Kevin Stark's Checkmate for Children

I found Kevin Stark’s Checkmate for Children through an ad in Chess Life. It sounded like something I could use—not as an aid to teach children but to learn myself (I’m a latecomer to chess). Unfortunately, it did not teach me how to deliver checkmate, nor does it provide even the rudiments of how to teach any aspect of chess to children.

There’s an art to writing instructional materials. It isn’t easy. You have to analyze the task or skill you’re trying to teach—deeply analyze it. Then you have to break it down into discrete parts and use those as building blocks. For instance, the first step in checkmate is check, and Stark never even explains what check is. (He goes into great detail on algebraic notation, though, so you can tell your first-graders how to 0-0 and 0-0-0.)

Stark uses language that few children will understand: “mating patterns,” “mating motifs,” “the hole in our protection zone lies outside the board.” Even I don’t understand what he means by that.

Much of the problem may be in the copyediting. As a former copyeditor myself, I know that publishers no longer value copyediting, even of technical books. Here’s a typical typo: “Instead, 1 … Nc5xb3+ forces the line clearance 2.c2xb3 and now the double check 2 …Nd2xb3# is decisive thanks to the support from the bishop pair” (p. 108).  Forget about the bizarre syntax, the typo is Nd2: it should be Bxb3# if the sentence refers to the accompanying diagram.

And then there’s the “Exercise ‘Placing the king to give mate’” (p.49):

“In this exercise you are required to find the square on which the king has to be in order for White to be able to give mate. With a little concentration and knowledge of the mating patterns we have learned, you will manage this! Tip: sometimes more than one square is possible!”

Each exercise is a partial diagram of 40 squares (to crowd them all onto the same page, I suppose). In every instance only the Black king appears, not the White. In addition, there’s at least one White piece in every diagram and often a Black piece or pawn. The instructions' faulty syntax led me to think he was telling the reader to place (that is, move) the Black king to a square where it is at risk of being mated by White’s pieces or pawns. Because the White king does not appear on the diagrams, I assumed the White king wasn’t being used to support the mate.

For example, diagram no. 5 shows only the Black king and the White queen:

Unfortunately, even with clear instructions, the exercise would be confusing. For example, exercise no. 1 shows the Black king on b1 with one Black pawn on a2. Now, what kind of game would produce such a ludicrous situation? Why wouldn’t a2 advance to a1=Q and solve all the Black king’s problems? 

The chapter, “The 3-Circle Training,” is designed to teach “the trick” that “even the longest mating combination ends with a mate in 1, 2, 3 moves.” Hmm. Yes, all mates end in “1 move,” and in order to reach the position before the mating moving you must move once or twice. OK. I guess the idea is to reduce the mating combination to a series of 3 moves. Unfortunately, the instructions for doing this are baffling. The author mercifully provides an original source for this idea, though: Frank Oltman’s “3-Circle Training,” which is listed in “’Additional Materials and Tools’ at the end of this book. . . .’” But when you turn to the listing, you find that it’s a German book. Even though I can read a bit of German, given how difficult I find it to read Checkmate for Children in English I’m afraid I don’t have a chance with a German text. 

I’m very new to chess, but not to the English language. Checkmate for Children is a poorly written introduction to checkmate for anyone.

Have you found a different book to study chess? There are other books out there that may be more suitable.

 Yes. In fact I would like to write other reviews, and it would be great if there were a separate forum for all book reviews. This is just the first review I have in mind.

 1. There is no instruction at all as to which side is supposed to move. That's one of the problems. All other diagrams in the book are marked "white to move." The instruction is "to place the king" which means "move the black king" because there is no white king in the book's diagrams. As I said, I had to insert a white king or the diagram editor wouldn't accept my diagram. That is the biggest problem with the exercise diagrams.

2. So, if there is no white king in the book's diagrams, how do you figure out that the instructions are correct?

I'm afraid I reckon the book is accurate. He literally means "to place the king" - that's why there's no white king on the board. And it's nobody to move. Perhaps he could have phrased it differently:

"Identify which squares on the board where the white king can be placed so that ..."

I feel you have misunderstood the puzzle part of the book. There is no white king because it is your task to decide where to put it! The question is basically, "Where would the white king have to be for a mate-in-1 to exist?" but you seem to have taken it to suggest a positioning of the black (opponent's) king rather than your own.

As to any typos in the book, all chess books have them, as do all textbooks, unfortunately. Not particularly helpful when trying to learn (be it Chess or for a Chemistry A-level) but that's a fact of life!

There is a section for reviews on chess.com. From the main page of chess.com, click on RESOURCES, then choose BOOKS & EQUIPMENT, and then choose CHESS BOOKS. You can read and write reviews of books there.

 Thank you for the explanation. Yes, the wording is so poor I completely misinterpreted the instructions. I will correct this in my review. As for typos being a fact of life, I have to disagree. They are only a fact of sloppy publishing. I once worked on The Astrophysical Journal as an editor. Had I permitted typos in the text, I not only could have lost my job, the charming quark might never have been a fact of physics. (Typos in forum posts are excusable, but not in printed books.)