Forums

6 years and 1 month - rated 1140 in classical chess online

Sort:
jjupiter6

Nwap111 wrote:

MR MARMAX33.  This is addressed to you:  A six year old should have fun playing chess.  That is all that matters.  Should you wish---and should he---wish to improve then simply learn chess notation and look for game-losing errors, such as a piece of his moves to an un safe square or his opponent takes a piece, but your son does not take back.  Also the board is im portant for improvement.  Many 1600-1700 do not know the board.  Play a game with him.  Teach him the names of the squares and then simply ask whether they are dark or light.  It will improve his game, when he can correctly name the squares.  You can even find free apps on line that do this.  Hope that helps.

Best advice in thread. OP ignore everything else and go with this. I'm a teacher of a class of 6 year olds btw.

ABC_of_EVERYTHING

give your kid access to magnus trainer which is available in ios and Android. magnus  teaches all phases of the games.  most importantly he teaches opening in structure and pattern which is easier to remember,  explains the main idea of the opening and also gives sequence of opening moves whenever necessary.  i have not completed his game highlights in recent years but i think they might be also interesting. i have completed his tactics course and i have learn new things in the form of x-rays and interference tactics. his lessons on pins is also good. he have also a foundation course in which he teaches importance of controlling centre, rook uses open files just to get to seventh rank and from there it attack the maximum amount of oponent pieces and pawn, teaches us how to control dark and light square,  everything of which is covered in strategy lesson. Have a calculation lesson as well in which he teaches students how to think during a game and claims this can alone improve the skill level of chess player a lot.  i personally have applied to it and i would give consent to it. it also have a collection of other world champion game. it also features a collection of games and that's the only things i didn't like about.  Puzzle rush is better. 

So,  in a nutshell,  if you want to know  the mysteries of sicilian,  french,  Kings indian,  nimzoindian,  Danish gambit explained in simple language,  you should definitely have look at it. 

irish65

I'm only here for the comments.

dcb1970
I’ve had a kid in this spot. You need to play OTB rated games. Tactics and simple endgames training. I think he should finish Ivaschenko manual of chess combinations volume 1 - designed for kids and then do chess.com tactics. You can get the app from chessking on the App Store.
Caesar49bc
kindaspongey wrote:
Caesar49bc  wrote:

... I wasn't planning on looking for any.

I guess it is sufficient that you do not dispute the existence of books that contain games with explanations intended for beginners.

Traditionally, authors use positions from human vs human games, usually from some tounament. Modern authors usually cite the source of the games they use in their book.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "illustrative game".

Do you mean a book that takes games and explains every move of the games? I think there is at least one book that does that, but I have no idea what rating level it's targeting.

kindaspongey
Caesar49bc  wrote:

… I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "illustrative game".

Do you mean a book that takes games and explains every move of the games? ...

No. I mean games chosen for some sort of instructive purpose.

chessguy_888
#12

Technically he still a novice so he is a beginner...
kindaspongey

As far as I know, nobody is in charge of the meaning of chess-beginner.

Caesar49bc
kindaspongey wrote:
Caesar49bc  wrote:

… I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "illustrative game".

Do you mean a book that takes games and explains every move of the games? ...

No. I mean games chosen for some sort of instructive purpose.

Like I said, most authors take examples from real games, and cite the source of the game. Some authors will include the game on the page of the illustration, or have an index of the games, or just cite the source of the game so a reader can look a game up on a database.

chessguy_888

https://thechessworld.com/articles/general-information/all-truth-about-elo-rating-system/

kindaspongey
Caesar49bc  wrote:

… Some authors will include the game on the page of the illustration, or have an index of the games, or just cite the source of the game so a reader can look a game up on a database.

"... [annotated games are] infinitely more useful than bare game scores. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2010)

Caesar49bc
kindaspongey wrote:
Caesar49bc  wrote:

… Some authors will include the game on the page of the illustration, or have an index of the games, or just cite the source of the game so a reader can look a game up on a database.

"... [annotated games are] infinitely more useful than bare game scores. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2010)

It's like I'm trying to explain why the sky is blue to a toddler and getting string of "why?" every time I try to explain it.

kindaspongey
"Are there books that contain games with explanations intended for beginners?" - kindaspongey (~10 hours ago)
"Try using a search engine." - Caesar49bc (~10 hours)
"I didn't ask for names. I asked about whether or not there are such books. Apparently, you do not want to dispute that they exist." - kindaspongey (~10 hours ago)
"I wasn't planning on looking for any." - Caesar49bc (~10 hours ago)
"I guess it is sufficient that you do not dispute the existence of books that contain games with explanations intended for beginners." - kindaspongey (~10 hours ago)
"Traditionally, authors use positions from human vs human games, usually from some tounament. Modern authors usually cite the source of the games they use in their book. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'illustrative game'. Do you mean a book that takes games and explains every move of the games? I think there is at least one book that does that, but I have no idea what rating level it's targeting." - Caesar49bc (~1 hour ago)
No [, I do not mean games with explanations of every move]. I mean games chosen for some sort of instructive purpose." - kindaspongey (~1 hour ago)
"Like I said, most authors take examples from real games, and cite the source of the game. Some authors will include the game on the page of the illustration, or have an index of the games, or just cite the source of the game so a reader can look a game up on a database." - Caesar49bc (~31 minutes ago)
"'... [annotated games are] infinitely more useful than bare game scores. ...' - GM Andrew Soltis (2010)" - kindaspongey (~1/2 hour ago)
Caesar49bc wrote (~14 minutes ago):
kindaspongey wrote:
Caesar49bc  wrote:

… Some authors will include the game on the page of the illustration, or have an index of the games, or just cite the source of the game so a reader can look a game up on a database.

"... [annotated games are] infinitely more useful than bare game scores. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2010)

It's like I'm trying to explain why the sky is blue to a toddler and getting string of "why?" every time I try to explain it.

About ten hours ago, I asked, "Are there books that contain games with explanations intended for beginners?" That is not a question that requests an explanation, and, in any event, as I previously indicated, I guess it is sufficient that you do not dispute the existence of books that contain games with explanations intended for beginners. Consequently, I have no idea what, if anything, you are trying to explain to me. Since asking the "are there books" question, I have seen two posts (currently #71 and #73) from you about 10 hours ago, 1 post (currently #79) from you about 1 hour ago, and 1 post (currently #83) from you about 31 minutes ago. I see no reason to consider any of my reactions as questions. If, indeed, you consider any of my reactions to have been a question, I suggest that you clearly identify it. Again, it will be sufficient if you find yourself lacking in enthusiasm for that undertaking.

Caesar49bc

Kindaspongey,:

You apparently don't inderstand a metephore.

kindaspongey
Caesar49bc wrote:

Kindaspongey,: You apparently don't inderstand a metephore.

Not yours, anyway. You apparently have little desire to make a clear complaint about something that you clearly identify.

"... interesting rhythmic devices which seemed to counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor of the Vogonity of the poet’s compassionate soul ...” - Ford Prefect and Arthur Dent