First, the word you were looking for is "advanced". Second, how can someone be an advanced beginner?
Should I teach gambits to avance beginner kids?
Sort:
Apr 21, 2016
0
#4
I think the term you were looking for, was: Hopeful-and-aspiring, intermediates. 0:
In Openings for Amateurs (2014), Pete Tamburro included some discussion of this sort of issue.
http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-of-pete-tamburros-openings-for.html
I believe that it is possible to see a fair portion of the beginning of Tamburro's book by going to the Mongoose Press site.
celot wrote:
TRextastic wrote:
First, the word you were looking for is "advanced". Second, how can someone be an advanced beginner?
There she is, Miss America, there she is your ideal! Chu be soundin' smartah girl, you go honey!!!
I still don't get why you're an a-hole to me. You called me stupid and uneducated for no reason. And even now you won't let it go. Grow up.
jambyvedar wrote:
Should I teach gambit openings to avance beginner kids?
What rating rabge are you talking about?
I would think a big exploration of the King gambit is appropriate for many rating ranges...
TRextastic wrote:
celot wrote:
TRextastic wrote:
First, the word you were looking for is "advanced". Second, how can someone be an advanced beginner?
There she is, Miss America, there she is your ideal! Chu be soundin' smartah girl, you go honey!!!
I still don't get why you're an a-hole to me. You called me stupid and uneducated for no reason. And even now you won't let it go. Grow up.
Let it go. Guaranteed, if he was talking to you in perosn he wouldnt act this way. Its the internet, and annonymity can be a powerful thing.
Apr 22, 2016
0
#10
I agree with Max Euwe, who wrote in The Development of Chess Style (1966):
"The history of chess--under its present rules--is the study of the growth and gradual change of the strategic ideas of leading players of succeeding generations, Taking note of this evolution and thoroughly grasping it is the very thing which makes for better judgement and an increase in playing strength. The development of a chess player runs parallel with that of chess itself."
In the light of this assertion, I think that Euwe would tell the OP that a young player should learn through study and practical play how Greco, Philidor, Anderssen, Morphy, and others following them handled the King's Gambit.
Yes you should. Learning gambits opens your eyes to positional chess and increases your understanding. There is no harm in doing it.
Apr 22, 2016
0
#12
I've read that gambits help understanding of tactics. I'm teaching a talented young man gambits and traps right now. Even if you don't use gambits and traps very often, it's good to recognize when someone uses them against you.
imsighked2 wrote:
I've read that gambits help understanding of tactics. I'm teaching a talented young man gambits and traps right now. Even if you don't use gambits and traps very often, it's good to recognize when someone uses them against you.
If you've seen enough of this person to label him as a "talented young man" then shouldn't he be the one teaching you by now?
winnyThePoo2 wrote:
VeggieEater wrote:
But get them past the "how do the pieces move" and "simple mate patterns" first.
The 8th row mate, does anyone fall for that?
I did, just a couple days ago.
celot wrote:
I have forgotten more about chess than you will ever know. Your rating does NOT impress me. "Look at me ... look at me ... I have an 1880 rating ... look at me!" Absolutely meaningless unless you are using an engine, many 1380 players can beat you. I put no stock in cyber chess ratings. The only absolute rating is the one attained OTB.
LOL...
celot wrote:
BungaBungaFischer wrote:
celot wrote:
I have forgotten more about chess than you will ever know. Your rating does NOT impress me. "Look at me ... look at me ... I have an 1880 rating ... look at me!" Absolutely meaningless unless you are using an engine, many 1380 players can beat you. I put no stock in cyber chess ratings. The only absolute rating is the one attained OTB.
As I mentioned in another thread, because I can't get to any OTB tournaments, my online rating is the only real rating I have. So I take it more seriously than other people.
But you're absolutely right. In the majority of cases, online ratings mean nothing.
Teaching gambits can be beneficial, it teaches that sacrificing material for a strong center is fine, as long as one is not going to attack wit reckless abandon. :p
Apr 23, 2016
0
#18
jengaias wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
I agree with Max Euwe, who wrote in The Development of Chess Style (1966):
"The history of chess--under its present rules--is the study of the growth and gradual change of the strategic ideas of leading players of succeeding generations, Taking note of this evolution and thoroughly grasping it is the very thing which makes for better judgement and an increase in playing strength. The development of a chess player runs parallel with that of chess itself."
In the light of this assertion, I think that Euwe would tell the OP that a young player should learn through study and practical play how Greco, Philidor, Anderssen, Morphy, and others following them handled the King's Gambit.
I am not sure Euwe meant by this "beginners must learn King's Gambit"".
Probably he meant "study the masters of the past".
I don't find any evidence in Euwe's writing that he advocates study without practice. The conclusion is inescapable that he would endorse young players or beginners of any age playing the King's Gambit early in their development. That is not to say, however, that he views it as an opening that one will continue with on the road to mastery.
When Euwe advocates study of Greco and Philidor and Anderssen and Morphy, he also advocates that the student should play like these masters. When one's opponents begin to defend well, one must then move on to playing like Steinitz and Lasker and Capablanca. The King's Gambit may be something that one wants to set aside at that point.
Apr 23, 2016
0
#19
Robert_New_Alekhine wrote:
yes. You must teach beginners the importance of development.
This. The rules of the opening are that you develop, make your king safe and don't move the same piece twice, unless it's necessary. Many times, when an opponent moves a piece twice in the opening with the intention of gambiting a pawn, it's a trap, or undermines your position. I'm not saying it's always like that, but the ones i know of are, save the King's gambit, Queen's gambit and Benko gambit.
Should I teach gambits to avance beginner kids?
You want to teach kids something?
Why don't you teach them to stop crying!
Nothing spoils my wonderful positional win more than a snooty nose little kid!
Crying over the fact they got crushed!
Than you have to deal with the parents who can't handle my response:
When I tell them "No mercy!"
Than they walk away as if I'm the bad guy.
Should I teach gambit openings to avance beginner kids?