It's called "en passant". Look it up.
Are Chess Rules Same Thing as Chess Basics??
Sort:
MiddlegamerUmesh wrote:
I think Chess Rules are for noobs, Chess Basics are for beginners - Basics include Tactics, Opening Principles, Basics of Positional Play and Strategy, Basic Endgames, etc.
Yes, all that is true. But it is too broad to get us closer to the answer to the question at hand.
Think you want to teach a complete beginner. For them the terms and meaning of tactics, positional play, openings, strategy, endgames, all sound Greek.
I guess you would start with the moves, A RULE of chess.
I myself I don't start with the moves, I start with THE BASICS of chess
(here I don't mean history of the game, geometry of the board, etc. either
)
MiddlegamerUmesh wrote:
RoaringPawn wrote:
MiddlegamerUmesh wrote:
I think Chess Rules are for noobs, Chess Basics are for beginners - Basics include Tactics, Opening Principles, Basics of Positional Play and Strategy, Basic Endgames, etc.
Yes, all that is true. But it is too broad to get us closer to the answer to the question at hand.
Think you want to teach a complete beginner. For them the terms and meaning of tactics, positional play, openings, strategy, endgames, all sound Greek.
I guess you would start with the moves, A RULE of chess.
I myself I don't start with the moves, I start with THE BASICS of chess (here I don't mean history of the game, geometry of the board, etc. either)
I actually think someone is only a noob until they learn all those things - and then they become a 'beginner'
I would agree with that. Only I'm not clear WHAT all those things you mean, and how much time it would take.
When I start teaching a beginner, I don't first show the moves (as said before). I explain a simplest concept imaginable, then they come up with How Pieces Move THEMSELVES, ON THEIR OWN!
All that takes roughly TEN MINUTES, and we START PLAYING!
MiddlegamerUmesh wrote:
I agree - that's the best thing you can do - but I think different - show them all the rules first, and then start playing. If they want to beat you, they'll start learning chess themselves using internet. That's one way of making sure someone learns with their own interest
To show them all the rules first. It may take you a time.
For example, I stopped at the local Barnes & Noble bookstore the other day. One primer I checked on, had 50 PAGES explaining the basics. FIFTY!
So WHEN are you gonna start playing?
(when I say playing, I don't necessarily mean playing all-men chess, we start mini-games as the chess basics is, evidently, much easier to convey with few pieces).
MiddlegamerUmesh wrote:
We show them how the pieces move, castling, and all pawn moves (en-passant, double move on first move, cross-capture, promotion) that might probably take about 1 hour, and then you can start playing (and crushing them with 4 move checkmate is my first suggestion so that they learn it )
Agree, that would be one way of doing it. But do you really think en-passant is something a complete chess beginner does need? Can they really absorb all of what you mentioned?
For a mini-game we start playing after 10-min intro, we don't need castling, rule, en-passant, what Queen side is, chess notation, etc, etc. I introduce one by one along the way as a new mini-game requires.
Does it make sense?
@MiddlegamerUmesh
I just can't believe you start ALL-MEN chess, 16 vs 16 which I assume from your mentioning Scholar's mate
MiddlegamerUmesh wrote:
Well, that's at least the way HOW I learnt chess - the classic 'Beat Your Dad' way - I used to learn tactics and stuff on the internet so that I could beat my dad. Now, my Dad taught me all rules except the en-passant which I learn later (When I thought Microsoft Chess Titans was 'cheating'). I think it would be more better if you taught them en-passant too - and if they can't understand that I'd not really think they have the brains to play chess.
Me too! Actually everybody of us did (if anybody was different in this regard, PLZ let us know!!)
But that seems to be... erm not quite right
RoaringPawn wrote:
We all know chess has its rules. This is no different from any other domain.
Yet the question is, Are The Rules really an equivalent to The Basics of a domain?
Sounds like a philosophical question, doesn't it?
It does, yet it bears utmost significance in how we should design teaching/learning methods from the very beginning. This is of supreme importance not only for a complete beginner, but also for all chess players as the majority of them (including me) reach a plateau afterwards unable to move on no matter how much they study chess. It's like hitting an invisible wall! (reminds me of my broken English accent that I won't be able to ever improve on, let alone fix)
The chess beginner, or the chess veteran, the patzer and the Master, they all play according to the very same rules.
But, and here is the point, What distinguishes us chess players, all of whom follow the same rules?
Dr Lasker says in his Manual that what distinguishes us in chess is the Meaning, Intent, in other words Reason of/for our moves.
Now there are few questions here:
1. What provides that Meaning and Reason Dr Lasker mentioned?
2. Whatever may be, shouldn't we call IT the TRUE Chess Basics?
3. What should really have prevalence when teaching/learning at Chess Square One, on Day One? The rules and the moves, or the Meaning behind the moves?
Any thoughts? Anyone?
yes it is
MiddlegamerUmesh wrote:
Okay, but I agree with with you in one thing - letting them learn it themselves - My chess foundation comes from watching a lot of master games on youtube when I was a beginner
Hey Umesh, this looks like a two-men band playing
As for your letting them learn it themselves, there are two things to consider:
1. It IS much more effective (and more costly) to have a teacher. But not any teacher. A teacher who knows the RIGHT of how to teach. I'm self-taught, and that may be why my chess sucks
2. I agree in what you say above in the sense of Socratic method of learning. What he did with his students, he would get them find all the answers themselves by connecting the new content with the CONCEPTS we have acquired through experience.
In other words, teachers should NOT teach anything, they should just help us find it on our own!
I think the geometry of the chess board is a good place to begin, emphasizing lines—ranks, files, and diagonals. Then observe two pieces on the same file, same rank, and same diagonal. Then pieces not on the same line. From there, I would introduce the word contact for two pieces on the same line. Generally, I might use a rook if one color and a king of another.
We might get to how the rook moves, which would reveal to the student that contacts for that piece do not take place along diagonals.
We might get to how the rook moves, which would reveal to the student that contacts for that piece do not take place along diagonals.
Ziryab wrote:
I think the geometry of the chess board is a good place to begin, emphasizing lines—ranks, files, and diagonals. Then observe two pieces on the same file, same rank, and same diagonal. Then pieces not on the same line. From there, I would introduce the word contact for two pieces on the same line. Generally, I might use a rook if one color and a king of another.
We might get to how the rook moves, which would reveal to the student that contacts for that piece do not take place along diagonals.
We might get to how the rook moves, which would reveal to the student that contacts for that piece do not take place along diagonals.
James, to me, the right question would be not HOW rook moves, but WHY it is moving to WHERE it is moving?🤓
That’s where the BASICS start, with the REASON, MEANING, INTENT behind mere pushing wood😁
MiddlegamerUmesh wrote:
Some things are supposed to come naturally to us - they're not taught - it's best we understand them the way our brain likes - like geometry of the chess board, for example
Agree.
I think your and my brain see the same board geometry, like this is a7 square, this is a diagonal.
But the way your and my mind’s eye see how chessmen interact, what matters most in position, what targets do I have, or can create in the opponent's ranks, etc. could be quite different.
Everyone of us develops sort of mental landscape that have meaning for us, even if we can't explain them in words.
It's our mental tools to steer thru complexities of teh game
MiddlegamerUmesh wrote:
Exactly - it's inexplicable using words - 'mental landscape' - I like the word . I think we're not supposed to interfere with these mental landscapes of beginners - we must let it take it's own form. The best way is to learn as beginner is to keep watching a lot of games and develop a 'feel' for the game.
Yes, but the beginner's mind set (mental landscape, frame of mind, mental models, call it what you want) should set in properly with some basics a good teacher is able to implant and instill in it.
There are two bad scenarios:
1) Teacher communicates improper, irrelevant stuff which creates an inefficient and corrupt mind set
2) If teacher doesn't provide necessary ingredients for feeding the student's mental chess landscape, then the student themselves will come up with something as the brain needs meaning in order to make decisions. Or it is just a bad habit w/o any meaning that has been created.
PawnstormPossie wrote:
It doesn’t take long to explain how the board is set up, how the pieces move, and special moves.
If you start "playing" immediately after, a good "teacher" will ask/explain why each was made. A good student will ask why.
If I got it well, what you say is that we have to cover the rules first and then the Reason behind how we act at the board (moves etc.) will come later.
Well, my Belgrade method starts in opposition to such traditional approach with the Reason for action (moves) explained by use of a most simple concept as I explained in my Joe Learns Chess the Outlaw Way blog -- before any Rules introduced, even the moves are let the student to discover on their own without being told at all (thanks to Caissa, the lines of Movement coincide with the lines of Force).
These two tweets I exchanged today with the English coach of Wimbledon Chess Club may clarify things even further
RoaringPawn wrote:
Well, my Belgrade method starts in opposition to such traditional approach with the Reason for action (moves) explained by use of a most simple concept as I explained in my Joe Learns Chess the Outlaw Way blog -- before any Rules introduced, even the moves are let the student to discover on their own without being told at all (thanks to Caissa, the lines of Movement coincide with the lines of Force).
I guess we will see it how it goes...always nice to have unsuspecting children to be able to foist some crazy theory on. Interesting pondering you had on what the effects of garbage education have on kids? Guess we will find out.
nighteyes1234 wrote:
RoaringPawn wrote:
Well, my Belgrade method starts in opposition to such traditional approach with the Reason for action (moves) explained by use of a most simple concept as I explained in my Joe Learns Chess the Outlaw Way blog -- before any Rules introduced, even the moves are let the student to discover on their own without being told at all (thanks to Caissa, the lines of Movement coincide with the lines of Force).
I guess we will see it how it goes...always nice to have unsuspecting children to be able to foist some crazy theory on. Interesting pondering you had on what the effects of garbage education have on kids? Guess we will find out.
Well, let me know how it worked
Any help, clarifications, anything please let me know
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
We all know chess has its rules. This is no different from any other domain.
Yet the question is, Are The Rules really an equivalent to The Basics of a domain?
Sounds like a philosophical question, doesn't it?
It does, yet it bears utmost significance in how we should design teaching/learning methods from the very beginning. This is of supreme importance not only for a complete beginner, but also for all chess players as the majority of them (including me) reach a plateau afterwards unable to move on no matter how much they study chess. It's like hitting an invisible wall! (reminds me of my broken English accent
that I won't be able to ever improve on, let alone fix
)
The chess beginner, or the chess veteran, the patzer and the Master, they all play according to the very same rules.
But, and here is the point, What distinguishes us chess players, all of whom follow the same rules?
Dr Lasker says in his Manual that what distinguishes us in chess is the Meaning, Intent, in other words Reason of/for our moves.
Now there are few questions here:
1. What provides that Meaning and Reason Dr Lasker mentioned?
2. Whatever may be, shouldn't we call IT the TRUE Chess Basics?
3. What should really have prevalence when teaching/learning at Chess Square One, on Day One? The rules and the moves, or the Meaning behind the moves?
Any thoughts? Anyone?