David Richerby wrote:

Well, you can call it a `special condition' if you want. But there
are two options.

1) The goal is `checkmate the king';
2) The goal is `capture the king' plus the special condition that you
can't actually do that.

Option 1 has one rule. Option 2 has one rule plus one special
condition. Why not go for the simpler case?

"Checkmate" will need further explanation as well, since the term means
nothing to someone who is new to chess.



Here are a couple more special conditions of chess:

After describing how a king may move and capture, "castling" seems
like an inconsistency.

I disagree. If you haven't described castling, you haven't described
`how a king may move and capture'. Ditto for en passant.

And if you haven't stated that you can not make a move that would place
your king in check, then you haven't discribed how to capture the king.


In the case of the goal of capturing the king, one of the special
conditions is that neither player is allowed to make a move which
would place his king into check,

It's not illegal to hang any of the other pieces, even though hanging
a piece is usually as good as losing the game. Why should the king be
different?

Just 'cause. Every single rule in chess is arbitrary. The game is a
human invention.


Yes, you can set up the rules of chess so that the goal is `capture
the king' but, in doing so, you have to introduce side conditions.
It's much cleaner just to state that the goal is to checkmate, since
this doesn't need any special conditions.

They need to know that one may not make a move which will place one's
king into check whether you tell them the goal is "checkmate" or that
the goal is to capture the king, so that special condition needs to be
stated either way. Additionally, with stating the goal as "checkmate",
you have to explain what "checkmate" is, while they will already know
what "capture" means.

wrote:

Recoil,

"After describing how a king may move and capture, "castling" seems
like
an inconsistency."

Not true. You have not fully described how a king may move in chess
without including Castling. Your incompleteness is not an inconsistency
- it is simply incomplete on your part.

And you have not fully described how to capture the king if you fail to
mention that one may not make a move which will place one's king into
check. This needs to be explained whether you state the goal as
"checkmate" or state the goal as "capture the king".



"After describing how a pawn may move and capture, "en passant" seems
like an inconsistency."

Not true. You have not, again, fully described how a pawn may move and
capture in chess without including the "en passant" rule. It cannot be
inconsistent - it is simply incomplete on your part.

Same response as above.

And those are not 'special conditions' in chess regarding checkmate and
stalemate - those are actual rules of the game

Special conditions *are* rules.

- a king cannot move
into check - that is a RULE.

No kidding?

A king without a legal move is stalemated
- that is a CONDITION.

That is also a rule, though it needs to be fleshed out some in order to
be accurate.

A king can be stalemated during a game (no legal
move but not in check) and the game can continue.

If the opponent is stalemated, the game can *not* continue. If the king
has no legal move but is not in check, but there are legal moves for
his other piece or pieces, the term "stalemate" doesn't apply in any
sense. If it did, every game would start out with both kings being
"stalemated". That is not how the term "stalemate" is used in chess. A
stalemate is always the end of the game and the result is 1/2 - 1/2 (a
draw).

Ask him to play Chess at GetClub. And he will learn slowly how to play.
Beginner Level can be played unlimited times without Login.

http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

He will get a partner to play Chess for ever at GetClub. Moreover he
will not get afraid of loosing the games as beginner level games are
not recorded.

Once he becomes strong player He may Challenge Easy & Normal Level
which can out play even good players

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

MaximRecoil wrote:
Beliavsky wrote:

I should have been clearer. The book would be for the adult teaching
small children, describing a progression of chess subjects suitable for
small children. I know a lot about chess but am not sure in what order
things should be taught.

I would teach a young kid the same way as I would teach anyone else.
Set up the initial position and then tell him how each piece moves.
Correct errors and give advice as you play the game.

Bad idea. A toddler at age 3.5 would have great difficulty
in grasping the starting position's multitude of possibilities.
Better to begin with something simple, like what "Beliavsky"
himself suggested. Mating with K&Q vs. K, or K&R vs. K.

The approach of starting with the starting position seems
to relay an openings-centric approach to chess, when in
fact an endgame-centric approach is a better way to learn.
Even mature adults have trouble learning the chess openings,
due to their complexity and the multitude of exceptions to
every rule. The endgame is much simpler. Capablanca
realized this, though his books may not be as useful here
as the more modern works which specifically target teaching
chess to young children.

My advice is to save the more complex facets of the game,
such as learning the long variation of the Najdorf Sicilian 20
moves deep, for when the child is older -- let's say four or five.
:D

-- help bot

MaximRecoil wrote:
wrote:

Recoil,

"After describing how a king may move and capture, "castling" seems
like
an inconsistency."

Not true. You have not fully described how a king may move in chess
without including Castling. Your incompleteness is not an inconsistency
- it is simply incomplete on your part.

And you have not fully described how to capture the king if you fail to
mention that one may not make a move which will place one's king into
check. This needs to be explained whether you state the goal as
"checkmate" or state the goal as "capture the king".



"After describing how a pawn may move and capture, "en passant" seems
like an inconsistency."

Not true. You have not, again, fully described how a pawn may move and
capture in chess without including the "en passant" rule. It cannot be
inconsistent - it is simply incomplete on your part.

Same response as above.

And those are not 'special conditions' in chess regarding checkmate and
stalemate - those are actual rules of the game

Special conditions *are* rules.

- a king cannot move
into check - that is a RULE.

No kidding?

A king without a legal move is stalemated
- that is a CONDITION.

That is also a rule, though it needs to be fleshed out some in order to
be accurate.

A king can be stalemated during a game (no legal
move but not in check) and the game can continue.

If the opponent is stalemated, the game can *not* continue. If the king
has no legal move but is not in check, but there are legal moves for
his other piece or pieces, the term "stalemate" doesn't apply in any
sense. If it did, every game would start out with both kings being
"stalemated". That is not how the term "stalemate" is used in chess. A
stalemate is always the end of the game and the result is 1/2 - 1/2 (a
draw).

I'm sorry you do not understand the meaning I am trying to convey.
There is a useful difference between being stalemated, i.e., no legal
move across the entire board, and your KING being stalemated, and is
actually part of one of the rules of combination. A King without a
legal move is 'stalemated' and is an accepted term to use. Jeremy
Silman uses the term himself in fleshing out the Rules of Combination.
It is one of the criteria - 'king is stalemated'. You seek a
combination to deliver the killing check.

It is an accepted term when talking about king position in chess, and I
have heard it used, and read about it, in many circles and books.

wrote:

MaximRecoil wrote:
wrote:

Recoil,

"After describing how a king may move and capture, "castling" seems
like
an inconsistency."

Not true. You have not fully described how a king may move in chess
without including Castling. Your incompleteness is not an inconsistency
- it is simply incomplete on your part.

And you have not fully described how to capture the king if you fail to
mention that one may not make a move which will place one's king into
check. This needs to be explained whether you state the goal as
"checkmate" or state the goal as "capture the king".



"After describing how a pawn may move and capture, "en passant" seems
like an inconsistency."

Not true. You have not, again, fully described how a pawn may move and
capture in chess without including the "en passant" rule. It cannot be
inconsistent - it is simply incomplete on your part.

Same response as above.

And those are not 'special conditions' in chess regarding checkmate and
stalemate - those are actual rules of the game

Special conditions *are* rules.

- a king cannot move
into check - that is a RULE.

No kidding?

A king without a legal move is stalemated
- that is a CONDITION.

That is also a rule, though it needs to be fleshed out some in order to
be accurate.

A king can be stalemated during a game (no legal
move but not in check) and the game can continue.

If the opponent is stalemated, the game can *not* continue. If the king
has no legal move but is not in check, but there are legal moves for
his other piece or pieces, the term "stalemate" doesn't apply in any
sense. If it did, every game would start out with both kings being
"stalemated". That is not how the term "stalemate" is used in chess. A
stalemate is always the end of the game and the result is 1/2 - 1/2 (a
draw).

I'm sorry you do not understand the meaning

He understands perfectly. He's trolling you. He trolled me earlier in
the thread.

He's way off-topic in the intention of his posts.