basic learning question

i'm attempting to teach some basics to a beginner who knows how to move the pieces but that's about it. she's not really interested in becoming some great player. she's mostly just interested in having some sort of understanding about a general strategy while playing and what kind of plan to have. so far i have come up with the following to explain to her:

Opening:

• control the centre
• develop minor pieces (try not to move one more than once)
• castle early for King safety

Middle Game:

• position Bishops on strong diagonals (long diagonals)
• position Knights on good outposts
• activate Queen and Rooks
• look to trade your weaker pieces for opponent's stronger pieces
• look to trade down to a winning endgame or trade down when ahead in material

Endgame (i will mention these to her, but i don't see her caring enough to practice them - and yes i know there are more to consider but these are the easier ones)

• K vs. K+P
• K vs. K+R
• K vs. K+Q

General Strategy:

• no double pawns, no backward pawns, no isolated pawns
• try to get (protected) passed pawns
• try to get a strong pawn structure (more chains, less islands)
• look to create forks, pins, skewers, batteries
• try to get your rook(s) on your opponents 2nd rank

i was also considering suggesting what i'm calling an "order of consideration" for each move. it is as follows:

1. look for any possible mate or mating attack
   
2. look for any hanging pieces
   
3. look for any possible tactic
4. look to strengthen your overall position

also, all these 'steps' must be first considered from your perspective followed by your opponent's. here it is in more detail:

first you look for a possible mate against your opponent. if you don't see one, then you look to see if your opponent has a mating attack against you that you have to defend against. if no, then you look for hanging pieces to attack. if there are none, you should look to see if you left any pieces hanging that you have to protect. if you see none, then look for any possible tactics you can perform. if none, you look for possible tactics you have to defend against. finally, if you see none, you should consider how to just better your overall position. if you can't or don't see how, you should finally consider how your opponent will try to better his/her position and try to stop him/her from doing so.

i know this is very general and not necessarily the best way to play, but for someone just learning strategy, i thought it would be a good starting point.

so, what do you all think of this approach? what am i missing in your opinion? what should i omit? thanks for the comments :)

I'd scratch this one if I was you, it's most likely just going to be confusing for a beginner, double pawns, backwards pawns and isolated pawns isn't a bad thing, if you get some compensation for them.

• no double pawns, no backward pawns, no isolated pawns

If they aren't a bad thing then why do you need compensation?  Kind of like the exchange sac isn't bad with compensation either -- I think the pawns are important to talk about just so she knows the idea of them.  Like Trigs said she isn't aiming for tourney level, just wants to be a competent beginner.

Add K+KQQ/QR/RR in the endgame

I would probably say what pieces in the endgame can deliver checkmate and which cannot. Show what the position would look like when the king is checkmated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkmate_patterns

http://chesstempo.com/tactical-motifs.html

yeah i agree that the pawns talk could be a little difficult but i definitely think they should be mentioned.

yeah, good idea. i should definitely mention these easier endgames as well.

I remember when I was a pure beginner, and was scared of isolated pawns aswell as doubled pawns, and it did me no good at all, I think it just made the game harder for me. I didn't go in for various lines because I got doubled pawns, even if the lines otherwhise looked good to me (or atleast, I thuoght so). I also traded a bit to much to settle the opponent with doubled pawns, even though I had no idea how to exploit it in the late middlegame or endgame.

I just think that some of the pawn structure questions are above the head of most beginners, and will just hamper their game even more if they try to rely on some "easy pointers".

yes i do agree that some pawn strategy can get pretty difficult, and by no means would i suggest that these ideas are the be-all and end-all of pawn advice. like you state, obviously sometimes doubled pawns are fine (take, for example anand`s amazing queen trade offer in the WCC which doubled his a-pawns - even the masters commenting on the game were like `bad move` at the time, but it obviously was brilliant in the end). however, i still feel that a mention of pawn structure is very important and a mention of a `good`pawn structure vs. a `bad`pawn structure in general should definitely be mentioned.

perhaps you are right in respect to doubled pawns, but discussing pawn islands and pawn chains are very important i think. i wish i had learned the importance of pawn structure much earlier than i did.

Well I guess that's a good point.  I remember also trading quickly to give doubled pawns, one game in particular that I went out of my way to do it and gave myself an awful losing position although during the game I thought I must be winning somehow. 

Maybe it is too much info for a beginner.  Maybe just mention what they're called, and not necessarily say they're always bad or good, just couple the definitions with lessons about activity on open files, control of the center, and how pawns protecting each other is fairly solid.

Funnily, I was thinking about posting something very similar, since I'm trying the same for two separate people.  With one I played a game without comment and told her her most horrible mistakes (like, not moving pieces out of the way of pawn captures!), and then played a second game where I tried to instill some [very] general opening principles.  Naturally all the way through I emphasized that I'm a terrible player and so my advice shouldn't be taken as gospel, but it seemed to work fairly well

What I was thinking of next, though, is to go over tactical motifs, so I was wondering if anyone could point me to a good source for simple concepts in this area?  I also sometimes teach my girlfriend at home, which means I have the wonderful resource of chess mentor, but for my friend I'll be in a coffee shop without a laptop or anything.  Any good books, or even webpages I can print out?

Also, thanks trigs, I'm going to steal that list you posted for later on!

EDIT: I just saw LearnChess's post, so evidently I already have a good source...

Indeed Orangehonda, I think that less focus on pawn and pawnstructures, and more focus on how to activate your pieces. Cause truth to be told, with active pieces you rule the game, this is true even in GM games, but it's especially true with beginners. Heck, I still lose games just because the opponent aims 3 pieces at my kingside and asks me to kindly explode and ruin my own game, which I often do.

 This alone is fantastic advice.  I remembered to do this every turn I wouldn't be loosing all my online games right now.

1) really? pawn chains aren't good? okay, in front of your castled king i completely understand, but everywhere else aren't chains better? maybe if you could get away with a game where you never move pawns at all but that's not likely. therefore if (when) you move them i thought chains were best. i could be wrong though.

2) i agree that isolated and doubled pawns aren't always bad (and sometimes, like the example i mentioned in another post, they can be good), but aren't they generally bad? or at the very least something you'd want to avoid? (not avoid at all cost mind you) again, i could be wrong here.

3) and yes i completely agree with your last point (which, if i may sum up, is that it all depends on the overall position), but i can't just say that to a beginner. i have to give them something to look for first and to gauge the position on. hence my pawn structure references and the like.

after all these comments though, i am considering backing off a little on the pawn talk. people are seeming to suggest it may be too difficult a concept for a beginner.

glad i could help :)

FiveofSwords: I'm not quite sure how Pawn Chains are an evil that should be avoided at all costs.  If that was the case, why did so many GMs (Korchnoi, Botvinik, etc) champion openings like the French Defence and Caro Kann?

trigs: All this talk about pawn structure, makes me a bit hesitant, because, usually, there's a bit of a trade off involved.  Take, for example, the standard Nimzoindian doubled pawns on C3 and D4.  Are they bad?  In an endgame, they might be difficult to hold.  In a middlegame, black can try to constrict them.  At the same time, however, they give black a large stake of the center and a half open B file to try to exploit.  There are pluses and minuses that both sides can make use of.  (The same applies towards the Isolated Queen Pawn: an active middlegame with strong attacking prospects vs. a difficult endgame if black holds it all together).

I think, when talking about pawn structure, there are so many nuances and subtleties to take into account, that it can actually be dangerous to focus too much on them without experience.  (As someone who went through a Doubled Pawns = EVIL stage, I know just how limiting and dogmatic such ideas can become).

For me, I would primarilly suggest that a beginner focus on piece activity and looking for weaknesses to exploit.  Stay out of passive positions whenever possible and look for ways to control the game, unless you can rationally justify a passive approach.  Of course, this isn't always possible, but I think it's a more healthy approach than doubled pawns, isolated pawns, backward pawns avoid.

Agreed about rooks on the second rank, but I would also stress, talking about the rooks, placing rooks on open and/or half open files.

Fiveofswords: after posting my long winded post, I see your diagram and arguments against pawn chains and I do agree, in certain positions, it is especially dubious (especially when you can set up a more ideal pawn structure).  I think your diagram, however, represents an extreme example, with the board divided in half, one side perfectly mobile and the other static.  While it does illustrate the defects, especially in an endgame, that this structure holds, however, this does not mean that, especially in middle game and opening positions, there are perfectly good reasons for creating pawn chains, and these decisions will often lead to wins for the side that pursues them.

FiveofSwords: as to the French though, when you play as black, you are, in essence, creating a pawn chain yourself.  Using one pawn chain to force and attack a weaker one.  This is still a pawn chain nevertheless.

good points. i agree.

she is older (late 20s). she's just not a serious player. i completely agree that i need to discuss with her about her general preferred game strategy. i actually had that written down in my original breakdown, but i just didn't mention it in my post. good point.

@ fiveofswords:

one can easily make up positions to argue either side of this debate. again, i will state that i do agree with you to a certain point however.