Caro-Kann and the Dutch Defense, defending becomes crucial later in life, If there ever comes a day.
Chess openings for beginners/ kids
Sort:
My grandfather taught me the Ruy Lopez as my first opening. He didn't teach it deep. Just occupy the center then fight for it. I don't think I ever played 3. Bc4. I did have a Danish period for a while.
The Ruy seems like a decent opening for a child when most of his opponents will play 1...e5.
2N
X_PLAYER_J_X wrote:
What is wrong with people on this forum!
You can't teach a little kid the Ruy Lopez and Kings Gambit.
Whats the matter with you people.
Even Grand Masters struggle in those lines.
You want a little kid to play them?
Weirdos!
I bet many here have no clue how to even play them.
An you expect a little kid too?
What are you people smoking?
You start off with simple lines!
The Italian Game
or
The Kings Indian Attack
You reach the same positions over and over again.
The repetition helps!
Every strong player started off walking before running.
Bobby Fischer played the Kings Indian Attack and the Italian Game.
Even today's strong chess players who are young play the Italian Game.
Psh bye felicia pull your pants up
Jul 5, 2016
0
#127
YuriSenkevich wrote:
eaguiraud wrote:
Ruy lopez is too boring imo
You are the perfect example of someone that has no clue about chess.
I admit I do not know much about chess, just stated my opinion.
I was on board until the last six words
Any good opening website that anyone recommends?
How old is your kid?
I agree with Eric.
"develop towards center connect rooks dont move pieces twice early "
And I agree with Dodger.
"develop knights before bishops don't move queen too early and castle to develop rooks never move-a4 or-h4 to get rooks out."
Development and centercontrol is fine.
Peppinu wrote:
I don't see the rationale on following the development of classic chess theory when teaching young players.
Nobody accused you for such a thing!
I think that 4 knights (either 4 knights Scotch/Spanish works) is a good opening to teach to beginners (develop knights before bishops). They'll have to learn other 1.e4 theory, but then thats part of the game.
As Black you can't go wrong with 1...e5, as if White squanders his first move advantage, then you basically equalize. If protecting f7 is the issue, then imo French is also an alternative, as it teaches closed positons with clear cut plans for both sides. Against 1.Nf3 and 1.d4, I think Slav or QGA is beginner friendly (or at least thats what I played when I started the game).
pfren wrote:
Honestly, I do think that a patzer can really help and train another patzer. All he really needs is some knowledge of a working training method. I am sorry to say you know none, and you are suggesting/ assuming things at random. No matter how good your intentions are, they will do harm if they are unfocused and unfounded.
Pfren, how good do you need to be to be a trainer? In my club we have two trainers that is 1893 and 2079 Fide. I feel like they works well for me. Is there a sound limit? Is that limit close to 1800 Fide?
DjonniDerevnja wrote:
Pfren, how good do you need to be to be a trainer? In my club we have two trainers that is 1893 and 2079 Fide. I feel like they works well for me. Are there a sound limit? Is that limit close to 1800 Fide?
It really depends on whom you are training.
For kids, no great chess knowledge is required- knowing the right pedagogical methods is more important.
Jul 6, 2016
0
#136
Even more important than the right pedagogical methods is the right attitude. One of the best chess teachers I ever saw was a middle school teacher who could barely play the game. What he lacked in chess skills he more than made up for in enthusiasm. He taught chess to thousands of kids. For him, the mark of a successful teacher wasn't how many masters he churned out (and yes, at least one master went through his classes), but how many kids learned to love the game.
Part of what makes a great teacher is understanding that the goals of the students aren't all the same.
Having said that, for students who want to make master, PFren's point is right on the money.
Peppinu wrote:
I don't see the rationale on following the development of classic chess theory when teaching young players.
However I absolutely agree that young players should be exposed to many opening systems so as to develop a more complete understanding of chess strategy.
Since no one gave you an answer.
I shall give you one that I know of.
You may know it and you may not know it.
Either way I will at least give you two explaination instead of ignore your statement.
One rationale people often give for teaching the Classical Chess Theory lines is the amount of resources avaiable to the students.
A lot of 1.e4 e5 lines have been researched very extensively;thus, it allows the teacher to give the student plenty of studying materials in order to help them improve.
The other rationale people often give is 1.e4 e5 lines go over chess principles a lot easier/smoothier than other openings.
Which helps reinforce the lesson's learned through the session etc.
In my club many beginners start with Italian Game, Four Knights Game and some of them play Queen's Gambit. They usually play 1. d4 or 1. e4 and react symetrically. I think that players with rating under 1000 should spend more time on tactics and learning basic endgames(K+Q vs K, K+R vs K, K + 2B vs K).
lool
scotch