A Less Easy Game of Chess Deck
I think you play to win but let them win a few games to keep them interested. Thats how I learned with my dad years ago.He let me win a few and it made me determined to learn more.
My thought is to always play your best. I have let them take back obvious blunders after showing them what they did wrong but I think it is better to be honest and not let them win. It will be much more satisfying to them if they win on their own, in my opinion, than having the game thrown.
I have 3 boys that all know how to play and only one of them has really taken an interest in the game. And my oldest has been able to beat me 2 or 3 times and I think that was more valuable to him, knowing he actually played better than I did during those games.
Of course, I'm not a psychologist; I just know how I would feel if I knew someone let me win.
1) Nice thread title lol
2) I'd try talking through their moves with them to find a good move. If they move a piece to a bad square, tell them why it's bad and give them a few chances to get it right.
I suggest you try giving them a handicap at the start.
remove YOUR queen and both rooks.
if you queen a pawn, of course, you get what you want added to the board.
if they beat you five times, then only remove your queen and one rook. if they beat you 4 times at that level, then only remove your queen. adjust as their skills grow.
regards,
I have multiple children ranging in ages from mid 20's to 5 years old and they all play chess. While they do not beat me yet they each play differently. I do at times lose to the younger ones but I do it in the way that the Japanese lose.
Basically if you are in Japan and playing against a senior (Boss) or a business client you want to do business with you need to play well but not enough to win. So by allowing your children to "think" they have won, they gain confidence and you get practice on how to "see" the bad moves and make worse ones ;)
Then if they get cocky you can crush them, lol 
I do not like to give "odds" as I see it as insulting and if you can lose in the manner described then all the better.
Keyif wrote:I do not like to give "odds" as I see it as insulting and if you can lose in the manner described then all the better.
I've been reading about teaching my kids chess, and one site suggested never to throw a game, as the kid will catch on eventually and become disheartened. It also suggested not giving odds of a piece/pawn, but instead giving odds of time. For example, give your kid 10 or 15 minutes, but only take 3 for yourself.
Other options include switching sides every X moves, or giving the kid the option to switch sides at any time (except when it's mate in one) but only a total of 3 times per game.
my wife, linda , says :you never make out you are stonger all the time, you teach them by letting them both win and loss, they (kids, and i think some folks too) don,t have the emotional maturity to lose all the time. cool thread, thanks ed.
I don't think one should take a dive. If the kid is at all bright, they will detect that you are blowing smoke... Why not find more age-appropriate competitors for them? Or offer a reward for smaller feats...like if they can keep from hanging/blundering a piece for 20 moves..or...I don't know, get creative.
Use time handicaps. Worked wonders when sparring with a student of mine.
You'd start with 15 minutes on the clock each and every time you win, drop 5 minutes, and then 1 minute at a time when you were down to 5 minutes.
I seem to hit the sweet spot at about "kid gets 15 minutes, I get 2 minutes" and the kid was winning about 30-50% of the games. This does wonders to level the playing field and makes them have a good time (rather than get pummeled!)
Of course, when they get stronger, you'll give yourself more time. When the time eventually becomes equal and you're still losing 50%, time to get a coach :)
This exercise also helps teach them to use their time to think ... they can clearly see that the quality of your chess drops when you are scrambling or playing TOO FAST....so they'll hopefully not get into a mad dash as well.
I have told my kids (5 and 8) that they will not beat me when I try my hardest for years to come, but they can maybe beat me when I am not trying my hardest. This way I can let them win and feel good without actually lying to them. Odds are meaningless, the gap in ability is too big -- I cannot give sufficient odds (whether time or material) to allow them to win if I try hard.
The other thing you can do is sit and offer guidance when they play a computer, a game on chess.com or FICS.
My five year old is probably no more then 600-700 Elo, he has some minimal tactics with 0 strategy, but he has taken to playing games on FICS against unrated guests. He just won a game this morning, with almost no guidance from me.
when I was a kid I hated that my grandparents wouldn't try properly when I was playing them at cards, so I stopped playing with them. My father never gave me any quarter when playing him at chess and I beat him for the first time at the age of 11 during the Fischer-Spassky series - the sense of achievement was awesome - I believe that 'gentling' children in a competitive environment is detrimental to their developing a work ethic, so they do not realise that it takes effort to succeed 
THAT is a lesson that can never be learnt too young
Honestly, I think it depends on the kid.
Really thought this thread had a completely different twist to it....lol
play three times...let them win the last game! then they want more e games ! XD
let them win exactly 1/2 the time. They will think you are the same as them. don't pummel them and lose in a nailbiter though, lose in about the same crush you beat them in
Don't throw the game, that'll be bad for them and for you. Just give them hints when they are about to make a bad move, or hint subtley at a good move for them. For example, when they move a rook where it can be captured by a pawn, say something along the lines of 'Are you SURE you want to do that?'
My uncle started teaching me chess around age 5. I have known how to play since then, but at age 21 now, have just very recently begun to take more interest in the game and play somewhat regularly.
I don't remember much about learning, rather than losing a lot, and I mean a lot. We would play probably 6-10 games a year (usually just a game or two at family get-togethers). I was probably 9 or 10 the first time I beat him, and while it's certainly possible he let me win, I can't help but feel that he wouldn't suddenly do that after annihilating me for 5 years.
When I would blunder away my queen, or swap my rook for a bishop, he would capture the piece, suggest a move that would have been a better alternative, then have me continue on sans the material. This always made me determined to be more careful and not give away pieces for free, and learning that rooks are more valuable than bishops (this seems to be a common error among brand new players... I guess diagonals are just associated with more coolness) was definitely a good help too.
It's hard to remember my thoughts on the issue of thrown games 10+ years ago, but I would say the losses helped more than fake wins would have. That said, I would just go by what you know about your kids - if they would be encouraged to improve by being defeated, then win against them. If they tend to be easily discouraged, I would probably throw an occasional game, but more importantly explain what there is to learn from losses.
I don't think the idea of ever having been "allowed to win" had crossed my mind until I got a new board for Christmas one year and my dad (who I didn't even know played chess at the time... I was maybe 12 or 13?) offered me a match. After he won, he said, "I probably should have let you win since this is our first game, but I guess it's a little late for that now." I distinctly remember feeling that I would rather lose than have falsely won.
Anyway, everyone is obviously different and will be encouraged/discouraged by different things, so I would again say just go by what your kids are like. I would say that generally, though, your kids will associate you, as an adult, with being much better than they are at just about everything, so if they are crushed more than once and then win suddenly, they will probably suspect something.
This turned out to be a pretty long and repetitive post, so I hope these surprisingly simple and quite over-explained concepts don't get too lost in here, haha.
Now if I could just learn the game myself...
The best option is to try to find others children for them to play with. If you just crush them they may very well loose interest, and they will probably be able to tell that you are throwing the game if you let them win. You can give piece odds to them (remove a knight, for example) or if you play with a clock you can give them significant time odds (for example, give yourself 5 minutes and give them 30). Both ways make it more of an even fight. Probably the better method is the time odds if you use a clock, as it will give them a more "normal" game.
Nice one Master Tony.
I like Keyif's advice: lose, but not too hard. Choose the less-good line or occasionally hang a minor piece. This way they still have to work, but without losing heart.
Renegade: My dad did that and it drove me crazy. For one, offering a take-back is just as degrading as offering rook-odds. Phrasing it in that way also implies that the child is too immature to handle having made a bad move (sometimes they are, but saying so just makes it worse).
Source: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/scholastic-chess/beating-your-kids
My children play, but they have not put in much time and therefore aren't very good. I'm not any good either, but I can pummel them.
Here's the question:
Do you let your kids win, or just play to win? What is best for the kids?
What do you think?