The best thing kids can learn to do with the chess pieces is not swallow them.
Chess openings for beginners/ kids
Sort:
In the lower rating ranges attack is generally prefered over defense, so for a new player (child or adult alike) open games tend to be both more practical and are more fun to play than semi-open or closed games.
People advising the Italian Game are probably spot on about the practice of open games. It combines pretty much all opening essentials in the first few moves. Despite analyzed to offer White no major advantage, it usually gives Black an uncomfortable game for quite some time during the opening and has attacking potential.
Mind to note that for children the attention scope to openings is usually limited. Just stick to the principles and some clearcut examples rather than to overanalyze a system; once you notice they truly enjoy improving, going beyond principles is possible.
Thx for the book recommendation. I have chess fundamental by Capablanca and will start with it.
"... For players with very limited experience, I recommend using openings in which the play can be clarified at an early stage, often with a degree of simplification. To accomplish this safely will take a little study, because you will have to get used to playing wiith open lines for both sides' pieces, but you can't eliminate risk entirely in the opening anyway. ... teachers all over the world suggest that inexperienced players begin with 1 e4. ... You will undoubtedly see the reply 1 ... e5 most often when playing at or near a beginner's level, ... After 2 Nf3, 2 ... Nc6 will occur in the bulk of your games. ... I recommend taking up the classical and instructive move 3 Bc4 at an early stage. Then, against 3 ... Bc5, it's thematic to try to establish the ideal centre by 4 c3 and 5 d4; after that, things can get complicated enough that you need to take a look at some theory and learn the basics; ... Of course, you can also play 1 d4 ... A solid and more-or-less universal set-up is 2 Nf3 and 3 Bf4, followed in most cases by 4 e3, 5 Be2 and 6 0-0. I'd rather see my students fight their way through open positions instead; however, if you're not getting out of the opening alive after 1 e4, this method of playing 1 d4 deserves consideration. ... a commonly suggested 'easy' repertoire for White with 1 Nf3 and the King's indian Attack ... doesn't lead to an open game or one with a clear plan for White. Furthermore, it encourages mechanical play. Similarly, teachers sometimes recommend the Colle System ..., which can also be played too automatically, and usually doesn't lead to an open position. For true beginners, the King's Indian Attack and Colle System have the benefit of offering a safe position that nearly guarantees passage to some kind of playable middlegame; they may be a reasonable alternative if other openings are too intimidating. But having gained even a small amount of experience, you really should switch to more open and less automatic play." - IM John Watson in a section of his 2010 book, Mastering the Chess Openings, Volume 4
Ziryab wrote:
Mr X,
Please read my first comment in this thread so that you understand the argument. It precedes your first post.
I recomment the Italian, King's Gambit, and Spanish.
If you want something too complex, then teach the KIA or some other quiet positional opening....
Well it seems after looking at what you posted.
The only disagreements we have is with the above text which I have highlighted in red text.
Judging from the above text in red, I feel you have no agruement.
You are simply wrong.
It seems like a pretty open & closed case to me.
I wish you wasn't wrong.
However, I read your text and can't find any logical rational to consider it right.
The Kings Gambit and the Ruy Lopez are the most complex openings in all of chess.
You are trying to teach a beginner these lines when they should be starting off with simpler lines.
The Italian Game, Colle, London System, & Kings Indian Attack are simple lines.
Frankly, I don't even see how you believe the Kings Indian Attack is complex?
What is so complexed about the above position?
You will reach this position 95% of the time no matter what move black plays.
You can give black tons of different mainline moves and white's position will be the same 95% of the time.
The KIA is an opening which really trys to bypass the opening phase of the game to reach the middle game phase in a equal-ish position.
The Opening line is very simple which is why it doesn't get played in high level a lot.
It is a very solid line, but it is not considered demanding.
It places no real pressure on black.
It allows black to develop as they wish.
Reaching equal-ish middle game positions.
As for your last statement I would like clarification:
...then teach the KIA or some other quiet positional opening...
From the way I am reading and interpreting what you are saying here.
It sounds as if you believe the KIA is a positional opening?
I will wait for your response before commenting on that.
I believe everyone in chess will one day need to learn the Queens Gambit & Ruy Lopez.
For they are the Rolls Royce of chess openings.
They both carry high tactical and positional motifs.
Even though these 2 lines should be considered a long term life chess goal.
You should not be seeking to accomplish both of these as a beginner?
Baby steps!
You have to do baby steps!
You can not challenge the World Boxing Champion if you don't even know how to jab?
Why would a beginner try to learn the Ruy Lopez( An opening which has been played by like every Title player) when they don't even know how to castle?
I believe you are wrong.
Furthermore, I have nothing esle to say about your text.
Just because you can develop your pieces in a certain way every single game, doesn't mean the reuslting positions aren't complex.
whooooooooooooosh wrote:
Just because you can develop your pieces in a certain way every single game, doesn't mean the reuslting positions aren't complex.
We are talking about the Opening phase.
We are not talking about middle game and endgame positions.
If you are going to run under the assumption of middle game and endgame positions.
Than that rules out the Kings Gambit & Ruy Lopez's resulting positions completely!
Those openings have piece contact. You can explain White's Bb5, indirectly pressuring e5 fairly easily. The KIA is more quiet and subtle. Plus, why would we not be talking about the resulting positions...as far as I know, there's generally a middlegame after the opening...
whooooooooooooosh wrote:
Those openings have piece contact. You can explain White's Bb5, indirectly pressuring e5 fairly easily. The KIA is more quiet and subtle. Plus, why would we not be talking about the resulting positions...as far as I know, there's generally a middlegame after the opening...
Well this is a chess opening forum.
The OP is looking for easy to learn chess openings for a beginner/kid.
Thus, I gave him easy & simple opening.
Honestly people considering the KIA complex seems laughable to me.
People are trying to say the KIA is complex in the middle game.
However, the same agruement can be made for all chess openings in the middle game.
Which is why the middle game is a completely different phase.
Which is considered complexed in the majority of cases.
It requires middle game planning skills.
"... Beginning players will always get wiped out by more experienced opponents. ... the Barcza Opening ... [is one of the openings that] I recommend. ... White's four opening moves, 1. Nf3, 2. g3, 3. Bg2, and 4. 0-0, create the Barcza Opening. ... if White plays for d2-d3 and e2-e4, the opening becomes a King's Indian Attack (KIA). The KIA became my favorite because the ideas are quite easy to grasp. ... Certainly, by adopting the Barcza Opening as White, you will cut out a number of losses that you would experience by playing complicated classical openings. Your need to know the theoretical lines is reduced ..." - GM Yasser Seirawan (1998)
Mar 15, 2016
0
#32
Don't teach a kid to play any lines. Teach them to play good moves. If they don't understand why it's good (able to explain it, apply it to new problems, etc.) then they shouldn't play it.
ex_submariner wrote (~9 days ago):
If you can find a copy of "How to Open a Chess Game", buy it! Published in 1974 there are seven chapters, each by a leading grandmaster of the day ... The chapter 'Developing an Opening Repertoire' by Lajos Portisch alone is worth the price of the book. ...
ex_submariner wrote (~8 days ago):
... For white kingside openings Portisch recommended the Ruy Lopez exchange variation. ... For closed games as white he said play the King's Indian Attack and the English Opening. Also the QGD. ...
Mar 15, 2016
0
#34
I like the Colle, both the Zucertort and Kalanowski.s It's a solid opening that's really easy to memorize and very versatile. I have always had good results with it.
Mar 15, 2016
0
#36
I am satisfied with the response of jengaias in support of my position that KIA is complex. He hits the main points that I would hit.
The positional ideas in the Italian, King's Gambit, and Ruy Lopez are far easier to teach beginners of any age.
I will grant that after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Nxe4 5.d4 Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe4 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ Kxd8, the relative merits of 9.Nc3, 9.Rd1+, and 9.h3 are complex enough to give beginners trouble.
Jengaias you are incorrect!
You and Ziryab both seem to be wandering off into a bad path.
I honestly don't even know how I can help you get back onto the good path.
Everything your saying is simply wrong.
The below statement is incorrect:
KIA is a very deep opening system with a lot of very complex positional concepts.
The Kings Indian Attack & Kings Indian Defense have never been classifed as complex positional opening.
Granted there are some positional elements to these lines just like every line in chess has positional elements.
However, they have never been considered positional.
They have always been considered dynamic & tactical.
In fact, positionally the KIA and the KID are considered highly questionable openings because they don't fight for space.
The KIA & KID surrender space in order to generate caveman-ish king side attacks!
The name itself is a tip off to what the line is!
Kings Indian Attack
It does King side attacks by throwing up the king side pawns!
Have you honestly ever seen a positional player do this?
Surrender space to do caveman-ish king side attacks?
A positional player would never do this in a million years.
They try to squeeze people.
They don't do questionable attacks.
Name a positional player who plays the KIA or KID?
Anatoly Karpov?
Adolf Anderssen?
Tigran Petrosian?
In fact, Tigran Petrosian said he made his living off of KID players!
Positional players would never play these lines!
In fact, When Magnus Carlsen was a teenager at the age of 13.
He use to have an attacking style.
He played the KID!
When he got older which is now a days he has stopped playing the KIA & KID.
Magnus Carlsen style has kind of mellowed out I think.
He is more of a positional type of a player now.
Name players who play the KIA or KID?
Tal
Garry Kasparov
Bronstein
Bobby Fischer
Hikaru Nakamura
Jobava
Do these players even sound like positional players?
I think people on this forum are confused.
You guys need to go back on the right path!
Mar 16, 2016
0
#38
I've heard the KIA recommended to new-ish players before.
I've always disagreed.
Mar 16, 2016
0
#39
X_PLAYER_J_X wrote:
Tal
Garry Kasparov
Bronstein
Bobby Fischer
Hikaru Nakamura
Jobava
Do these players even sound like positional players?
Umm, yes, they're all exceptionally good positional players, even if they're famous for aggression, sacrifice, initiative, etc... except for FIscher, who doesn't fit in with that list.
And the KIA attacks, e.g. with a pawn on e5, are very positionally based.
And definitely the KID attacks are.
0110001101101000 wrote:
I've heard the KIA recommended to new-ish players before.
I've always disagreed.
Well it depends on where you stand!
I have heard some coaches tell there students to forget openings and work on middle game planning + tactics.
Many suggest for there students to use chess principles as a way of just getting a equal position out of the opening than playing from there!
I myself always found such advice generic.
I never liked the idea of using chess principles to develop pieces randomly.
Thus, When I first started I played the KIA as a way of at least getting out of the opening with a game plan set up etc.
The only thing which I can say is tough about the KIA is trying to break the habit of doing mechanical moves/auto pilot moves.
You see I have a theory!
Ziryab said that the students he has who plays these sort of line often end up doing well in the begin, but than end up stunting there progression.
An I have a theory as to why that happens.
When you play the KIA what are you really doing?
In a sense you are skipping the opening by playing some mechanical moves.
Which allow you the chance to study/hit the middle game phase of planning very hard!
You learn faster by isolating a specific phase!
For example:
Lets say you have 6 hours to study.
Lets say Person A does the below method of studying:
Lets say Person A spreads out the 6 hours evenly between the opening, middle game, and endgame.
What you are doing is basically studying each phase for 2 hours worth of time.
Lets say Person B does the below method of studying:
Lets say Person B only study's the middle game for the whole 6 hours.
Who is going to learn the middle game faster?
Person B!
Person B is will progress in the begin faster because he is playing an equalish opening so that he can use his surpreme middle game knowledge over Person A!
However, this progression is only temporary!
Now lets give an example to show what I mean.
Lets say each phase has a cap time of 12 hours!
Now watch what happens here!
Person A first day did 2 hours opening | 2 hours middle | 2 hours end
Person B first day did 6 hours middle
Now lets pretend the cap is 12 hours.
Day 2 comes around
Person A does same strategy 6 hours spread evenly.
Now he has a full total of:
4 hours opening | 4 hours middle | 4 hours end
Person B does same strategy
Now he has a full total of:
12 hours middle
Day 3 comes around
Person A does same strategy 6 hours spread evenly.
Now he has a full total of:
6 hours opening | 6 hours middle | 6 hours end
Now comes the problem!
Person B has already done 12 hours worth of middle game study.
Now he needs to focus on his other area's!
Now is were the problem happens!
Person B has been using his Mechincal KIA opening this whole time.
However, the time has come were he has to do opening study!!
Person B now he has to let it go of his KIA line to learn other opening lines!!!!!
Person B has become line dependent! He has been playing the KIA for so long he can't let it go! Person B has become attached to his opening!
He has to let it go. He has to move on to other demanding lines. You have to keep evolving as a chess player. This simple example shows you why Person B ends up dropping off and not progressing!
Person A never has this problem! WHY? Because Person A was never line dependent! Person A studied different opening lines since the begin!
An what will end up happening is if Person B continues to refuse to play other openings Person A will eventually start slaugthering him!
In the begin the KIA was evenish and Person B had better middle game skills which is why he slaugthered Person A.
In the end the KIA is still evenish, but Person A has finally caught up to Person B middle game skills and is now crushing him in other area's of the game.
Now one may think well this is a perfect example of why you shouldn't play the KIA X_PLAYER_J_X!
My response to this is:
Is this really a good example showing why a person shouldn't play the KIA?
Think about it we know the problem Person B is having!
Person B has become sentimental towards a line!
You can't blame poor Person B for getting sentimental over a line!!!
He is human for crying out loud.
Take me for example:
I have a pair of shoes I use to wear in high school.
Those shoes don't even fit me any more and I can't bare to part with them!!!
Who says Person B can't over come this struggle?
There is a lot of things we can do to help Person B from falling into this line dependent situation!
We can tell him to mix in other diverse lines in his play!
We can tell encourage him to play one line for a few weeks than have him switch up!
We can try different move orders!
I played the KIA a lot in my beginning years of chess.
I never opened with 1.Nf3!
I never got into the KIA by using the 1.Nf3 move order.
Which is considered to be the main move order!
I always used 1.e4!
When ever I played 1.e4 if my opponent played 1...e6 or 1...c5
Only than did I try for a KIA set up.
If my opponent played 1...e5 I played the Italian Game!
I had diversity!
It is easy for a person to dismiss openings like the KIA or London System.
Look at the struggles they have over come!
It speaks volumes!
Thus, I disagree with everyone who says such absurd claims!
The Italian Game, KIA, & London System are perfectly acceptable openings.
Granted they have there limitations.
However, if you understand what the limitations are you can use them to great effect!
Your below statement Proves my point!
Start with openings played before Howard Staunton won his first game, and then grow the child into the games of Staunton, Anderssen, and Morphy.
Yes, start them off with Howard Staunton, Adolf Anderssen, and Paul Morphy's games!
All 3 chess players predominantly played the Italian Game & Evans Gambit.
I think that what is "proven" in this exchange is that you read selectively. Does your comprehension of the quoted sentence include the meaning of the word BEFORE?
Now, go back and read post#10. All of it. Don't argue with me about the Italian until you understand where we agree and where we disagree.