The Slav or semi slav?
The slav has too many complicated lines, I don't know why that would be good for a beginner.
QGD follows principals very well.
Which (of course) doesn't mean it's bad or only for weak players... it has (probably?) been played in every world chess championship match since the beginning of time.
Definately he should learn QGD first. All other queen pawns openings were designed to avoid this line, so when he learns them, Slav included, it pays off to know the difference. Personally I'd recommend Lasker Defence with the early Ne4 (see for example http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/games/java/2007/lasker-kenilworth-repertoire.htm), but Tarrasch is also a good option.
Deirdre's approach is the good one for multiple reasons but it seems that most here forget something about beginners/kids.
1 : they often forget what we teach us, so no need to show something complicated.
2 : their opponent rarely play what we see, because at this level, few play 1.d4, and few of them continue with 2.c4 or 2.c4 (or at other move) and Bg5 later.
3 : have u really seen games played at this level : even "boring" opening lead to blunders, pieces "en prise" and other things which decide the game independantly to the opening phase.
4 : according point 3, the idea is just to get a playable position after some moves, having some confidence because u know what to do : we could tell this for all level but especially at low level.
I could add other points but i guess u see what I mean...
Well if the person who makes the first blunder loses the game i dont like blacks chances in the QG-exchange where white has a autopilot-plan for the first 15 moves. The slav is not easy at first glance, but i doubt many players will fall for Optimissed faulty Bf5-slav with the Queen hitting b7 and d5.
Slav with Bf5 and Bg4 is really common at this level.
Because they learn slav enables the bishop to develop but don't understand when it is the moment...
Slav is not natural compared to QGD and as I said, doesn't develop black's play so compared to 2...e6, more difficult to explain.
It is about the same for those prefering Caro Kann on french : french is "easy" to teach/learn, while Caro Kann...
QG-exchange never happens at this level and so what? who is able to conduct a good game at this level? Minority attack at beginner's play?? Auto pilot? All this never happen.
And what about slav exchange for black?
I find it funny how people are saying the QGD is the best opening for a beginner, because I remember being a beginner, seeing the QGD ... and thinking this had to be the best opening ever for White. He gets to put all his pieces on the most natural squares (Nf3, Nc3, Bd3, Bg5, 0-0, Rc1, what more do you want?). Meanwhile Black has to make concession after concession: e6, which blocks the Bishop he was trying to develop with d5; then Nbd7, instead of the more active Nc6; then usually developing the Bishop to b7, which means using another pawn move to develop the Bishop after e6 imprisoned it, and the long diagonal can be blocked by cxd5 exd5 at any moment.
I switched to 1.d4 after seeing all this, because I wanted to play the White side of this position every time. With the exception of the Cambridge Springs, which I played just to win via a trap after Qa5 (which happened very often), I don't think I've ever played a classical QGD as Black.
Openings should correspond to understanding. It's well and good to be an intermediate and fully understand Black's options and plans; it's quite another thing to be a beginner without this knowledge, still thinking in terms of one or two moves at most, and trying to deal with White's more comfortable play. Forcing me to play the QGD as Black would be a fast way to get me to give up chess.
1.d4 was very uncommon when I was a beginner, and few games continued with the Queen's Gambit, but rather the Colle or London systems. I used the Tarrasch defence and later the Stonewall Dutch with barely any knowledge beyond typical plans (active pieces and attack the King in a thematic way, basically), and that was fine. I only needed to go beyond that when I started facing more difficult opponents and 1.d4 was more than 1 out of every 10 games as Black.
[The above is maybe not completely true. I spent a fair chunk playing 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 b5?!, because I was young and wanted to protect every pawn. My beginner stage described above is closer to 1300-1400 online.]
you want to bore your child to death?
my thoughts exactly. a 9 year old child should play exciting, tactical chess, not a QGD where the most exciting plan is a minority attack that induces a pawn weakness lol.
if your son is happy playing that kind of positional, slow chess... fair enough. but I highly doubt that he is (or at least, he probably would enjoy tactical positions much more).
When i began to play, i was curious and everything was exciting to me.
Even dull position were exciting, because it learns other aspects than attack.
I was playing sharp with white like king's gambit/Evans gambit/danish gambit : a very good school to learn initiative and tactical play.
But with black u know, there is no miracle : u can't attack against 1.d4 than as white with king's gambit.
The student doesn't like QGD as black? Ok fine let's see something else : Stonewall dutch as proposed above is a good idea.
Nobody has to force someone to play something.
We propose, he/she is free to play what he/she wants.
i dont think the slav exchange is as dangerous as the qgdex poucin, but i agree with you that the french is a bit more easy than the caro
I have played many Slavs in the past, but later on I switched my attention to regular QGD lines (along with the Nimzos and Bogos I have been playing for the last 40 years or so) because many times I was running into issues with that "active" bishop outside the pawn chain. So, I settled for leaving that piece of wood at c8, and concentrate at more important things- after all I never, ever lost a QGD game because I was stuck with a bad light-squared bishop...
Lol, I love that phrasing: "So I settled for leaving that piece of wood at c8."
FWIW, I can't remember playing with wood pieces. I nearly always play with plastic pieces that are double or triple-weighted. They should call me a plastic-pusher, not a wood-pusher.
"because many times I was running into issues with that "active" bishop outside the pawn chain."
Lol, before I even wrote this post I warned my son about White's Queen coming out to b3 (and a4) when Black's Light-Squared Bishop left home. I have lost numerous games and have had many bad positions because that c-pawn lets the Queen out on that a4-d1 diagonal. All because of the persistent belief that c6 allows my LSB to get free and avoiding a cramped position.
Anyways, at your level I wouldn't think the Queen coming to b3 would be the issue for you. I'm curious about what issues you ran into with Black's "active" LSB?
My teacher, as it were, was Tarrasch and the "Game of Chess", which has likely coloured my whole outlook on the game. Tarrasch was adamant against restricting your own mobility. "1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6, the Philidor, is to be condemned." It also makes perfect sense. If you play 1...e5 to get your Bishop and Rook into the game, why then play 2...d6 to entomb it?
What's more, the entire QGD appears to be reacting to White's threats, not creating any of our own. That has never appealed to me.
My teacher, as it were, was Tarrasch and the "Game of Chess", which has likely coloured my whole outlook on the game. Tarrasch was adamant against restricting your own mobility. "1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6, the Philidor, is to be condemned." It also makes perfect sense. If you play 1...e5 to get your Bishop and Rook into the game, why then play 2...d6 to entomb it?
What's more, the entire QGD appears to be reacting to White's threats, not creating any of our own. That has never appealed to me.
Tarrasch and IQP is a good/great choice as well. Thanks for weighing in, SmithyQ.
When i began to play, i was curious and everything was exciting to me.
Even dull position were exciting, because it learns other aspects than attack.
I was playing sharp with white like king's gambit/Evans gambit/danish gambit : a very good school to learn initiative and tactical play.
But with black u know, there is no miracle : u can't attack against 1.d4 than as white with king's gambit.
The student doesn't like QGD as black? Ok fine let's see something else : Stonewall dutch as proposed above is a good idea.
Nobody has to force someone to play something.
We propose, he/she is free to play what he/she wants.
Agreed! Chess is wide enough to allow scholastic players a variety of choices that still fit the basic criteria of the opening, even for scholastic players. As long as the plan of development is easy to explain and fulfills the needs of the player, it should be ok.
Regarding openings that bore the player to death: I have seen coaches recommend various Pirc/KID set ups, not with the clear idea of counterattacking, but with the idea of making sure the player doesn't drop material in the first ten moves. That is the sort of opening that will drive a scholastic chess player to go play video games instead.
I am in the camp of teaching the QGD to scholastics, but I rarely go very deep into the lines until they are more proficient. I don't bother teaching them the TMB or anything really deep until they are ready.
And this is the point: teach the individual, not a program. If you're teaching a group of players, give them the first few moves, and then some cool tactics to work out. One of the first QGD tactics I learned was the Cambridge Springs Trap. Kids remember tactics, and absolutely love traps! That's why teaching 1.e4 e5 openings is so easy by comparison. There are many well known tactics and traps to memorize in the open positions.
Btw, I teach the Trojan B sac as part of teaching QGD tactics. Sure, it can occur in the French, but my students see it most often as part of a Marshall game gone wrong. Something like this:
As a basic trap in QGD, they can try the elephant trap :
IT doesn't cost anything : black will continue the usual development if white doesn't fall into it.
Like the one told by Deirdre, with b6 later. After all d7 is the right square for the knight and leads to an harmonious position for black.
Teaching Pirc/KI sets up is very dodgy. That is a good way to make the student disgusted about chess after suffering many mating attack on h file for instance.
If i would be you student smyslov i would say that the greek gift works here and that the marshall is nearly losing for black with Nf3 being the slightly better move for white (e4 is also ok but not as correct dont know why karpov played it)
@Poucin, I always knew that as the Cambridge Springs Trap. Do you know where the name "Elephant trap" came from?
Nice game, @Pfren, but I don't see how that has much bearing on scholastic chess, at least not for players rated U1800 at least.
For a kid everything he learns is exciting. Just give them the feeling that it is new and it is important and they will look at you like you are Gandalf or Harry Potter.
And that explains a lot. However, a kid who learns karate and is excited that he or she can kick azz does not yet have the karate perspective. And a teacher who would ignore teaching patience and discipline would be a complete idiot.
Chess is not karate.
A kid needs to be mainly excited and happy when playing chess. He must have fun. He must not take it , at first , too seriously. He must enjoy the process of playing, without caring if he wins or lose.He must see losing as part of the process.The kid that eventually improves feels the need for discipline during study and he will be disciplined. Guided , advised in being focused and careful, yes, but disciplined, certainly not. Especially if we are talking for a 9-year-old kid, it would be a huge mistake. It could even make him hate the game.
tell that to all those 10 year old asian kids rated 2000 i played at world open. i think "fun" is overrated.
Fun is not overrated but eit's different for every kid. Carlsen said that he never followed a strict disciplined program. He studied a lot but whenever he wanted and whatever he wanted.
Discipline is not a guarantee of good results in chess. Maybe 50 years ago in Soviet Union it was but we live in different times and in a different world.But all this discussion is theoretical. I'm sure the father knows very well what to do.
dont they all?