lichess.org
Donate

What Beginners Get Wrong About Learning Chess

My old instructor taught me a similar system. He emphasized the order of endgame first, middle game second, and opening phase last. I don't remember exactly when he started teaching me tactics, but I think we started off working on them right away.

I think I need to work on all phases of the game, but middle game might be one of my weakest areas.

Thanks for posting the article and the video. I might try to get back into chess as a hobby, and not just play it on occasion.

My old instructor taught me a similar system. He emphasized the order of endgame first, middle game second, and opening phase last. I don't remember exactly when he started teaching me tactics, but I think we started off working on them right away. I think I need to work on all phases of the game, but middle game might be one of my weakest areas. Thanks for posting the article and the video. I might try to get back into chess as a hobby, and not just play it on occasion.

This article say nothing, only what not to do, bot not what is good!

This article say nothing, only what not to do, bot not what is good!

@Luc2962 said in #3:

This article say nothing, only what not to do, bot not what is good!
Title of the article says "What beginners get wrong...", there is nothing about what they should do (yet). However, if you'd like to see what is suggested to be done, that's mentioned in the video.
Thanks for reading and commenting.

@Luc2962 said in #3: > This article say nothing, only what not to do, bot not what is good! Title of the article says "What beginners get wrong...", there is nothing about what they should do (yet). However, if you'd like to see what is suggested to be done, that's mentioned in the video. Thanks for reading and commenting.
<Comment deleted by user>

Great insight there, well written.
I think this advice is not just for beginners.
I'm guilty of buying too many opening courses.
Some of them are "lifetime repertoires" that I can never remember.

About a year ago I wanted to learn the Caro-Kann defence.
I took a step back to the basics. Instead of buying a lifetime repertoire I went for an introduction to the Caro-Kann in the series "Starting Out" , written by IM Jovanka Houska.
Instead of long computer lines this course put a lot of focus on the first 7-8 moves, the pawn structure, thte pawn breaks, the right squares for the pieces... I find it a lot easier to navigate openings when I know the plans instead of the moves.

Great insight there, well written. I think this advice is not just for beginners. I'm guilty of buying too many opening courses. Some of them are "lifetime repertoires" that I can never remember. About a year ago I wanted to learn the Caro-Kann defence. I took a step back to the basics. Instead of buying a lifetime repertoire I went for an introduction to the Caro-Kann in the series "Starting Out" , written by IM Jovanka Houska. Instead of long computer lines this course put a lot of focus on the first 7-8 moves, the pawn structure, thte pawn breaks, the right squares for the pieces... I find it a lot easier to navigate openings when I know the plans instead of the moves.

The ORDER in which things are taught is incredibly important too. If any of these concepts are introduced in the wrong order, it only creates confusion - which can quickly KILL A STUDENT’S INTEREST in the game.

Do you think there is only one order for all. that there is a one dimension line of progress? (usually hinted by the rating?

I suspect as coach, one can always get a sense of the skill sets strengths and gaps, and there fore individualized what that order might be..

but since most the help to single chess learners, not having coaches, is in the form of learner state uninformed writing other than some pre-existing ordering of "difficulty"...

As a naive learner ,i would think that end games can have a discoverable autonously or even objective ordering of what is more complex that the next thing.

EGTB itself is suggesting material classes, within with, once might further separation initical configuration positional classes.. where it might be easier to see from more inexperienced what is logical to do...

and build from there.. So a book that is not try9ing to cut corners because a book is finite and they don't know really who is going to read it, they might use a joke clause, called the obvious clause, giving their own subjectivity as experienced player to arbitraility decide what is obvious so that the book might be finite.. I am half kidding.

So I am just curious about that aspect in your futur propositions. But I don,t think this is an easy question. It might already have an easy imposed answer that has been what has been, and that is what it is.. etc... but It that really answering.

> The ORDER in which things are taught is incredibly important too. If any of these concepts are introduced in the wrong order, it only creates confusion - which can quickly KILL A STUDENT’S INTEREST in the game. Do you think there is only one order for all. that there is a one dimension line of progress? (usually hinted by the rating? I suspect as coach, one can always get a sense of the skill sets strengths and gaps, and there fore individualized what that order might be.. but since most the help to single chess learners, not having coaches, is in the form of learner state uninformed writing other than some pre-existing ordering of "difficulty"... As a naive learner ,i would think that end games can have a discoverable autonously or even objective ordering of what is more complex that the next thing. EGTB itself is suggesting material classes, within with, once might further separation initical configuration positional classes.. where it might be easier to see from more inexperienced what is logical to do... and build from there.. So a book that is not try9ing to cut corners because a book is finite and they don't know really who is going to read it, they might use a joke clause, called the obvious clause, giving their own subjectivity as experienced player to arbitraility decide what is obvious so that the book might be finite.. I am half kidding. So I am just curious about that aspect in your futur propositions. But I don,t think this is an easy question. It might already have an easy imposed answer that has been what has been, and that is what it is.. etc... but It that really answering.

Are We Teaching Chess All Wrong?

We often hear about what beginners "get wrong" when they're learning chess. But what if we flipped the script and looked at what we, as coaches and educators, might be getting wrong in our approach? Because let's be honest, if a kid isn't jiving with chess, it's probably less about them and more about how we're introducing them to the game.

Think of it like this: You go to an amusement park, have an absolute blast, and what's the first thing you want to know? "When can we go back?!" You're already planning your next trip. Chess, when taught effectively, should spark that same kind of excitement and curiosity. The goal isn't just to teach them how to finish a game; it's to make the entire journey of learning and mastering chess so captivating that they want to keep going!

Whether a child expresses disinterest before or after trying chess, it's super important to remember they're still developing. That means patience, repeated exposure, and a low-pressure environment are absolutely crucial. Trying to force a child to play something they genuinely dislike can actually make them dislike it even more in the long run. Instead, let's create opportunities for them to casually observe, offer gentle invitations, and build positive associations with chess. These approaches can be far more effective in sparking a genuine interest.

Are We Teaching Chess All Wrong? We often hear about what beginners "get wrong" when they're learning chess. But what if we flipped the script and looked at what we, as coaches and educators, might be getting wrong in our approach? Because let's be honest, if a kid isn't jiving with chess, it's probably less about them and more about how we're introducing them to the game. Think of it like this: You go to an amusement park, have an absolute blast, and what's the first thing you want to know? "When can we go back?!" You're already planning your next trip. Chess, when taught effectively, should spark that same kind of excitement and curiosity. The goal isn't just to teach them how to finish a game; it's to make the entire journey of learning and mastering chess so captivating that they want to keep going! Whether a child expresses disinterest before or after trying chess, it's super important to remember they're still developing. That means patience, repeated exposure, and a low-pressure environment are absolutely crucial. Trying to force a child to play something they genuinely dislike can actually make them dislike it even more in the long run. Instead, let's create opportunities for them to casually observe, offer gentle invitations, and build positive associations with chess. These approaches can be far more effective in sparking a genuine interest.

@Toscani said in #8:

Are We Teaching Chess All Wrong?

Chess, when taught effectively, should spark that same kind of excitement and curiosity. The goal isn't just to teach them how to finish a game; it's to make the entire journey of learning and mastering chess so captivating that they want to keep going!

Whether a child expresses disinterest before or after trying chess, it's super important to remember they're still developing. That means patience, repeated exposure, and a low-pressure environment are absolutely crucial. Trying to force a child to play something they genuinely dislike can actually make them dislike it even more in the long run. Instead, let's create opportunities for them to casually observe, offer gentle invitations, and build positive associations with chess. These approaches can be far more effective in sparking a genuine interest.

Even though this specific article (I'd say) is not targeting that theme, I agree with your standpoint that joy & excitement is super-important, especially when teaching kids.

@Toscani said in #8: > Are We Teaching Chess All Wrong? > > Chess, when taught effectively, should spark that same kind of excitement and curiosity. The goal isn't just to teach them how to finish a game; it's to make the entire journey of learning and mastering chess so captivating that they want to keep going! > > Whether a child expresses disinterest before or after trying chess, it's super important to remember they're still developing. That means patience, repeated exposure, and a low-pressure environment are absolutely crucial. Trying to force a child to play something they genuinely dislike can actually make them dislike it even more in the long run. Instead, let's create opportunities for them to casually observe, offer gentle invitations, and build positive associations with chess. These approaches can be far more effective in sparking a genuine interest. Even though this specific article (I'd say) is not targeting that theme, I agree with your standpoint that joy & excitement is super-important, especially when teaching kids.

the biggest irritation to learning chess when i started about ten years ago was the insistence that I "do puzzles", but absolutely no direction on what the goal of "doing puzzles" was, or how to go about solving them
it never made sense to me what I was supposed to be doing, and I failed constantly. I didn't know that some times the goal of a puzzle was to capture a piece, or find a checkmating pattern, or sometimes just get a better position (whatever that meant). the learning curve was steep, and it wasn't one of those things that you could watch someone else do and learn through osmosis, at least for me. I still absolutely hate doing puzzles, and I would not recommend a new player to do them without some kind of a third-party coach.
Other irritants were lists of rules, usually with pithy rhyming schemes like knights on the rim are grim, because these rules don't teach the fundamental idea underlying the rule. So if you think "play in the center", you never ask yourself "why should I play in the center?" Then at the end of the list of rules, the final rule is "know these rules so you know when to break them". This is absolutely infuriating to a beginner, at least it was to me, because if it's a rule of the game, then I should be able to apply it consistently to gain as much of an advantage as I can. So that "rule" is more about style than it is about teaching beginners how to play, and is therefore irrelevant, and a huge waste of time, and a disservice to spreading the game.
One of the other annoyances is that chess teachers online and many of the books I've read over the years say absolutely nothing about how to study chess, how to properly analyze a position, and how to regulate one's emotion while calculating tough positions. I often finish games and try to see where I went wrong, but Ive come to learn that I don't have the skills required to know how to figure out what a better move would have been after the fact. Virtually no one talks about this, at least in my experience. What teachers tend to talk about is rote memorization, not improvisation, not creativity, not tactics. Just memorize an algorithm and apply it. Hikaru talks about recognizing patterns. He's a computer. Unfortunately for the rest of us, we aren't.
I enjoy playing chess, but Ive come to abhor chess players, if that makes sense, because I feel the game has become about copying whatever Magnus or Hikaru did on stream, or whatever Gukesh did in some tourney, rather than playing a solid game that treats the opponent as a worthy contender. It's all about the memes, or the content, as they say, and it's rare that I play a game that I think about later because the experience was lackluster and my opponent wasn't equipped to play an enjoyable game of chess on the same level that I cam prepared for.

the biggest irritation to learning chess when i started about ten years ago was the insistence that I "do puzzles", but absolutely no direction on what the goal of "doing puzzles" was, or how to go about solving them it never made sense to me what I was supposed to be doing, and I failed constantly. I didn't know that some times the goal of a puzzle was to capture a piece, or find a checkmating pattern, or sometimes just get a better position (whatever that meant). the learning curve was steep, and it wasn't one of those things that you could watch someone else do and learn through osmosis, at least for me. I still absolutely hate doing puzzles, and I would not recommend a new player to do them without some kind of a third-party coach. Other irritants were lists of rules, usually with pithy rhyming schemes like knights on the rim are grim, because these rules don't teach the fundamental idea underlying the rule. So if you think "play in the center", you never ask yourself "why should I play in the center?" Then at the end of the list of rules, the final rule is "know these rules so you know when to break them". This is absolutely infuriating to a beginner, at least it was to me, because if it's a rule of the game, then I should be able to apply it consistently to gain as much of an advantage as I can. So that "rule" is more about style than it is about teaching beginners how to play, and is therefore irrelevant, and a huge waste of time, and a disservice to spreading the game. One of the other annoyances is that chess teachers online and many of the books I've read over the years say absolutely nothing about how to study chess, how to properly analyze a position, and how to regulate one's emotion while calculating tough positions. I often finish games and try to see where I went wrong, but Ive come to learn that I don't have the skills required to know how to figure out what a better move would have been after the fact. Virtually no one talks about this, at least in my experience. What teachers tend to talk about is rote memorization, not improvisation, not creativity, not tactics. Just memorize an algorithm and apply it. Hikaru talks about recognizing patterns. He's a computer. Unfortunately for the rest of us, we aren't. I enjoy playing chess, but Ive come to abhor chess players, if that makes sense, because I feel the game has become about copying whatever Magnus or Hikaru did on stream, or whatever Gukesh did in some tourney, rather than playing a solid game that treats the opponent as a worthy contender. It's all about the memes, or the content, as they say, and it's rare that I play a game that I think about later because the experience was lackluster and my opponent wasn't equipped to play an enjoyable game of chess on the same level that I cam prepared for.