Chess in 1 Lesson!!!!!

The whole purpose of my post was to help people out. I can see now that people don't genuinely want any help at chess. When I studied chess, I would go from book to book, and play many games. I didn't really see a marked improvement in my game until I started linking my book learning to the two key ideas I have presented in my original post. You can teach a person 'move your centre pawn in the opening', but until you teach them WHY, nothing will stick. When you know what you are trying to accomplish in a game, which was #1, and what needs to happen to reach that goal #2, then when you are studying, you will know what to reference your new knowledge to. Take for example the idea of centre, and how controlling it gives your pieces more mobility. Ok, now my pieces have more mobility, so what? Oh....more mobility means that I will be able to have my forces join on one side of the board quicker, and give me the decisive advantage in force necessary to checkmate the opposing king. Just a hint for all you haters, and lots of you I might add, Chess in one lesson was a hit tag, intentionally created to spark your interest and get you to read. If you honestly thought you could learn chess in one lesson, or that I was under the delusion that I could teach chess in one lesson, then YOU ARE A MORON! The only thing I was trying to do was help people at chess. You can pull quotes all day long trying to make me look stupid, I don't care. I AM A PATZER FISH, I HAVE A MEDIOCRE RATING IN THE USCF (MID 1500'S TO BE EXACT). Go ahead and bash this post too, because people who may have been trying to learn have probably left already when they see how the petty editors must sling quotes around to show everyone how wrong they are.

Blackadder

I like your judo reference. Indeed the goal is the takedown. In chess, we just assume everyone knows what the goal is. But a lot of people play chess in a manner that would look like someone in judo just flailing their arms. Sure it may look dangerous, but it will not accomplish their goal. I have seen, and played myself, chess games where pieces may be flying off the board, one player may be up vast amounts of material, but the other player just pops in with his properly placed remaining pieces and just chess-tosses the 'leader' on his buttocks. In chess, we also must keep in mind the end goal. We also must study different technique to achieve this goal, just like the martial art student must learn correct technique. My post was to make the 'throw the guy to the ground' in chess a little more obvious. Thank you for your post

Munchies,

I refer to my earlier post.

Great work,please do not be disheartened by the few bad apples we must tolerate.

This is my last post in this forum. Thank you to all who have read and posted. If there is anyone who would like to discuss chess improvement further with me, please send me a message and I will respond within a week. I do have a study program (not a way for me to make money, just some recommended books, software, and study plan) that I will happily share with anyone. I would be more than happy to help out ANY chess student to help put them on the right path to playing quality chess. Do not get the wrong idea, I am NOT trying to make money from anyone. I just LOVE chess and like helping people get better. Take care readers, take care.

I haven't bothered to read anything following your initial post, so I could be unknowingly beating a dead horse, and if so, I apologize. Now, to the point, your "lesson" is 90% set-up and 10% scantly explained chess "ideas", which would not be helpful for players looking to improve. I personally do not see how a beginner could look at your initial post and get anything out of it; it feels so abstract. You're merely expressing something that is common sense to a majority of players, and even if your able to get a "oh, I didn't know that!", it would hardly cause an improvement in their game.

 

I've got to disagree with you on this one, Evil_Homer.  I think that the 'bad apples' are being helpful to the aspiring chess player.  The original post is not only not helpful, but misleading to a beginner.  The fact that Munchies breaks the game down to the importance of force may give many beginning players the very wrong notion that material is all-important.  This sort of thinking actually hinders the understanding of chess, and I think it's the duty of well meaning members to correct this idea so that a beginner who wanders in here won't end up having to re-learn chess in five years.

I liked your post Munchies.

I think it is important to always hold your actual ultimate goals in mind, that is the best way to accomplish them (because you are always focused on them right?).

For example it can be tempting to try to trap an opponents piece (e.g. hunting a queen), the plan for which can become so elaborate it distracts from the ultimate goal of a checkmate.

People might get a bit touchy because they feel their intelligence is being insultated when you tell them something they already know, but it seems you are just giving a helpful reminder.

Thank you.

 

When the initial article was posted, some days ago, I read it (before any replies) and thought that whilst it was a fair statement of the facts, it didn't say anything that wasn't obvious. I read the whole post because I genuinely thought it was funny, a work of comedy. Indeed, I recalled hearing a lecture "How to play Golf in 5 mins" over 20 years ago, which was also very funny, presented with the same punchy delivery. Thoughts of plagiarism bounced round my head.

 

I hadn't seen the rest of the thread until a few minutes ago (I had not tracked the forum), and was surprised how different munchies intent was from my original perception. Funny old world! Just an honest observation, no criticism may be inferred. 

Part 1 might be reformulated in a simpler way. Also I don't see how "the game of chess is won when the opposing king is attacked with more force than he is defended with". You don't checkmate the same way as you add pressure on a piece to win it. A piece attacked more times than protected relates to a piece's capture. Of course this is most often enabled by launching an attack that overwhelms the opponent's defence, but there isn't an immediate relationship whith chess. To make it less confusing you could make it 2 different sentences, or consider the checkmate itself and delete the part about greater attacking force on the king.

For the king it's different. Checkmate happens when one's king is in check and cannot avoid it by any mean : the attacking piece can't be taken (if it's 2 pieces like a rook and a bishop then this one doesn't apply), when no piece can be put in the way and shield the king from the check (again this doesn't apply with 2 pieces checking), and if the king canno move to a square where it won't be in check. (I'm just resuming the requirements for checkmate).

It is obvious from the fact that people continue to read my explination of things that you all just want to argue. Like I have stated... if you would like to have a true discussion of my ideas, send me a message and I will make my theory clearer for you since you require an in depth 'proof'. I am more than happy to teach people my chess ideas further if they are willing to actually listen before they try to strangle me. I have only received a message from one poster, and that was just to tell me to elaborate on the forum, most likely so you all can have more of my text to clip and paste and correct. I have explained myself fully, so anyone who continues to just bash my stupid ideas on this forum is really closed minded. You want validity of my crappy theory, then message me and I will explain it to you in great detail. I know none of you will though, sad really. All you want is for me to say I mislead all the poor unfortunate beginners with false info and missed mate in 1 problems.

After reviewing this whole thread, I think that for a beginner such as myself, the two most important rules of chess have been delivered via replies to this post.

1. The more I learn about Chess, the more I realize I don't know.

2. There are many different ways to play/think about chess, but only one way to win. 

after reading some of this forum id almost be afraid to speak.  I think all of you have valid points to an extent but fairplay to munchies. Its somewhat helpful advice but doesnt exactly help people improve. i agree with whoever said tactics trainer is a good place to improve!i find it extremely good to sharpen your sights.

What I have tried to provide the student with is an idea. I would like the readers to do an exercise. Ask yourself what I call 'the great why'. Question every single move or idea in any book or on any forum post ; ). Tell me what you come up with. Likely you will come up with exactly what I came up with after many years of questioning what other chess players have taught me. Ok Mr. GM, white is winning, put your bishop on c4, do this, do that...... why? Why am I making ANY move and how does that correlate with the whole purpose and goal of chess? Amazing. If you ask this question, if you keep this idea in mind, as I describe in my tounge in cheek 'chess in one lesson', you WILL learn chess quicker and better. If you would like a suggested study program so you can complain about it, message me ; )

It's good advice to keep in the back of your mind while you learn chess through books etc. It's also completely sound. The whole aim of chess is to apply pressure to the king, whether you do this with a queenside or kingside attack, you are trying to push your pieces closer to the king and break through the opponent's defences. Checkmating a king DOES come about through putting more force on the opponent's king than he has defence. If you succeed, then tactics will emerge to take you to a checkmate.

Your advice might go down a bit better if you revealed the source of the text you pasted in (I know I've read it recently), is it Lasker?

Well done anyway, it's sound advice, and if anyone doesn't think it's sound advice, look through a few decisive games and apply it.

Many chess authors have probably written what I have said in many different ways. It is just a simple law of chess. I'm not the original author of this idea, so you may have read similar themes in many different formats.