It’s actually pretty straightfoward. I’ve played games with relatives from like 6yo-13 yo. If the 6yo is happy to make a big dumpling on the board, I think that’s fine. As long as they get excited to play the game again and again, that’s probably better than trying to make them an SDK right away.
If they’re motivated enough to want to win, you just show them an area like Uberdude did
and fill it in in one case, and as above in another, and say it’s worth the same points, but it took many more moves to get the same result.
Similarly you can show them things like
to get an idea for efficiency. It made sense to the 13yo in a handicap game, that giving up the outside wasn’t worth it for points, and they immediately recognised after seeing something like this, that this is more or less what happened in the game that was played.
I think that depends on how much time you want to spend explaining A and B. It can sometimes be the case that the language and concepts of A are more complicated than the language and concepts of B, for some reason, probably due to previous knowledge. It might be easier to grasp B, and then understand A through B, than it is to understand A from the start, and then try to look at B after.
Case in point, who would explain Go to a beginner with Tromp-Taylor Rules at Sensei's Library and then try to show that Chinese or Japanese rules were more or less the same afterward. The terminology is much more of a hassle, even if it’s elegant.