Is it useful for two beginners to play each other?
These answers restate the rules implemented by our open-source engine, which follows the WXF laws and is regression-tested against the official 110-diagram repetition casebook. Where an answer refers to a specific position, that position lives on the linked reference page, where the build verifies it against the engine before publishing.
Direct answer
Yes, genuinely useful, with one caveat worth knowing. Two beginners playing each other get real practice at the actual skills that matter early: spotting hanging pieces, counting cannon screens, not blundering into check. The caveat is that neither player can catch the other's mistakes, so bad habits can go unchallenged for a long time if it is the only kind of practice either of you gets.
Why it still works despite that
Most early-game losses come from missing something that was actually visible, not from a mistake so subtle only a strong player would catch it. Two beginners playing carefully will catch a large share of each other's blunders just by paying attention, and losing games to a real opponent, rather than an engine that plays inhumanly, teaches a kind of pattern recognition that computer play does not.
What to add alongside it
Occasional puzzles (see checkmate patterns) or a few games against the computer at low levels help catch the mistakes neither of you would notice on your own, since the computer punishes hung pieces with total consistency. Alternating between human games and these other tools covers the gap either one alone would leave.
Related questions
Should we review our games together afterward?
Yes, if you both enjoy it. Talking through a game with the person who actually played the other side is a genuinely good habit.
Will we teach each other bad habits?
Some, inevitably, but far less than the benefit of simply playing real games against a real opponent regularly.
.