Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Part of learning chess is learning your opponent’s reactions and how they honestly or deceptively relate to their perception of the board-state. Playing games with other people is a deeply social activity. Having someone walk you through classic games in person would be amazing for cognitive development in all areas.
It was really interesting hearing a master talk about specific games he'd played. It wasn't just "these pieces are better at this stage of the game" or whatever, there was a surprising amount of "I knew Jimmy liked to bulldoze people with aggressive plays, so I insert strategy.
It surprised the hell out of me. Not that psychology was important, but that I got to hear about it at an all-ages community chess class that I only attended to spend time with my nephew.
I was trying to figure out how I would teach my niece chess, and I realized I would start by having us play matches with only one specific piece at a time, such as all four knights or all sixteen pawns. We would build up to using the pieces in full games.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But chess today, being predominately online, makes it the least social sport/game. These benefits are secondary, and most of the learning taking place involves looking at pieces and patterns on the board. Reactions and mentorship are found in many activities and are not unique to chess, so we’re still left with the question of trade-offs.
Ah. As a Gen-X American, I still think in meatspace events. I assumed “an intensive chess program” for two hours a day wouldn’t be computerized.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link