was busy playing on ICC, could hardly follow the game.. Was quite impressed by 9 0-0... and how quickly he found 15 Be8X

Drug, have your son started playing junior tournaments or you are training him at home for the time being?

Vlad
21-05-2006, 10:23 AM
It is not true that he is doing chess only at home. He is taking lessons at Sydney Chess Academy once a week (at the moment with Javier and Adelaide). He certainly enjoys these lessons very much. At some moment I was pleasantly surprised when I realized that he already knew how to mate with 2 bishops.:)

He played in the first junior competition over the board 2 weeks ago. It was completely new experience for him, so it was not surprising that he did not do as well as he could. He scored something like 5/14 and it was clear that in the second half of the competition he was just too tired and lost pretty much everything.

After the tournament, just before the results were announced, a few 7-year old kids started playing the "score four in a row" game. Anton joined them and beat them every time he played - which is I suppose not very surprising - I am getting beaten by him from time to time. :doh:

bobby1972
19-06-2006, 10:12 AM
my little one`s interest in the game seems to be completly gone ,just as well.i think he lost a few games at school.

antichrist
19-06-2006, 08:53 PM
my little one`s interest in the game seems to be completly gone ,just as well.i think he lost a few games at school.

How old is he?

Jesse Jager
19-06-2006, 09:39 PM
thats a pity that he has lost interest in chess so soon

queenspawn
19-06-2006, 10:07 PM
My son is ten, and he also loved draughts when he was about four or five. He learned the moves about then, watching me, but didn't really "play" the game. He just "hopped his horsey" round the board, making clop clop noises, and whinnying. His bishops went "zoom," his rooks went "choo choo" (because they were on tracks when I asked him. That was why they went in straight lines.) His queen shouted "kill!" or "hayip" like Miss Piggy. And his king went "eek!" and ran away. His pawns would say things like "I'll die for you queeny!" and plunge into battle.

I must have spent months letting him "play" like that. It got him comfortable with how the pieces moved, and there was no pressure.

But he didn't actually play chess properly till he was eight. What got him really into it though was a programme called "Fritz and Chesster." If I had got him that when he was five I think he would have learned then. Superb programmes, both one and two. You can buy it online.

So long as your kid is having fun thats fine. I run a chess club at my sons school, and one on a Saturday for local juniors. I encourage the younger kids to tell stories about the pieces, make noises, have fun. I know a five year old who learned how to checkmate with king and queen against a lone king by being told "they have to be a good husband and wife. They have to stick together, but not trip each other up, so they need to talk to each other as well as stand by each other..." He proceeded to mate my king in the excercise by having his pieces "talk" to each other. "You can't go there my darling," says the king, "or he'll be stalemated. Let me go first..." "Okay love. I'm right behind you..."

You get the idea.

Maybe your kid who has gone off chess because he lost a game could get interested in it again by injecting some non competitive elements in? Like working out puzzles together...

Also, as he gets older and matures he will be better able to handle defeat, and will find it easier to play again. Having said which my brother won't play anymore since I got better than him, and he is in his thirties!

queenspawn
19-06-2006, 10:08 PM
Oh, I forgot to say - my son plays for his county, and does well in tournaments against his own age group and a few years above. He's started taking it really seriously in the last year or so.

Vlad
20-06-2006, 02:12 AM
What got him really into it though was a programme called "Fritz and Chesster." If I had got him that when he was five I think he would have learned then. Superb programmes, both one and two. You can buy it online.


Very true. This is exactly how Anton started when he was 4. He was completely fanatical about Fritz & Chesster. He would get up at 7 in the Morning and the first thing he would say "Dad, I want to play Fritz & Chesster". A little bit later the Saga continued with Fritz & Chesster 2.

It is really pity there is no Fritz & Chesster 3. Some kind of replacement was found in "Chess tactics for the beginners" but it is clearly too boring for a 5 year old to do.

queenspawn
20-06-2006, 07:37 AM
I must say I wish that they did a Fritz and Chesster Three as well... The animations, characters etc are fantastic. I think all schools should have them in the library.

My son was so fanatical about it that I would occasionally hear stories of dreams he'd had in which he inhabited the Fritz and Chesster world. Anything which makes chess that exciting to a kid is brilliant, and deserves the chess programming equivalent of an Oscar for best teaching tool ever.

bobby1972
20-06-2006, 10:23 AM
hes 5,played ok there for a while got a rating of 650 from "chessmaster 10 " program.

queenspawn
20-06-2006, 05:57 PM
If he is five then he may well get back into it when he is a little older. Sometimes a kid is mentally able to cope with chess, but emotionally not ready for it yet. Five is very young. He sounds like a bright lad!

antichrist
20-06-2006, 07:28 PM
At 7 years old they can see combos or can be taught such, it definitely gets them in. So give him a break for awhile and maybe get someone closer to his age whom he respects to offer to play with him promising him something exciting.

bobby1972
21-06-2006, 10:54 AM
funny thing is i tried to keep chess from him as he was growing i did not want to surrender my little one to caissa,not to let him see me play,then when he started in preps he was in the buddy program.so after a few weeks he comes home with this magnetic chess set, set them up and wants to play,he tells me that sam (his buddy) gave him the set and that they play everyday!! what are the odds i tell you that his buddy turns out to be a chess fanatic,i now know that they have a club at the school.

queenspawn
21-06-2006, 08:17 PM
It must be genetic!

Vlad
30-11-2006, 09:27 AM
My 5-year-old had the first meeting with a big GM. They played 2 games and both were drawn. The GM said "Your dad would very pleased if he could get the same result"!?:)

ER
30-11-2006, 12:12 PM
i now know that they have a club at the school.

I bet anyone here, that Rafael will have a 2000 + rating when he is about 15 yo! :)
Cheers and good luck to all! :)

Vlad
03-12-2006, 09:18 AM
Great news!!! Fritz & Chester 3 is out!

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3518

Now is the question How to get one in Australia..:)

Vlad
03-12-2006, 09:40 AM
It is interesting to see the feedback I received after a meeting of my 5-year-old with a 2600 GM. The GM said approximately the following.

Anton is a gifted boy and you can see that. However, there are a number of negative moments.
1. Anton plays an opening absolutely mechanicaly, using the same moves. He does not try, does not experiment, and just uses the moves that he has been told. It is not very good for his development.:)
2. He cann't concentrate. He does not think much. He gets tired very quickly.
3. He does not read, does not write. Only computer is not enough. He needs to write chess games and read chess literature.

Now I have a few hypotheses about this.
1) The GM is right and a good 5-year-old is expected to read, write and concentrate on a game.:)
2) That is possibly too high an expectation.:)

MichaelBaron
03-12-2006, 06:32 PM
It is interesting to see the feedback I received after a meeting of my 5-year-old with a 2600 GM. The GM said approximately the following.

Anton is a gifted boy and you can see that. However, there are a number of negative moments.
1. Anton plays an opening absolutely mechanicaly, using the same moves. He does not try, does not experiment, and just uses the moves that he has been told. It is not very good for his development.:)
2. He cann't concentrate. He does not think much. He gets tired very quickly.
3. He does not read, does not write. Only computer is not enough. He needs to write chess games and read chess literature.

Now I have a few hypotheses about this.
1) The GM is right and a good 5-year-old is expected to read, write and concentrate on a game.:)
2) That is possibly too high an expectation.:)

Can you realistically expect a 5 year old to concentrated for 2 hours?:hmm:

Vlad
03-12-2006, 08:46 PM
Can you realistically expect a 5 year old to concentrated for 2 hours?:hmm:

That depends on what you mean.

1) In one game probably not. Though we will see how Anton will play in the Australian juniors In Canberra.
2) Cumulative over a tournament is easy. A junior event in the SCA starts at 10 am and goes till around 3 pm with up to 15 games played. It is obvious that in each of these games a kid has to concentrate at least 8 minutes.

Basil
04-12-2006, 12:36 AM
Hi drug

I am very happy for you about your son - you must be proud - and rightfully so. I know you won't push him - and let him enjoy his childhood. I think you have already suggested as much.

ER
04-12-2006, 12:57 AM
Now I have a few hypotheses about this.
1) The GM is right and a good 5-year-old is expected to read, write and concentrate on a game.:)
2) That is possibly too high an expectation.:)

Hi Drug, if I may I have another hypothesis :)
Anton gets bored, unplugs the computer, goes out and has a kick with his mates or his parents :clap: then comes back to Chess whenever he wants to have fun with the game and not being ordered around by a machine!
Good luck to Anton in the tournament and I hope he has fun and meets new good friends there!:)
Good luck to him with his school studies too! :)
Cheers!