Joe Learns Chess with Relationships

CHESS LESSON 1 TEACHING RELATIONSHIPS

GM Jonathan Tisdall on Twitter: "Learning things is an easier place to start than learning the relationship between things. Actually, don't you have to learn the things first in order to learn the relationship between them?" in reply to my tweet citing the French painter George Braque:

"'The #relationships between things are more important than the things themselves.' If this is true, why don’t we start #teaching #chess with them?"

So really, what should come first, Things, or Relationships between them?

2 BISHOPS VS 2 ROOKS

Joe's Lesson One continues. After the 10-min intro to chess, he is now ready to play his first (mini-)game. Minies allow the beginner to play right away, without thrusting them into a game with all pieces that is overwhelming.

What follows is a rationale behind playing a mini game, aimed at chess educators. The intent is to show a contrast between the traditional start with trifling details and technicalities which is failing the beginner (many, too many leave the game too soon - they lose all motivation due to lack of understanding and making progress). It also shows that a different approach with the piece relationships together with the moves is possible, bringing meaning to the table as early as Day One. Concepts and ideas, that is what the beginner's blank slate mind badly needs, not petty trivialities typically taught at Square One.

OK, let's get started! Joe and I play and discuss (asking the beginner useful questions after Socrates' "we don't learn anything, we just need to make associations and connections to the knowledge we already possess").

I want Joe to play Rooks first and ask him to make his move (again, the goal of the game is, whoever first takes an opponent's piece out, wins).

After learning the piece relationships in the intro, he plays Rc8 attacking my Bishop (single attack). Good. Is there another way to attack Bc1? He plays Ra1 at which point the question "Is Bf1 also under attack?" arises. No, Bf1 is not in danger as Bc1 cuts Rook's line of force (which introduces the body effect, that is reduction of the striking power chessmen possess -- the only two remaining chess properties pieces have are mobility and capturing, see the schematic outline below).

Okay, Bf1 is currently safe, yet it is really only one move away from a direct attack coming up (= threat of attack, indirect, hidden, or concealed attack). Once Bishop leaves c1, the other Bishop will be exposed to a direct attack and taken away (this was the reason I have Joe play Rooks in order for him to see that Rooks always win on the spot if playing the first move).

This is an important moment with a major point to make: the three-piece set up, that is Ra1-Bc1-Bf1 is already chess tactics. The geometrical motif! some kind of pin/skewer hybrid.
Following GM Averbakh's definition, it is also a double attack consisting of a direct attack and a threat of attack.

We continue, after Ra1 I play Bc1 to any square, which opens the line for Rook, and Joe takes Ra1xf1; our first mini game is over.

Up to this point the beginner got already familiar with two out of four elementary relationships as per GM Averbakh: attack and interposition (he will also see restriction later, while only protection is out from view for now). Isn't it amazing to see how this simple mini is able to teach three out of four basic relationships that exist in chess?

Of course, all these considerations should be kept out of sight with their details for the chess entrant. I gave them here for chess educators to show what important chess concepts the beginner can be taught to help develop proper mind set early in the learning process.

Meanwhile, Joe is learning essential chess patterns in an intuitive way (for example, he is already prepared to be looking for the pattern of two Bishops lining up, which makes them vulnerable, in his future games). He develops an instinct for what is important, the human gut feeling for where to start looking to find patterns and meaning (something the traditional teaching method, with no relationships taught, is lacking).

Next time, in Part 2, my Bishops play the first move against Joe's Rooks.

THINGS OR RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THEM - THE VERDICT

Now back to the question from the beginning, What comes first, Things, or Relationships between them?

GM Tisdall is right. We must teach Things first. But it is not Moves to start teaching with! First, it should be Power and Body effects that pieces exert (their properties), then Relationships, lastly come Movement (purpose)!

CHESS AS A COMPLEX SYSTEM

The following outline may come in handy to understand the above discussion. It is showing the conceptual tree which is at the core of chess as a complex system. From it, it is obvious, chess is all about force and use of force. Therefore, it makes every sense in the world to start in chess with it. The CONCEPT OF FORCE should be at the forefront of innovation in modern 21st-century basic chess education. Now we can understand the true meaning of Nimzovich's words, "the traditional way of teaching with the moves first is fundamentally flawed!" as he starts his Lesson One in the 1929 Shakhmatny Listok with a relationship (attack).

1) CHESSMEN PROPERTIES

11) Power/Control effect (=exercising force)
12) Body effect (=force and piece movement restrictor)
13) Mobility (=force shift for a more effective use of it)
14) Capturing (=enemy liquidating force)

2) PIECE RELATIONSHIPS

21) Attack (=use of force, in all its forms, multiple attack, threat of attack, etc.)
22) Protection (=collaborating force)
23) Restriction of movement (=suppressing force)
24) Interposition/cover/pin (=blocking enemy force against a friend, or important square)

3) COLLECTIVE DIRECTION/PURPOSE (=team’s strategic/tactical flow of force via coordination, concentration, economy, flexibility of force)