18125 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
[...]Oh come on. Their opponents who are also new players / kids don't have technical / endgame skills. I wouldn't worry about 1 pawn. I mean don't force them play gambits, maybe they don't like them, but don't ban gambits.
I bet being down a minor ususally doesn't matter too much either, let alone a pawn.
One advantage of introducing gambits early is to teach that just because a piece is offered, it doesn't mean you should automatically accept it. Similarly, just because it looks like your opponent has left a piece hanging, it doesn't necessarily mean your opponent overlooked it - maybe something else is going on.
In some of the unrated games I've played with beginners, they will attack an irrelevant minor with a pawn while I'm in the middle of a mate-in-n sequence. I ignore the attacked minor, they take it next turn, and then are surprised when they get mated.
Yeah, not letting kids / new players play gambits is silly IMO. That's usually when you learn there's more to chess than counting the pieces, not to mention initiative and attacking are fun."But what if they don't have the attacking skills and lose in the endgame?"Oh come on. Their opponents who are also new players / kids don't have technical / endgame skills. I wouldn't worry about 1 pawn. I mean don't force them play gambits, maybe they don't like them, but don't ban gambits.
I don't care what rating range you are in, endgame and technical skill is the most important in chess. Tactics are important, but you aren't always going to have a winning shot whereas if you're winning but the win isn't obvious you need to know how to properly convert it. I watched two "beginners" play and was stunned when one didn't seize the opposition for the clear win. Even if you need to figure it out OTB one should know that you don't want the opponent to control the square in front of your pawn. I also had a 1350 practice an endgame against me. It was won for white but I drew him even after I told him the correct move from Fine's endgame book. Then again a class A later said of the same position (but a little later) "Why not move the king here?" I said because white needs black to have move in that position to force zugzwang so a3+ wins, so Kd2, not Kd3 was needed.
I don't care what rating range you are in, endgame and technical skill is the most important in chess.
I wish that were true, because it's my favorite thing to study. Unfortunately, other than being completely off topic and unrelated to my post you quoted, you can't separate tactics from strategy or middlegames from endgames or quiet play from attacking play. Real games always mix these elements, often many in a single position.
Then again a class A later said of the same position (but a little later) "Why not move the king here?"
You started off with what seemed to be a disagreeing tone, but then proved my point for me. Well what can I say except I agree lol. As I said, don't worry about the pawn investment because players aren't little Smyslovs and Karpovs. Especially considering that reasonable gambits give you compensation so you shouldn't be losing in any case.
Good point. I remember leaving some pieces hanging against a new player once. The second time I did it he asked if I was mocking him... I had to explain that after he took the pieces I was winning!
Gambits can be quite good (I even recommended the Manhattan) but one should really know what they're doing and the ideas behind them. Still, many tactics and sacrifices are to obtain a clearly better endgame, but that would be drawn or even lost if one doesn't have sufficient technical skill to convert it. The majority of chess moves involve improving the position, converting a win, or holding the draw whereas only a few moves in a given game are tactical in nature. Agree though that all aspects are important and related. What stays on the board matters much more than what leaves, if exchanging an active rook for a passive rook (usually bad) gives you a clearly winning pawn endgame why not do it? Some triangulation there, a little zugzwang there, and you break through and win those pawns, keeping the rooks could improve the other guy's drawing chances.
Membership question & Advice for Beginner
by tigerprowl5 a few minutes ago
sexism in chess?
by XPLAYERJX a few minutes ago
by HeyokaSmiles a few minutes ago
What am I missing?
by jondb801 3 minutes ago
e4 is bad (third obnoxious theory)
by ajian 5 minutes ago
by jondb801 8 minutes ago
I won a Tournament :)
by Pulpofeira 8 minutes ago
by Shakaali 11 minutes ago
fide or ecf
by soupram 14 minutes ago
Kings Gambit: Theory
by MY_ALTS_ARE_ON_FIRE 15 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!