Seraph wrote on 02/27/14 at 19:03:04:

That was exactly the point of this repertoire. 

I remember that as a junior when I was first shown the line with 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.Re1 d5 7.Bxd5 Qxd5 8.Nc3, I was attracted to the "visual" nature of the line and it helped stimulate my interest in chess.  Stefan Bücker and Lev Gutman have also demonstrated recently that it isn't as drawish as its reputation, except perhaps at grandmaster level.

I think that for most players a repertoire like the above, with a few tweaks here and there, can serve as a repertoire for life.  I have reached a high club standard and still have some of those lines in my anti-1...e5 repertoire and numerous closely-related lines (4...Bc5 5.c3 Nf6 6.0-0 instead of 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3, and 4.c3, as some lines of the Scotch Gambit are very closely related to the Göring Gambit.)  Of course this may not be the case for the minority who progress to near IM strength or above, who will typically get better results with the Ruy Lopez or the standard Scotch Game with Nxd4.

What's the purpose of teaching an almost beginner theoretical lines?

Surely a program of mastering fundamentals such as: Opening Principles, mating patterns, basic endgame knowledge, and of course playing a lot, is a tried and proven method of developing very young players, and perhaps not so young players as well.

When the fundamentals become more second nature, one can begin reinforcing them by introducing the player to other tactical elements and motifs, making sure to link them to the Mating patterns and other fundamental knowledge already learned. Pattern recognition is an indispensable skill for a budding chess player, and it needs to be developed early and robustly. Well developed pattern recognition acts like a trigger that often helps you intuitively sense critical moments in a game, which often eases calculation, and heightens your sense of danger. I once knew a talented self taught amateur player, with a gift for tactics, who missed a standard Greek Bishop sacrifice against his castled King simply because it was not part of his basic chess education and consequently never triggered his 'spider' sense. 

As the student becomes more proficient with what he's learned so far, its time to acquaint them with the basic elements and features of Pawn Structures, and once again, link it to what already has been taught. Pawn structure is an integral part of Middle and Endgame play so the student needs to have a good working knowledge of what the basic structures are, and how they impact the ensuing play.   

Of course I have only scratched the surface of how to go about teaching and developing a young player, but I think I have touched upon most of the important stuff. The main take away to bare in mind, is that teaching opening theory to beginners by rote, before they fully understand and appreciate the principles underlying sound Opening play, can be a very dangerous and counter productive proposition.    

Regards,

Toppy

For sicilian I would recommend c3 as doesn't have much theory...against french play ed exchange variation and play normal game

The idea of a 7/8-year-old playing/aiming to play as White a line in which White takes 12 moves to develop 4 pieces, and which is based on ideas such as leaving Black with perhaps one minor piece more than can be comfortably accommodated within his structure, seems rather curious.

This is getting farther and farther away from C44. I'll be sending the general chess content to the General Chess section in ~12 hours or so when I get back to my home computer.

Ender wrote on 06/09/12 at 18:54:58:

How 1.e4 e6 2. d4 d5 is closed and 1d4 d5 is not is beyond me.

At the risk of prolonging round two of a fight that's already been fought...

Gilchrist, your one data point does not disprove the general assertion that young players should play open positions, answer e4 with e5, d4 with d5, etc.  It's generally true that children should play in that way.  It's also true that someone can not play in that way and still turn out to be a good player.

Keep in mind that most of the children we teach have little to no talent for the game.  In that case, it's incumbent upon us to use best practices to wring what talent exists out!  Broadly speaking, the 'Markovich doctrine' is best practice.  Your experience worked out ok for you, and that's great, but understand that you're an exception to the rule and not the invalidation of that rule.

Can we please put this to bed now?