Using Bughouse to Teach Cooperation

Bughouse does not have the prestige of chess.   It is a much newer game, as it cannot be played without a clock.   So mastering bughouse isn't going to bring anyone fortune and fame, but I want to talk about whether it can be used to teach cooperativeness to both children and adults.  I don't think it does that automatically.  It depends very much on the player's perspective.

I'm certainly not the most cooperative person, but for various reasons, I think I'm finally seeing the light.   I wouldn't oversell my idea.  I don't think that it is, by any means the only way to teach cooperativeness, nor do I think cooperativeness is all important.  I am a big fan of all practical skills, technical skills, and traditional academic subjects.

The first game to be called  bughouse is now called zhouse, and it was played by two players on one board with two chess sets.  What we now call bughouse was once called double bughouse, and was shorted to bughouse.  Bughouse has long been hated by many chess purists.  I should add that it is the only chess variant to gain any popularity in the pre-Internet era.  There has never been any attempt to look at its value objectively.  

Those with a limited knowledge of bughouse may think that it is random, or is merely a game of speed.  I've heard even players with some experience say that whole game is about attacking f7.  But now the moves to defend f7 successfully are known to most experienced players, so that f7 is generally not an especially interesting target.

I would not claim that bughouse can teach all the same skills as chess.  It is always a fast paced game, so it does not teach contemplative thinking,  I  am only going to claim it teaches this one particular skill.

In the old days I had a friend who said that when he partnered with a weaker player, he would try to win before his partner lost.  While this is sometimes necessary, I am now thinking that for most people it is not a good paradigm to start the game with.

Another view I have heard is that the stronger player should attack, and the weaker one should trade pieces.  I have never liked this idea, regardless of whether I am the stronger or weaker player.  You can't tell in advance who will develop and attack, and I definitely don't think anyone should trade pieces compulsively.   A trade usually benefits one side more than the other.  Many players forget that when they trade, they are trading away their defenders and at the same time, they are providing material for their partner's opponent.

I am thinking to start with the strategy of trying to beat the weaker player on the opposing team.  Of course this can be modified as the situation requires.  If I am playing the weaker player, I will attack.  If I am playing the stronger player, I will try as much as possible to play automatically and give as much attention to my partner's board.  Of course, as I said, it doesn't always work out that way.

I can usually help my partner by winning material for him.  I am not good at handling requests for a specific piece, but sometime I will go out of my way to do it even if I don't think its the best strategy.

I find myself typing things like "please move faster" or "please move your king back".  I have a higher success rate with that than the alternative.  I let my partner play their own game.  Micromanaging may distract them and it takes the fun out of it.  If what's in my mind isn't constructive, I generally refrain from saying it.  In internet bughouse you can say it but not type it.

Even for adults, I've seen bughouse lead to great hostility (known in bughouse circles as "hate"). Another thing I'm learning is to never denigrate one's partner.  The options are to explain,  continue and say nothing, say nothing and walk away after the game.

After codifying this for myself, I gained 100 bughouse points in 24 hours.