user13147: I was once at a cafe on a Saturday; a novice joined our chess club meeting to have fun. After observing his opening moves, I concluded he randomly used pawns to attack the opponent (completely ignoring positioning, let alone developing, of pieces)
I offered to play a game with him. He told me about chess boxing (playing chess in between boxing rounds). After an enjoyable conversation, I then told him that chess IS like boxing: You must control the center, or be bullied around. 
After enforcing this tip on him, I was extremely but delightfully surprised to find he was developing and positioning his pieces like a decent tournament player. The only issue was his tactics; he would regularly hang pieces and not realize in the middle game why he moved a piece. The main idea is the simple advice of going over the following list:

Asking what squares compromised the center (to which he answered correctly; e4, d4, e5, d5)
Asking whether pieces or pawns are stronger
Telling him every (opening) move must control one of those squares with the stronger resource

This list significantly improved his positioning, decision-making, and enjoyment for chess. My question is, what similarly short analogies have you told chess newcomers that connect real world situations with the nature of chess?

user13055: The first analogy to chess ever made seems cogent to me. I mean a real army preparing for a fight.
The real army can't afford a fight before being placed on the strategically important positions. This first stage is development and opening in chess.
In the middlegame the two armies should start a real war. The side that occupied more important points has an advantage in the fight.
To the values of pieces: It's clear that when you lose a casual soldier (pawn), it will be better then missing a knight etc.

user10233: I don't like any of these answers as they are too wordy and assume a certain level of skill firsthand.
So, I would say:
1: Pay attention to what your opponent's move was. Many players get so focused on their own pieces they overlook what the opponent is doing, and suddenly they are dropping material. Chess is like a dance so pay attention to what your partner (opponent) is doing.
2: In association with #1, what does your opponent's move do? What are it's consequences? does it attack something? Does it leave something unprotected? Pay attention to that. Chess is like a conversation with a long-time friend. Let the move speak to you and give you all the information it has and don't interrupt the story it is telling you.
3: Do the basic "Captures, Checks, Threats" after every move. Just by looking at the board and mentally going over every capture, every check, and every clear threat, you will avoid losing material, and losing material is the single biggest problem for newbies. Chess is like boxing - you have to be able to read and anticipate what "punches" your opponent plans to throw at you. There are no surprises in chess - everything is before you. You only have to develop the skills to look closer to find what truths the position is telling you.

user7657: When I instruct beginners at our club, I use sports analogies.  For example, I say that when two football (soccer, basketball, etc.) teams of equal ability oppose each other, if one were to lose a player and no substitutes were available, then that team would be at a distinct disadvantage, since they'd have one less blocker, defender, receiver, etc. to contest the opponent and should most likely ultimately lose as a result.  For that reason, they should try not to fall behind in material while conversely trying to gain a material advantage themselves using tactics, which I explain. I use similar analogies for the opening stage, telling them that if their players (pieces) are still sitting on the bench (first rank) while the opponent's players are already on the field (the board), they cannot contribute to the battle and will fall behind from the start.  Another analogy pointing out the necessity for quick development in the opening would be to compare it to a race where they were starting out ten or more yards behind if they didn't get their pieces out as fast as their opponent, indicating that they would then have difficulty catching up.  All of these comparisons seem to help them understand the nature of chess.   

13147: <p>I was once at a cafe on a Saturday; a novice joined our chess club meeting to have fun. After observing his opening moves, I concluded he randomly used pawns to attack the opponent (completely ignoring positioning, let alone developing, of pieces)</p>

<p>I offered to play a game with him. He told me about chess boxing (playing chess in between boxing rounds). After an enjoyable conversation, I then told him that chess IS like boxing: You must control the center, or be bullied around. </p>

<p>After enforcing this tip on him, I was extremely but delightfully surprised to find he was developing and positioning his pieces like a decent tournament player. <em>The only issue was his tactics; he would regularly hang pieces and not realize in the middle game why he moved a piece.</em> <strong>The main idea is the simple advice of going over the following list:</strong></p>

<ol>
<li>Asking what squares compromised the center (to which he answered correctly; e4, d4, e5, d5)</li>
<li>Asking whether pieces or pawns are stronger</li>
<li>Telling him every (opening) move must control one of those squares with the stronger resource</li>
</ol>

<p>This list significantly improved his positioning, decision-making, and enjoyment for chess. My question is, what similarly short analogies have you told chess newcomers that connect real world situations with the nature of chess?</p>
 13055: <p>The first analogy to chess ever made seems cogent to me. I mean a <strong>real army</strong> preparing for a fight.</p>

<p>The real army can't afford a fight before being <em>placed on the strategically important positions</em>. This first stage is <strong>development</strong> and <strong>opening</strong> in chess.</p>

<p>In the <strong>middlegame</strong> the two armies should start a real war. The side that occupied more <strong>important points</strong> has an advantage in the fight.</p>

<p>To the values of pieces: It's clear that when you lose a casual soldier (pawn), it will be better then missing a knight etc.</p>
 10233: <p>I don't like any of these answers as they are too wordy and assume a certain level of skill firsthand.</p>

<p>So, I would say:</p>

<p>1: Pay attention to what your opponent's move was. Many players get so focused on their own pieces they overlook what the opponent is doing, and suddenly they are dropping material. <strong>Chess is like a dance so pay attention to what your partner (opponent) is doing.</strong></p>

<p>2: In association with #1, what does your opponent's move do? What are it's consequences? does it attack something? Does it leave something unprotected? Pay attention to that. <strong>Chess is like a conversation with a long-time friend. Let the move speak to you and give you all the information it has and don't interrupt the story it is telling you.</strong></p>

<p>3: Do the basic "Captures, Checks, Threats" after <em>every</em> move. Just by looking at the board and mentally going over every capture, every check, and every clear threat, you will avoid losing material, and losing material is the single biggest problem for newbies. <strong>Chess is like boxing - you have to be able to read and anticipate what "punches" your opponent plans to throw at you. There are no surprises in chess - everything is before you. You only have to develop the skills to look closer to find what truths the position is telling you.</strong></p>
 7657: <p>When I instruct beginners at our club, I use sports analogies.  For example, I say that when two football (soccer, basketball, etc.) teams of equal ability oppose each other, if one were to lose a player and no substitutes were available, then that team would be at a distinct disadvantage, since they'd have one less blocker, defender, receiver, etc. to contest the opponent and should most likely ultimately lose as a result.  For that reason, they should try not to fall behind in material while conversely trying to gain a material advantage themselves using tactics, which I explain. I use similar analogies for the opening stage, telling them that if their players (pieces) are still sitting on the bench (first rank) while the opponent's players are already on the field (the board), they cannot contribute to the battle and will fall behind from the start.  Another analogy pointing out the necessity for quick development in the opening would be to compare it to a race where they were starting out ten or more yards behind if they didn't get their pieces out as fast as their opponent, indicating that they would then have difficulty catching up.  All of these comparisons seem to help them understand the nature of chess.   </p>
