FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
Here is an idea for a little rule, that I believe will help beginners improve at a quicker pace: http://blog.chess.com/view/the-new-rule-for-beginners. Let me know what you think!
Let me know what you think!
Tal loses. (Ridiculous.)
I think it has some merit, but the problem is that how will you identify sacrifices? Also it is good to play on when you are behind as often there are ways that you can get back into the game and it is important to practice in such positions. I have won several games after losing my queen.
So, in this case, white immediately wins when he takes the rook because black is an amateur? Seems like a bad idea to me.
It's worth a try.
I agree that your suggestion has merit in that it will discourage beginners from hanging pieces. However, many beginners learn much of tactics in playing from behind. A true beginner's game is not lost or won by an advantage of a minor piece or 3 pawns.
Obviously you didn't get the point, since White is down more than 3 pieces, and has already lost.
No beginner is Tal. And Tal didn't blunder his pieces away, he sacrificed them in a manner no beginner can do. Of course, if the player who is down a piece checkmates the opponent within the next 3 moves, he wins as well.
But in my example white is not the beginner. Black is.
I know you mean well, but this is an awful idea. What you are proposing is a fundamental change in the principles of chess. Instead of checkmate being the goal, you propose material advantage instead. Most beginners blunder at least one piece a game and struggle on. Usually their opponent will return the favor and make their own blunder. You are essentially saying that first blunder loses? I don't get it. Beginners have a hard enough time getting checkmate even with a material advantage and now you propose that their learning experience be shortchanged?
The goal is still checkmate, but it's checkmate or material loss. And you are right, often the one who blundered first will have the favor returned, as you nicely put it. But did Mr. First Blunder play against a decent player (who do not return the favor), the game would most likely be lost after the very first blunder. Learning to "struggle on", as in "playing in the hope the other player will blunder as well" is not a skill one needs to learn. It's simply a matter of using ones time in the best possible manner.
If first blunder loses, then how are beginners going to learn how checkmate is accomplished? I understand your point that beginners need to learn to be vigilant about not dropping pieces and this will immediately punish them for that, but if beginners had better board vision then they wouldn't drop pieces. It's not like they do it on purpose. Think we are going to have to agree to disagree on your proposal, but the wonderful thing about these forums is that an idea such as yours can receive public scrutiny. No reason you can't play with this rule with your friends OTB, but I very much doubt it will fly on the internet.
I think it's a terrible idea because it doesn't give beginners any idea of how to get to checkmate if the game is ending prematurely. If you're down a piece in the middlegame, or even in the opening if a bad enough blunder is made, how is any beginner going to practice their endgame (assuming that the rule above is in effect and it's two beginners playing each other)?
This sounds like another "why won't they resign?" argument, of which I just can't understand why people who like to play chess don't like to play chess.
Well, well. Having years of experience in optimizing teaching regimens in other areas, I still believe this is a good idea. But no argument will tell us if it's a good idea or not, only emperical testing will.
To answer the question...
a) They will learn to checkmate in the games where pieces are not blundered away.
b) They will learn the endgame in the games where pieces are not blundered away.
In both cases they will learn worthwhile mates and endgames, not endgames with (for example) Queen and 2 Rooks versus a lonely Knight, which hardly ever happen in proper chess games.
But hey, keep doing things the old way, if you think it's better.
Keep us posted on the results of your empirical testing. I hope your methodology is better than your spelling :)
So far the old way seems to be working for everyone else...
BTW what is a "proper chess game?"
I don't think I like it much. A huge part of chess is being able to convert the advantage. How many won games have you blown to a tactical oversight?
I'd rather not know how many "won" games I've blown.
I don't like it much. If applied, it better only apply to < 900 chess players who obviously don't know how to sacrifice, etc.
Keep us posted on the results of your empirical testing. I hope your methodology is than your spelling :)
Great way of arguing, NimzoRoy, going after the man, not the ball. English isn't my native language, so yes, a typo sneaked in. And so what?
NimzoRoy, vi kan fortsætte denne tråd på dansk, hvis du vil. Gad vide hvem der så ender med at lave flest stave- og slåfejl?
A stellar example of what happens when people have too much free time on their hands.
Awful. Queen sacrifice followed by a 25-move forced mating sequence with bishop, knight and pawn, a beautiful combination, and you would claim the sacrifice should win for the losing side. Absolutely crazy-material is immaterial.