Teaching Chess to Kids, Yet Again

Pawn Battle position
White to play and win.

Every year, about this time, I teach chess to rising-9th grade students as part of the Rutgers Future Scholars summer program.  It's a fun class and gives me a chance to think about teaching chess to beginners, about which I have written some things over the years.  There are many benefits of learning chess and it is a valuable tool for helping kids develop "self control" and the ability to "learn how to learn" (as Josh Waitzkin argues in The Art of Learning).  It also gives a teacher a chance to talk about how to make decisions after examining multiple variables, which is one of my main themes.

I have developed most of my techniques teaching chess to groups of young people. But I do not think a group setting is the best place to learn chess deeply, even if it does have the advantage of  providing motivation through friendly competition, which drives some kids to pay attention and study.  But to get the most benefit from chess, it has to be studied independently, and kids who do that will gain more confidence for when they finally go to a serious chess club or begin to play in tournaments.  I generally think it is a mistake for young people to play any rated chess until they have studied a bit on their own or with a coach. 

With groups of kids just learning the game (or who only have a basic familiarity with the rules), I generally use the "one piece at a time" method of instruction, using mini-games to accompany each lesson.  This way kids don't get bored and I can create an active, experiential learning environment where everyone can play as equals.  The first lesson is always on pawns and ends with "Pawn Battle" (handout / blog), where the first player to reach the other side of the board to make a Queen wins.  I learned the basic game from Lev Alburt's Comprehensive Chess Course (where he says it is an old Russian teaching game), but I modified it so that if either player has no moves it is stalemate, which is a great way to teach kids the stalemate concept.  I also use the game to teach them the power of zugzwang and all sorts of pawn theory (from pawn majorities to backward pawns), as you can see described in my handout.  The big advantage of starting with pawns, if you do it right, is they can learn some tough rules like en passant and stalemate and concepts like zugzwang and passed pawns right from the get-go.  I find it especially useful for teaching en passant in a way that sticks with them.

Our first lesson was on Friday, when I saw one of the games reach the position in the diagram at the top of the page after 1.d4 d6 2.d5 e6 3.e4 c5(?).  The player of the White pieces quickly showed off his new knowledge of en passant by capturing with 4.dxc6(?) -- and I was glad to see someone had fully understood en passant on day one!  But I noticed something else and later used the game to illustrate the power of the "breakthrough sacrifice."  I think this might be the quickest way you can win at Pawn Battle, with the powerhouse move 4.e5! (not something I'd expect a student to find on day one).  No matter what Black does, White is going to get a pawn to the queening square at d8 and win the game, e.g.: 4.e5! dxe5 5.d6 etc. or 4...exd5 5.exd6 etc.  It made for a nice lesson -- including a reminder about how en passant works and how you are not required to capture (like in checkers).

Later today, in our second meeting, I will follow up pawn battle with a game I call "Anteater" (download PDF), which teaches the relative value of the pieces and the concept of time vs. material, and another I call "Magnetic Sumo Kings" (download PDF), which teaches the opposition.  By Tuesday or Wednesday, though, I expect these older kids will lose patience with focusing on one piece at a time, so I will have to introduce the other pieces, teach them about checkmate, and then just let them play "real chess" -- following up by looking at a master game each day with them.  They will play and I will have them record their games so we can look at them too.  All along the way, I will also use their games to teach them lessons, trying to address their "patterns of error."  I have written about my first year of teaching like this on my blog:

• Teaching Chess to Kids, Part One
• Teaching Chess to Kids, Part Two
• Teaching Chess to Kids, Part Three
• Teaching Chess to Kids, Part Four
• Teaching Chess to Kids, Part Five
• Teaching Chess to Kids, Part Six
• Teaching Chess to Kids, Part Seven

Those looking to employ some of these techniques to teach chess to their own children might check out the book Chess Is Child's Play: Teaching Techniques that Work, which also uses an "active learning" approach with similar mini-games.  This would be the ideal book for a parent relatively new to chess who wants to get his or her child interested in playing.  It would make a good guide for those rainy summer days, which are ideal for getting young kids started with chess.

You can also find free online lesson plans, including Teaching Chess the Easy and Fun Way with Mini-Games, which looks especially appropriate for early elementary kids and features some creative mini-games that are new to me.  

Technology has definitely sped up the process by which kids can learn the game and practice getting better at it, and computer chess instruction has put the mini-games approach to good use.  Over the past eight years, my own children have tried out practically every chess instruction software I could find -- beginning with ChessBase's Fritz & Chesster (all three volumes, now combined), which does the best job of using the mini-game concept to help kids master the pieces and basic tactics.  Other programs my kids tried include Lego Chess (probably discontinued -- and a bit repetitive), Dinosaur Chess (excellent and the one my daughter liked best), and Majestic Chess (which my son liked best since it creates a mysterious medieval atmosphere). When the kids were using a DS (which they have since abandoned), I picked up Learn Chess for that, which is very good and has a story featuring ghosts and pirates.  I think Fritz and Chesster made it to DS eventually, but we never tried it and I cannot find a good link (maybe it was discontinued).  All of the programs use the mini-games technique to some extent to give kids practice in using the pieces and learning chess concepts.

Though modern technology has made it more accessible, the mini-game concept is really the classic way of teaching the game, beginning with "The Knight's Tour" puzzle, which is sort of the Rubik's Cube of chess.  In the 19th Century, masters used to give exhibitions that would include a demonstration of the Knight's Tour from whatever square the audience named.  It is an excellent exercise for young people to practice, and some used to play it with 64 pennies by the side of the board, laying a penny on each square that has already been traversed.  You could practice by giving yourself 80 pennies and work to reduce the number of pennies you "spend" each time.  However, this classic puzzle works most efficiently online and I found a couple fun versions:

• Renegade Knight -- the most fun version of the puzzle that I came across.  
• Free Chess Game - Chess Knight -- this version allows you to cross over the same squares with the goal of reducing the number of turns it takes you to cover every square.

In searching for those Knight's Tour games, I also stumbled upon the Troyis Online Puzzle Game, which also looks like a fun resource for helping kids get better at using the Knight.

There are a tremendous number of great online tools for learning chess, and a kid who is looking for some amusement might be directed to videos on YouTube, Chesslecture.com, Chess.com, and many other sites -- and to playing over master games at Chessgames.com.  The kids I am teaching now, though, prefer the social aspects of the game and are not likely to become serious students or spend time looking at chess online (though many of my former students definitely play online).  I think the game still has a lot to teach even those who try it out casually.  And you never know: once they learn, and know how to read chess notation, they might just end up reading a chess book some day.

"Chess Narratives" Exercise

Black to play after 15.Qb3.
What's Black's best move and why?

In Chess for Zebras (reviewed here last year), Jonathan Rowson talks about how chessplayers try to make sense of the middlegame with what he calls "chess narratives":

I think of chess narratives as the background 'noise' that permeate our thoughts during play and this 'noise' is often sufficiently loud that it operates as the context of our thoughts. For instance, if you probe the advice 'counter an attack on the wing with play in the centre' for a few seconds, you can imagine someone telling a story about the game, with that as the basis of the plot. Narratives are the guiding stories that give us a sense of what we are trying to do and why. ... While nobody is immune to these narratives, very few use them to guide themselves towards correct moves. Many players get lost in these stories, trapped by their own narrative, and completely lose track of the objective state of affairs on the board... (46).

The best narrative offers a good reading of the position that fits well with specific calculations so that, as Rowson puts it, "your assessment and your variations make sense of each other." A bad narrative, though, is really a self-deceptive invention (what Rowson calls "fabulation") that is imposed on the facts with little close inspection of the specific lines that might support it. Like "The Lazy Detective," the fabulist cares less about the truth than in confirming what he already knows based on his ideological biases. More often than not, however, the truth will come out and the fabulist will fall--though a skilled fabulist will then be able to explain away his failure without acknowledging the truth (rather like George Bush discussing Iraq).

In my game with John Moldovan (The Chess Coroner) from the KCC Summer Tournament (which began this week--though you can join at any time), I struggled to find the right narrative at a critical juncture. I think I made a more accurate choice than I usually do, but not necessarily the best. Let's see if you can do better....

Which of the following chess narratives best fits the position diagrammed above and leads to the best choice of plan?

a) 15...Qh5

Narrative: Black has a tremendous lead in development, of at least three or four tempi, which justifies sacrificing at least a pawn to gain an attack. White's King is also practically denuded of defenders, while Black's forces are ready to leap to the kingside, supported by the pawn at e4. Even his Rook is ready to swing over to support the Queen and Knight. Black can target both the h2 and g2 squares, but the most promising idea is to use the Queen and Rook together in a full frontal battering-ram assault on g2. The basic idea begins 15...Qh5! 16.Qxb2 (if 16.h3 then 16...Rg5! 17.Kh1 Rg6! followed by ...Qg5 to batter down the door) 16...Ng4! 17.h3 Rg5!! and all of Black's forces are launching themselves at White's helpless King. Not only that, but Black gets to finish things off beautifully after the natural 18.hxg4 Qxg4! 19.g3 Rh5!! and there is no defense.

b) 15...Qd6

Narrative: Yes, Black's lead in development dictates that he attack the enemy King, but the best target of attack is h2. The idea is 15...Qd6 16.Ba3 (who can resist pinning the Rook to the Queen?) 16...Ng4! 17.g3 Qh6! 18.h4 and now Black can attack by 18...Rf5! followed by ...Ne5-f3+ and ...Nxh4 to blast open the weakened White King position. Meanwhile, White's forces stand helplessly by on the queenside. He's dead meat.

c) 15...Qxb3

Narrative: When I play chess, I always ask myself, "What would Capablanca do?" Sure, there are chances of attack on the kingside, but that all seems very speculative to me and seems to risk losing Black's real advantage, which consists of his control of the c-file, his queenside pawn majority, and his better minor piece. The best way to capitalize on these positional pluses is not to throw away material (by allowing Qxb2) seeking an attack, but to simplify into a winning endgame by exchanging Queens. After 15...Qxb3 16.axb3 a6 I will double Rooks on the c-file, play my Knight to d5, pawn to f5, and march my King to the center. He has almost no counterplay and will likely be forced to exchange Rooks on the c-file, leaving me with a winning endgame due to my superior minor piece and queenside pawn majority.

d) 15...Qc6

Narrative: Black's advantage consists of control of the c-file, plain and simple. I intend to triple my heavy pieces on that file and lord it over my opponent with 15...Qc6 16.Bb2 Rec8.

e) 15...Qd7

Narrative: Black needs to avoid the exchange of Queens lest he risk losing too much attacking force to exploit his lead in development. After all, a lot of pieces have been exchanged, and if Black is going to organize an attack he will need attackers. Meanwhile, Black also needs to restrain White's backward d-pawn, which he can do by 15...Qd7. This is the most versatile Queen move: it avoids the exchange of Queens, stays on the d-file to restrain the weakling at d2, defends the b-pawn, and even eyes White's kingside. I will follow up with ...Rd5, ...b6, ...Rd3, ...Rc8, and ...h6 to create an invulnerable position while squeezing White till he coughs up a pawn.

See my notes to the game for the answer (or what I think is the right answer anyway). I include the PGN file if you want to do your own computer analysis to confirm it.

If you enjoy this little "test," then I suggest you pick up the marvelous book Test Your Positional Play by Robert Bellin and Pietro Ponzetto which basically presents 30 exercises along these lines.

"Ready to Improve?"

In today's New York Times chess column, Dylan Loeb McClain interviews GM John Fedorowicz and IM Danny Kopec, who offer some useful tips for those looking to improve at chess this summer. I especially like Fedorowicz's advice, which includes playing a lot of games, choosing and studying an opening repertoire that suits your style, and reading endgame books and game collections of the greats. Interestingly, he does not think studying books on tactics (or, presumably, CT-ART) as important as playing, and Kopec does not mention tactical study either.

Fedorowicz's disregard for the "study tactics, tactics, and more tactics" mantra of chess improvement gurus reminded me of a recent conversation I had with two-time NJ Open champ Tommy Bartell on the subject. I was trying to think of some books on tactics to recommend to a developing player at the club, and out of curiosity turned to Tommy, who was seated nearby, and asked what books he'd recommend. I was surprised when the only ones he could think of were the "1001..." series by Fred Reinfeld. "Well, what did you look at when you were a kid?" I asked. "I never really read books on tactics," he said, adding "I just learned by playing."

Hearing this young, 2400+ FM say he thought playing was more vital to his understanding of tactics than book study, I felt a little surprised. So when I read Fedorowicz saying more or less the same thing, I began to ask some more questions. Do strong players invest any time in tactical training or do they just play a lot? And if they just play a lot, is that better than study? And if it is better than study, why might that be?

One idea comes to mind watching a recent video at the excellent Chess Vibes blog that show Jonathan Rowson discussing his book Chess for Zebras, where, for instance, he discusses how the traditional way of determining the relative value of the pieces (by assigning point values, beginning with one point for a pawn) is both wrong and not how GMs really think.

Why don't GMs think that way? Maybe because they learned these things intuitively by playing a lot of games rather than "by the book." And, as Rowson argues in Chess for Zebras, one of the things that keeps developing players from improving often is the settled beliefs and habits of mind they have developed -- often from reading chess books.... So maybe the best advice is to leave most of those books alone -- except, perhaps, for the game collections of the greats, where you are likely to pick up a thing or two about how to think without being subjected to a lot of theory.... I'm still puzzling over this one, but in many ways it does fit with my view that there is chess knowledge and chess practice and the two are often unrelated. Perhaps the secret to success at chess is to just get plenty of practice.