The Q & A Way

Do this,  don't do that

By Bruce Pandolfini

Question Every book I read always says matter of factly that
queen-pawn openings lead to quiet, positional games, whereas
king-pawn openings lead to sharp, tactical games.  It is not clear to
me why this should be true.  Why should one lead to positional
play and the other to sharp play?  (Kevin Tapp, USA)

Answer I've read enough instructional books to know that
presenters often are unclear about what they say and how they say
it. In their defense, chess is a complicated game whose best
explanations are given not in words but in moves, so its most
cogent ideas can easily be lost in translation. 

The distinctions you refer to are not hard-and-fast absolutes. 
Queen-pawn openings are more likely to lead to quiet, positional
games, though not necessarily.  Some queen-pawn openings can be
busy and overtly aggressive.  For example, the Colle can result in
an abundance of sudden attacks. Meanwhile, king-pawn openings
don't automatically trigger sharp, tactical battles.  Just consider a
few of the blocked up lines in the French Defense or some of the
closed variations of the Ruy Lopez.  Nor do these distinctions take
into account the possibility of transposition, where a clever, dumb,
or even standard shift in move order can change either type of
beginning into the other.  

The differences between open and closed games mainly revolve
around the center and how quickly it clears of pawns.  If the center
opens fairly early, then it's more likely the game will take a
tactical turn.  If the center doesn't open so rapidly, then it's usual
for the game's character to become slower and more positional. 
But still, this type of generalization lacks the degree of certainty
we've come to expect from the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

How does the center typically open?  Generally the center opens
by exchanging some middle pawns so that there are fewer
obstructions to piece movement.  For the most part this comes
about when at least one side (usually White) pushes both central
pawns far enough ahead   ordinarily at least to the advancer's 4th
rank  -- to encounter the enemy center directly, making pawn
captures possible.  

Which beginning move for White (1. d4 or 1. e4) is more likely to
lead to such early central activity and therefore an open game? 
The answer tips toward the king-pawn
(1. e4).  This is chiefly so because in the original setup the queen-
pawn has a natural protector backing it up  (the queen), so there's a
greater chance its two-square movement could be delayed without
disadvantage.  The king-pawn, on the other hand, starts the game
in front of the king, which is powerless to support its advance at
any time.  Delay the king-pawn's two-square opener and the
opponent may actually seize control of e4 and prevent this advance
altogether. 

(We also must factor into the mix that, when White starts by
pushing the king-pawn, he usually can castle faster than when he
opens with the queen-pawn. The additional king safety makes it
less perilous to open the center by double pawn advances, which is
another reason open games are more likely to ensue from king-
pawn openings.)

So if you want to open up the game, thereby increasing the
likelihood of tactical play, you have a slightly better chance to
engineer it if you begin with e2-e4 and then, at a timely moment,
follow with d2-d4  (or d3-d4).  But chess doesn't really lend itself
to this kind oversimplification, which is why I usually avoid
responding to these questions or resort to flippant answers.

Question It has been suggested that for openings one needs
something as White and a defense for king-pawn and queen-pawn. 
What are the simplest solutions to this to get a playable
middlegame?  (Craig Rovinsky, USA)

Answer There are no simple solutions to insure getting a playable
middlegame.  If there were, I too might be a player.  Therefore, I
usually shy away from recommending specific openings and
defenses without knowing something about the individual, and
even here I'm cautious, for students tend to take such suggestions
as gospel.  

Nonetheless, if I had to advocate something without regard to the
person at hand, I'd probably advise that when one has White to
start by moving the king-pawn two squares ahead.  I would stress
quick development, reasonably early castling, aggressive action,
playing with a plan, and all this while actually looking at the
opponent's moves.  The latter is very important.  And when one
has the black pieces, I would urge trying to get the white ones as
soon as possible, whether the opponent has opened with the king-
pawn or the queen-pawn.  Steal the initiative and you can seize the
day!

Question Is it true that the pointy-headed guy is worth one half
more point than the horsey?  (Confused, USA)

Answer This depends what you mean by the colorful term
"horsey," the actual value you have in mind with the concept "one
half more point," the nature of this thing you refer to as the
"pointy-headed guy," and what you really intend to signify by
using the word "true."

Question I am currently rated officially 1340.  I would like to
compete against other people, but don't want to be a sandbagger.  I
play an expert chess player every day at the factory 3 times.  Two
15 minute games and one 30 minute game.  Sometimes I play like
an 1800 player and sometimes I play like a 1200 player.  Also, is
this good for my improvement?  Any suggestions?  (Robert Zak,
USA)

Answer I suggest that you confirm your rating with the USCF,
compete against other people without sandbagging, and continue
to engage in chess, though not only at the factory, and preferably
with opponents  just a little better than you,  not a lot better.  Also I
recommend that you play more like an 1800 player and less like a
1200 one, though how could you tell if you lose every game to an
expert?  By the way, ask him if he thinks this is good for your
improvement.


Question I have two nieces of 8 years of age.  What is the best
way to introduce them to chess long distance?  It should be noted
that their parents do not play.  (Jay Kantor,  USA)

Answer Start by telling them to get new parents, which you can do
by correspondence, telephone or e-mail.

Question At what age could lessons begin? (Mary Bogart, USA)

Answer I find that the best age to start teaching a youngster chess
is five or six.  I've introduced a number of students to the game at
four, the same age that young people start grappling with other
abstract concepts, complex ones in math and music, and it's
supposedly also the age at which Capablanca, world chess
champion from 1921-27,  learned merely by watching his father
play. I've heard of a few kids learning earlier than that, not nearly
as spectacularly, and one well-known chess teacher told me he
began teaching his son at two.  The teacher felt the lessons weren't
very effective, though I should point out that his son went on to
win several National Scholastic Championships.   

Another parent I knew was a devotee of Dr. Sinichi Suzuki and his
teaching methods in music.   The parent believed that doing certain
things from the time of the child's birth and after could instill a
receptivity to chess. Specifically, he felt the groundwork for
developing a strong player could be laid by dangling mobiles of
chess pieces above the crib, affixing large diagrams of chess
positions on the walls and ceiling, displaying pictures of famous
chessplayers and events in the child's room and throughout the
living space, giving the child stuffed chess toys to play with and
look at, singing songs and reading poems with chess themes,
visiting tournaments and chess events,  and simply by talking
about chess at every opportunity.  I suppose doing these things
couldn't hurt, and might even help, though this is an area of
childhood development needing further research.

Probably the best thing a parent could do to encourage a child to
play chess early on is simply to manifest a personal interest in the
game. This should be sufficient, for children naturally learn by
wanting to imitate their parents, their first role models.  So in the
Suzuki Method it's the parents who are obliged to take the initial
lessons in the child's presence, hoping to impel the learning
process.  Perhaps this is what happened to Capablanca, when at
age four he became inspired by watching his father play.  

Nevertheless, while learning at an early age can be advantageous, 
merely because the more experience you accumulate the better,  it
can also lead to an attendant problem.  Namely, losing,  and young
children are going to lose quite often.  Since the main reason for
doing anything at an early age is ego gratification, frequent defeat
may prove to be so discouraging that the child winds up losing his
passion for chess and abandons the game completely. Some
teachers therefore recommend immersing the novice in serious
competition at a later age, say twelve or thirteen, when one is more
able to cope with the pain of failure.  Yet if somehow the
individual can learn at a young age and keep his shell intact, those
in the know say this is the way to go to attain real mastery.

But rather than starting at a particular age, it's perfectly acceptable
for the parent to introduce chess whenever it seems appropriate.  If
the child gets excited, the parent can take it a bit further.  If the
child shows no interest, or very little, the parent can drop the
matter and go onto something else.  This try-and-see approach is
not a bad one for the teacher either. Anyhow, most of us know that
children shouldn't be forced into doing or learning things simply to
please parents or teachers. We also appreciate that even when the
activity or lesson has relevance to their maturation and well-being,
children still learn better when the presentation is playful and fun.  

I'm reminded of an epigram from Martial about teaching:

Do the children crowd around your desk?
That's the test.  It's not in the text,
for school should be like play.
Put down the straps and paddles;
Lessons aren't battles.
We learn most in summer anyway.

Copyright 1999 Bruce Pandolfini. All Rights Reserved.