It's always amusing to try to make bets on which kid is going to win a game of chess, especially when you can see a current position on the board. It's important to be aware, however, that the factors you should use to evaluate scholastic positions are significantly different than the one we use in our version of the game. I'm going to try to list them, but with the caveat that this post is a work in progress and will undoubtedly be added to/ rewritten. (= I might steal your clever comment-ideas)
When evaluating a game between two kids, you have to give added weight to
1) Passed pawns. I suspect the idea of blockading is harder for kids because it's inherently abstract. Since for the most part, kids can't blockade at all, passed pawns are like golden eggs.
2) Queens are worth ten points. Coordinating three minor pieces is not child's play.
3) A queen is much better than 2 rooks. The queen always eventually wins a rook with a double attack. Also, the best the rooks ever really do is perpetual check.
4) An attack on the king brings a much higher probability of victory than a queenside attack. This makes openings like the Scotch gambit, the Grand Prix, and the Colle-Zuckertort almost theoretically winning.
5) A space advantage is worth more than usual. Notice, this is not because kids play better with a space advantage; it's because having a space advantage implies your opponent has a space disadvantage, and kid's play absymally when cramped. This is because kids can't manuever.
6) If one kid plays slowly, this behavior in itself will have a significant and noticable negative effect on her/ his opponent's level of play in 25% of all games. Some kids are just not able to sit still that long. They (metaphorically?) lose their minds.
7) When predicting a student's next move, don't forget that if a capture is possible, it is always the most likely move to be played.