A common idea in Go is that a stronger player will play a "teaching game" with a weaker one. The game is sufficiently abstract and complex that the weaker player may not even notice the actions of the stronger player who endeavors to play poorly so that they are only slightly better than their opponent and have the opportunity to share new ideas and tricks at a level appropriate to their student.

Obviously, these have to be done intentionally. A weaker player who nearly wins only to discover their opponent was "teaching" is probably a bit offended: their accomplishment stolen from beneath them.

What aids all of this is that Go has a handicapping system that can be very well tuned so that for people who would score within 40-60 points of one another you can probably tune the game down to even odds.

> The game is sufficiently () complex that the weaker player may not even notice the actions of the stronger player

I recommend to people learning to look at the activities of someone "good" at the field but not a star for this reason, I don't know if it applies to all fields but for ex I got the same feeling learning chess by following GM's games (I was lost) and a book like "Master vs Amateur" opened my eyes to typical errors made by intermediate players that won't show up in chess books (another example is "The Amateur Mind"). I tell soccer players than besides enjoying watching the games of the big teams and star players to watch "journeymen" games from a 2nd division to learn the basics.

Also the reason why we frequently learn more from a student mate explaining something that from a veteran teacher or professor, who forgot the struggles of the beginners.

Which is why Napoleon favored generals who had the reputation of being consistently "lucky" - i.e., those whose excellence wasn't easily understood.

Could you maybe clarify the connection? Is the idea that "lucky" generals were actually experts beyond the comprehension of their peers?

Napoleon didn't clarify, I don't believe. The quote was "I would rather have a general who was lucky than one who was good." Certainly, "Beyond possible comprehension by others" isn't what I mean or a likely interpretation. "Succeeded for reasons beneath others notice" would be more the idea. As an example, Grant's tendency to thoroughly disambiguate his orders and always put them in writing (after a Shiloh order debacle) helped his luck a great deal. But it isn't something others would necessarily notice or be in a position to notice. Sheridan had some astonishing luck, but it was possible because he insisted his subordinates (each taking separate routes) be highly disciplined and courageous and get to each point exactly on time, no matter what. (Later, one of those subordinates, Custer, would be cut down because his peers didn't fulfill their orders and arrive on time to join him in battle despite all - and because he did push on as he'd been taught. Coordination only works if everybody's doing it.)

Another option is to take on additional objectives, which serve to handicap you.

For instance, when competing to win, there's little room to be exploratory, playful, envelope pushing, maximizing learning. First tries at anything mostly fail. So I'll say "I'm going to focus on learning new things, not just on winning". And verbalize the exploration like "hmm, I wonder if...", attempt, and post mortem review ("I just tried X... and Y happened"). Or offer that as an option - "I'd like to try throwing (at target) under my leg... or would you rather I throw regular?"

Play to teach can be mixed in as a part-time objective. "Fake-oops, I dropped my card face up. What was it? What's something you might do differently knowing I have that?"

One can also optimizing for game interesting / fun. "Well I could use this card to wipe you out there, instead of discarding it, but this is so much fun, I want to fight it out".

So never "illusionary success", always transparent honesty. But being explicit that there can be more than one "game" at play. But also have to watch that this all doesn't become an "it's unpleasant to lose" avoidance strategy - if playing "for real", maybe that's to the bitter end.

How did you get your kids started with board-game type games? I have a 3yro and we just have "silly fun" with dice but I'm trying to figure out how to show him the "move N places forward" mechanic where N is the number on the die.

There's a big difference between a three year old who has just turned three and one who is nearly four. We've got a three and a half year old (as well as a six year old who loves board games with a passion). He has just got the hang of moving pieces forward based on the roll of a dice.

He has played Uno (without the scoring and with face up hands of cards) for a while now. The other game he has been able to play and that I recommend as not being as painful for adults as some, is an Orchard Toys game called 'Where's my cupcake?', but he's only just at the snakes and ladders type stage. We played a lot of Sorry too with my six year old when he was about 4-4.5. The other thing we have done is having the three year old 'on a team' with an adult, but that obviously works better with multiple kids.

One they hit 4.5/5, there are tons of games you can play with them. That's when things start get to fun! Basically, I wouldn't worry yet - they just have to get to the right stage developmentally which they will do.

Try teaching them to count with dice. Roll the dice, choose/count N objects, and try to have them do the same.

Isn't 3yo a bit too early? I mean, at three years old a child is legally smart enough not to swallow the dice... but I thought knowing how to interpret numbers and apply them is a bit more advanced than knowing not to eat the numbery thing. ;)

3 years old is definitely not too early to start playing structured games.

At first, early on, games should be very simple. The idea is to focus solely on the basic structure of games:

     --game start 
     --keep attention on game
     --turn taking/following in correct sequence
     --problem solving around a very simple goal
     --game end
     --with finally very clear assessment of player ranking (i.e. You won, I/we lost or I won, You lost)

Underlying all this should be a heavy focus on the maintenance of appropriate emotional responses and behavior modeling (e.g., no gloating, no sore losers, no emotional aggression or defensiveness).

Again, this is all ground-floor stuff, so kids can start learning it as early as 2-ish. Learning to take turns is a huge emotional advantage. As is learning how to both succeed and fail in games and life with grace.

A very good game that has a degree of complexity appropriate to kids that young is "Animal Upon Animal" by HABA.[0]

It's a simple stacking game: On your turn, stack this animal on that animal; if the stack of animals falls over, that's the fail state. (There is a 6-sided dice with pictures on 4 of its faces, and 1 and 2 pips on the the remaining, but it can easily be removed from the game until the child in question is ready for it.)

[0]http://a.co/bJ8syTL

Not at all. Candyland is recommended for children ages 3-6 and Chutes and Ladders 3-7. Both are good intros to the concept of board games.

I try to avoid telling a 3 year old what they are incapable of doing.

The 3 year old will tell you what they want to do.

At 3, my little guy's favorite toy was rated for 8+ years old, and his favorite game was chess.

He never cared if he won or lost at chess, his primary purpose was to push his pawns, castle, and then get in at least one en passant.

Yeah fair enough, I was just wondering about the future. How did you build up to a full board game with your kid? What were the phases? 1. Succeed in not eating the dice 2. ??? 3. Play a game of Sorry! within the rules.

The intermediate step here is what Candyland does.

It won't be very long and your child will be teaching YOU games that she/he learned from friends. :)

> I'm trying to figure out how to show him the "move N places forward" mechanic where N is the number on the die.

Maybe start with hopscotch (the regular kind with where you toss an object into a square, but with clearly numbered squares), telling them each time the number of the square they're on, the number of the square they're heading to, and the number of hops they'll do, before they do them. After a while, they'll get an understanding of how the numbers on the squares relate to what you're saying, and maybe even a vague intuition for subtraction.

Eventually, you can replace the thrown object with a rolled die (I suggest a big soccer-ball-sized die they can see from far away, with numbered faces instead of pips)—whose roll indicates how many spaces they should move rather than the space they should move to—and keep playing the same game.

Once they get that, then they're ready to play board games.

My 2.5 year old did my dice rolling in Trivial Pursuit last night (1970s retro Australian edition). I just made a big thing of showing her the number on the die, reading it aloud, then moving the piece that many spaces while counting up. She is interested because she seems to see the social significance of the dice throw within the game environment, but not fully aware of the movement options/significance. That's OK. Using numbers at all is good at this age. I wonder at what cognitive level children interpret randomness, such as dice throws.

There are games that are simpler and better for kids than trying to get them to slog through Monopoly or whatever.

My First Carcassonne and Sushi Go! are two we like and they're playable for adults too. (A lot of kids games are terrible, ones based on licenses like Disney or Paw Patrol for example.)

Also check out Peaceable Kingdom they make cooperative games for kids (Hoot Owl Hoot, Race to The Treasure, etc.) I haven't played them personally but based on reviews some families really enjoy them a lot.

FYI: http://www.peaceablekingdom.com/ may be hacked or was sometime in the past. The site wasn't loading so I tried archive.is and the cooperative games link on the home page loaded a porn site

Spiel Des Jahres has a children's category. The 2016 winner was Stone Age Junior and the 2015 one was Spinderella.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiel_des_Jahres

While not a dice game, my daughter really loved Sequence for Kids when she was 3. She was able to follow the rules and learn to play.

https://smile.amazon.com/Jax-8001-Sequence-for-Kids/dp/B0000...

Try "Animal Upon Animal" by HABA.[0] It's an excellent game for kids exactly that young. Very simple stacking game. I highly recommend it. It'll teach turn taking and goal oriented thinking.

http://a.co/bJ8syTL[0]

We bought Orchard by Haba for our 2yo and she absolutely loved it, still plays it sometimes 2yrs later, and it motivated her interest in board games in general.

Thank you, I've never heard of this game but the Amazon reviews look great. Do you have any other board games recommendations for 3-5 year olds?

Matching memory games are something my daughter got into shortly before turning 4. We acquired a copy of Trouble from somebody and she likes that too.

I play Snail's Pace Race with my three year old. The rules are simple and it's not competitive.

Tie the level of dessert to the rarity of the dice roll. :-) (oh, and don't explain the game).

I am curious. Can you give a concrete example or two? Also, if not about a board game, where else would this apply?

The comment you're replying to described it as three choices, but you can also consider it a spectrum.

pure instruction -> teaching through playing -> friendly match -> competitive match

Let's use a card game as an example.

Pure instruction: Both players play with their cards visible to each other, and the teacher coaches rules and strategy as they play.

Teaching through playing: The hands are now private, but the teacher will tell the student if they're making bad moves and allow do-overs. The teacher may also set up situations for the student to take advantage of.

Friendly match: The teacher is playing against the student. No coaching is given. But, nit-picky procedural rules are not always followed. (You've set that card down and your hand left it, you can't pick it up again).

Competitive match: Rules are followed to the letter.

Thanks. Wouldn't there also be the "I am wiser than you, and can either play 'easy' or play my best" even when playing competitively? "Competitive match" as you define it is more about following the rules, not the effort put in to actually try to win and outmaneuver the other player.

Think of a chess game, for example. We can play by the rules to the letter, but if I decide to systematically take your pieces one-by-one or "forget" some of my own experience to perhaps make it more fun, are elements I assumed are in the original comment above.

Physical contests (sports, racing, wrestling), knowledge contests ("Do you know x?"), practice based games (as you mentioned, some board, chess, etc).

Essentially anything where "I've consumed more calories that you have" or "I've had more years to think that you have" are an unfair advantage for purposes of fun.

An other option is to play cooperative rather than competitive games.