

Should every child be made to play chess? - soitgoes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13140772

======
samatman
Chess has great historical significance in the West, but Go is a better choice
for universal education in abstract strategy. Most important reason: the
handicapping system is rational. Chess handicapping has a way of leading to
hurt feelings in young children: "see? I beat you without my knights! you
suck!"

Also, the rules are simpler, the play is more complex, and (most subjectively)
it teaches better lessons outside the context of the game. I would rather
people's native mode of competition be "oops looks like this mostly belongs to
me now" rather than "I am going to relentlessly pursue you until you're
completely murdered"

~~~
mquander
Regarding those two lessons, I'm not so sure. Rephrased, you might say that
chess's lesson is that small advantages snowball and give you leverage to make
bigger advantages. That is certainly a key insight that needs to be in your
intuition for everything ever.

~~~
samatman
While I believe this to be true, I also believe it to be in the (very large)
category of overlapping lessons between chess and Go.

~~~
hunterp
As a 1 dan in igo aka baduk aka wei-qi, I can attest it is an excellent skill
to make asian friends and just friends in general. Chess offers you access to
the western world...which is a declining commodity. Also, go is a more
computationally interesting problem at the moment. The strongest computer is
far weaker than even top amateur players....let alone professional players who
are even far stronger.

~~~
mquander
As only a 5 kyu, I like Go, but I think it's extremely silly to claim that a
game is more interesting for humans because computers are worse at it.
Computer chess has made the game more fun for humans, not less; it's as if you
have the world champion sitting next to you helping you review every game,
point out your mistakes, and evaluate alternative choices. Computer analysis
frequently unveils interesting possibilities in games that humans don't find.

~~~
PakG1
I don't think he was claiming that Go is more fun for humans because computers
are worse than humans at it. The statement was: "computationally interesting
problem". I think he was thinking in terms of the challenge it posed to
computing science, not whether or not humans found it enjoyable to play. But
he also does seem to enjoy Go for its social benefits.

4kyu player myself. I enjoy how Go allows for extremely complex play with far
simpler rules.

~~~
mquander
That's true, I made a bit of a straw man up there, but in my defense it's one
I have encountered in non-straw form over and over.

------
bhousel
Compulsory chess education may work in Armenia, where chess has achieved
almost 'national pastime' status, but it would fail terribly in the UK or US.
Westerners are incredibly strong-willed, and you'd probably incite more
interest in chess by banning it than by forcing everyone to learn it.

People in the west relish controversy, whether it's violent video games being
pulled from shelves, or dungeons and dragons being linked to satanism. These
incidents only serve to increase the popularity of the banned game. As they
say, there's no such thing as bad publicity (except in your own obituary).

~~~
hugh3
Yep, there's no better way to make children hate something than to make it
compulsory.

There are so many great pleasures in life (reading novels, exercising) that I
never got to enjoy until I left high school and stopped being forced to do
'em. Let's not add another to the list.

------
tokenadult
A similar question would be, "Should every child be entered into a mathematics
contest?" Mathematics contests, like chess games, have a win-and-lose aspect
to show who has really learned the skills, a progression of skill development
through practice, and a mixture of knowing technical tools through deliberate
practice and creative insight developed by broad experience with competitions.
A good discussion of the pros-and-cons of widespread schoolchild participation
in mathematics contests (which has been going on in some countries

<http://www.komal.hu/lap/archivum.e.shtml>

for a century) can be found on the website of the Australian Mathematics
Trust.

<http://www.amt.canberra.edu.au/mc20011.html>

------
narrator
One thing chess taught me -- for better or for worse, I'm not sure -- is that
for certain kinds of intelligence there is a very cleanly delineated hierarchy
among people. There were chess players that were better than me at the game
and they would usually win. There were chess players who were worse than me
and I would regularly beat them.

~~~
mquander
That's a pretty unusual conclusion. I would suppose that chess might teach the
opposite -- it's apparent that when you practice chess deliberately, you get
better and better, and that improvement is reflected very clearly in your
results. Beating other kids or beating your dad is a kind of improvement that
is more concrete than the other kinds of things you learn in school at that
age. It might help demonstrate the virtue of directed effort.

I personally spent some time a few years ago teaching elementary-schoolers
chess in a club after school. A lot of them weren't good students, but all of
them took a lot of pride in getting better at chess. I think it would be
really worthwhile if we had a tool to get the pleasure of self-improvement
into kids' heads.

~~~
dabent
I played chess with my co-workers at a former job during lunch. I barely knew
the rules when I started and struggled at first.

I began to practice somewhat obsessively and I got to the point where I could
regularly beat most of my co-workers within a year. It could be argued I have
an inclination for something like chess, but the connection between practice
and payoff was more apparent playing chess than just about anything else I've
ever done.

Chess has also taught me to think ahead a few moves and to realize that
sometimes a short-term loss is worth it for a long-term gain. All things I see
as essential for entrepreneurship.

In my youth, I used to just think people were just "good" at something, and
there was little they could do to influence it. I did software because I was
"good" at it. Over the years, I've realized that an inclination or talent is
important, but relentless years of honing one's craft are more important. I've
watched a couple of my "smarter" friends waste away due to lack of focus and
other people shine seemingly in spite of themselves.

------
Gatsky
We had just learned how to play chess in school. I was about 10 years old I
think. Another guy challenged me to a game... he was friendly, but not exactly
someone I would have called a friend at the time. We set up in a corner of the
library, and he nailed me with the 4 move checkmate. He was extremely
satisfied with himself, mainly I think because he had managed to hustle me. He
wasn't any better at chess than I was, he had just heard of the 4 move
checkmate before I did. I was, if not crushed, somewhat perturbed that this
could happen. In my 10 year old life, it was a completely new experience. I
realized that playing a game had a lot more to do with just knowing the rules.

In school, you tend to play games with people who are your friends for the
most part. Chess is a bit different though... you seem to end up playing
against people you don't know well or at all, yet especially when you are
starting out in chess, trying to work out what sort of player (and by
extension, what sort of person) your opponent is becomes quite important. I
think there are a useful set of skills to do with that, which you would
otherwise miss out on as a kid.

------
hsmyers
My knee-jerk reaction to 'made' was of course not. And then I thought about
it. We 'make' children learn how to do fundamental mathematics and it doesn't
seem do them harm (yes there are serious arguments about when and how we
should do that, but setting that aside...) I have always been in favor of
chess being offered in school. I've always thought that if it is good enough
for West Point, then it is good enough for the local school system. Even out
here in the 'sticks' of Idaho, we have a thriving academic chess program with
no apparent damage. This is merely an escalation of elective to requirement---
still no harm. Obligatory admission; I regularly play tournament chess as a
rated player (silly addiction :) ).

~~~
rpedroso
It's the same aversion we recall our childhood selves and react to anything
our parents "force" us to do. Force isn't so effective -- it would be best if
parents found creative ways to entice their kids with chess and chess-like
activities (why not Backgammon, which I prefer, or Go?). They make us eat
vegetables, play instruments, do our homework, etc. In the end, years down the
line, I'll thank them for it.

Personally, I'm disappointed that my parents never made me play an instrument
or an intellectually stimulating game like chess. It wasn't until relatively
(<4) years that I picked up Backgammon and classical guitar, and I cringe when
I think about how I would have benefited from years more experience.

------
warrenwilkinson
Instead of what?

On a more serious note, this would be a complete non-issue, except that
education is state controlled. So now it's politics. Where it private people
could choose what's best for their child without choosing what's best for
everyone elses.

~~~
hugh3
Well, any parent who wants his children to learn chess can teach it to 'em.
That is, I guess, how most children learn it.

In the opposite case, where chess is compulsory and the parent doesn't want
the child to learn... well, big deal. I must have learned to play dozens of
games at school, from tunnelball to rugby, and throwing in an extra one isn't
gonna do much harm.

------
sandal
As an occasional Go player, I mainly clicked through to see if the very first
comment on the page would be someone mentioning that Go is a better choice
than chess. The internets do not disappoint, regardless of whether that's a
true statement or not.

------
LarryA
I think kids should be taught a few classic games, chess, checkers, mancala,
backgammon, etc. For the simple fact that most of those games are universal,
regardless of language the chess rules are the same, so if there is a board
you can strike up interaction regardless of language.

It also introduces rules and strategic thought. Some kids might get into
chess, most probably won't, but like most of the stuff in school, part of it
is to expose kids to concepts that they might have an interest to persue.

------
petervandijck
"Made to play" is a contradiction.

------
spot
a long time ago a chess-playing friend of mine said "a good chess player has
developed their mind. a great chess player has wasted their mind."

------
petercooper
I was usually top of all my classes up until my teenage years (and got lazy
and became the chancer I am now!) so I was pushed into playing chess, joining
the chess club, etc, and I totally sucked! I could randomly beat people who
barely knew the rules of the game but otherwise I was at the bottom of every
ladder going, despite practicing.

So I'm not convinced chess is a natural fit for everyone or a way to increase
intelligence. It did nothing for me except make me realize I couldn't be good
at everything that was vaguely academic. Or maybe it says something about a
certain _type_ of intelligence that I totally lack(ed)? Scrabble, OTOH, I can
win any time..

------
Tycho
I think anything that encourages focussed/prolonged abstract thinking about
complex systems should be encouraged. In chess, the mental discipline to think
through a series of moves without actually seeing them, and also to formulate
heuristic strategies ('if i put this piece here, it will stop any threats
coming from...'). There probably is not enough of that at school - I think
reading and analysing novels is the closest you get. And some kids do that
_very_ passively (like they'll completely miss the implied point of chapters).

------
sireat
While children should be exposed to both go and chess, I would argue against
compulsory extended training.

There comes a point where much of extended training in chess is counter-
productive to being a productive human being.

I would trade my Fide Master title in a heartbeat for more learning of
discrete math(there is no reason predicate logic cannot be taught in junior
high school) and programming concepts at an early age.

------
ansy
Chess isn't a bad thing. Neither is devoting yourself to mastering a subject.
But like the article says, there are other equally good or better pursuits we
can teach from an early age. So choose chess, go, piano, painting, math,
programming, writing, golf, tennis, or any number of things. Just do something
and do it well.

------
sjs382
I think so. I believe that _thinking competitively_ is just as important as
_thinking_.

