Should chess be incorparated into schools?

@V1g1yy said in #25:

How does that work, precisely? The idea sounds good, and if your friend is a tutor who actually plays chess, that's also good. But I read a few pages on the site and saw one disturbing statement that to be a tutor, you don't need to know about chess. It's ok if you just like working with kids. Ahhhh, sorry but I disagree. When I first learned to play, the person who taught me knew a fair amount about chess and made it interesting to learn. (that was not in school) For me that was a requirement even at that very young age. Had they known little or nothing about chess, I would have had no interest whatsoever. At least not in listening to them.

I am sure you would have screamed if you had read more than a few pages!!!

The 'push' is a 30 week course to teach the basics of chess. The whole approach is standard UK academic kak designed to slot 'chess' into the same cookie-cutter mentality of all other 'proper' educational studies. Hence why there is no need of chess talent - in the UK all our Physics teachers have Biology degrees and half of the Maths teachers have no qualification in Maths (aside for a educational qualification of the form 'How to teach Maths'). And of course all resources have to be re-invented to ensure compliance to the authority of all the educational blobs. As an alternative Silman (by anyone's definition a world class chess tutor) produced a 'How to play chess' DVD course of twenty-four 30mins lessons - so my guess, as suggested, is that the benefit goes to teachers to get their precious pay increments (on top of inflation increments)*.

Further evidence of this is the barriers to 'Ordinary Joes', just to express an interest - as say, an actual chess player, by-Jove! - you have to provide a large amount of personal information including the names, addresses and e-mail addresses of two referees who no doubt will be sent a corresponding large form to fill-in as a consequence to extract even more information about oneself. I mean JUST-TO-EXPRESS-INTEREST, they clearly don't want anyone outside the educational concave.

Rant aside. 30 Weeks!!! I learnt to play at seven (all that was required was to read the rules - lots of pictures helped!) the idea of committing myself to 30 weeks in the classroom would have been a non-starter. The CSC is clearly pitched at a very low-bar and thereby be extremely boring to the smarter kids - again, much like all UK educational teaching. Of course, the inherently gifted will find ways of escaping the boredom but the rest will tend to hate chess for life if there was no opt-out. I also suspect the 30 weeks is the time it takes the average teacher to learn chess - or at least to be able to fake it to those who don't play chess.

I just wish I could've opt-out of all my English lessons (misandry), but I took my revenge by biting books - no one ever found out :)

• There are dedicated chess computers - old and new - that are specifically designed to educate beginners in chess, often with built-in exercises and booklets, some even talk!), they can be purchased at the cost of half-an-hour of a teacher's pay and considerably less to the public purse than a teacher's pay increment. Example, MILLENNIUM ChessChampion 2.0, £58 on UK Amazon (there are many others, I have an older version and would highly recommended as I own many of these 'weak' chess computers - for obvious reasons!). I would have given up book-biting for life for one of these babies at seven!!! Damn, I could have been a GM, if only :(....

@Toscani said in #28:

Chess definitely makes you think better! But here's a question: the part of the brain that helps with planning and smart choices (the frontal lobe) doesn't fully mature until after high school. So, can younger kids really handle all the strategy in chess without some help? I think they need guidance from adults to get the most out of it.

The cool thing is, studies show that chess can actually help with math! It strengthens skills like planning ahead, thinking step-by-step, and recognizing patterns. These skills are all super useful for math. Chess could be a great tool in schools, especially for subjects like Science, Tech, Engineering, and Math (STEM). These STEM fields thrive on fresh ideas and strong problem-solving, which chess can help develop in students. Plus, using computer programs or websites could make learning and playing chess more accessible in the classroom.

Instead of just letting kids play on their own, it’d be way better to have teachers who understand how kids learn guide them. That way, chess becomes more than just a fun game—it turns into a powerful way to boost their brains.

Well while I have had to content myself with not becoming a GM, I do credit chess with priming my software engineering talents and subsequent Maths degree which lead to quite a rich life for a kid from a dirt-poor family background (Scottish coalmining village). To be honest, I liked chess as a kid because it subconsciously boosted my ego (and self-worth) - which giving my background was very much needed. Kids will excel (self-learn) at anything they can be good at, irrespective of the academic direction or 'wisdom'. It's opportunity that matters which usually requires direct $$$ spend on children, something state educational systems conspire to avoid doing*.

The CSC website has lots of research papers on 'why chess is good for kids' etc.

*For example, the Pupil Premium (a UK thing driven by the Liberal Party - the only good idea they have ever had -, and something the CSC website makes a big thing of) was passed into legalisation as a DIRECT spend on poor pupils (levelling up of opportunities), and what did the Middle-Class Heads do with it, bought more TA's and Teachers 'for the benefit of all'. A clear mis-use of public funds and not a single prosecution in over a decade.

I think the Chess Steps program demonstrates a successful model for incorporating chess into schools.
It provides a structured and accessible pathway for both educators and students to learn the game together.
https://www.stappenmethode.nl/en/

Where there is a will there is a way to learn. The "will" comes from educators and administrators recognising the potential benefits of chess and committing to its implementation.

It's encouraging to see resources like Chess Steps and Lichess Learn section (basic & practice) available, as they can significantly contribute to the successful integration of chess into school curricula and unlock the many cognitive and educational advantages the game offers.
https://lichess.org/learn
https://lichess.org/practice
https://lichess.org/training/themes

@AlexiHarvey said in #31:

I am sure you would have screamed if you had read more than a few pages!!!
Probably...

You sound like you're not thrilled with the direction of education there. Here, elementary schools are not totally worthless, but it's shown that pretty much if you didn't get it by 6th grade, you're not going to learn it by 12th. In New York state, they have purchased office buildings where they send the teachers they can't fire. The offices are at capacity, and what are they paid to do? To stay away from children... Yep... You heard that right. Some years back I was contacted by a girl I went to HS with. She asked me if I'd give her a crash course on computers and programming because she was the least senior full-time teacher at the high school and she drew the short straw, so she was tasked with teaching programming. No need for programming knowledge, you have a "degree" so you're a "teacher", lmao. I declined to get involved because I knew it was a waste of time and I simply didn't have the time to invest. But it just illustrates the ludicrous thinking of people in education, not just here but everywhere. Don't even get me started on the topic...

For a great time, watch on youtube "Waiting For Superman". It's a documentary. Not sure if this link will play it or not, but find it and take a few hours and watch it. No matter how bad the education system is in your country, this will make you feel better about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbCZB_sy6Ws

It does depend on your wider view of school - Many here think it is currently a societal institution that helps students develop skills and progress to their career paths, I disbelieve. Modern academic institutions have been broadening to cover more and more different subjects in the arts and sports. From that perspective, chess already has belonging place in modern education even if extracurricularly.

also, I want to quote GM Fabiano Caruana who said on an interview "chess is meaningless". Where he answered a question on the importance of investing into chess nationally, and he basically said its okay for people to find the cure to cancer instead of becoming the best chess player ( I am oversimplifying the entire circumstance )

@Toscani said in #28:

Toscani, which studies do you refer to? what sources did you learn this from? In our day and age, misinformation is rampant and its easy to find positive information for all sides. Correlation doesn't equal causation and studies can be inaccurate.

@Toscani said in #33:

I think the Chess Steps program demonstrates a successful model for incorporating chess into schools.
It provides a structured and accessible pathway for both educators and students to learn the game together.
www.stappenmethode.nl/en/

Yeah looks pretty comprehensive, could probably do with going on the program myself!

In the UK books are very rare, teachers are forced to produce inclusive lesson plans and if necessary worksheets composed of 1 to 3 A4 pages of supporting text as handouts - in lieu of 'books'. Each teacher has to do their very own customised versions despite there being a national criterium, that's 450,000+ teachers basically doing the same thing, hence the complaints about workloads, long hours etc. Madness. The handouts look like something you would find on the back of a breakfast cereal box.

V1g1yy: your 'Waiting for Superman' is on youtube but behind a paywall.

And as mentioned before, on the CSC website there are lots of research studies etc available to promote chess in schools.

That said, I don't think chess in schools should be anything other than selective (by the child). In the UK, educational 'wisdom' is centred around 'children can do/be anything' because it's all environmental (i.e. Blank Slate mentality). I just don't think this is true, so across the broad chess schemes are unlikely to be successful unless you pitch the bar very low, (i.e. 'everyone gets prizes' mentality). The result is that about a third of pupils waste eleven years of their educational lives, statistically the same in 2025 as in 1925.

For what it's worth; the biggest indicator of educational success/attainment of a child, by a long way, is the educational level of the mother. Why the mother you might ask? Good question, but not one modern educationalists are interesting in, as the big 'put' is for 'quality of teachers', 4th significant factor if I remember correctly. Interestingly from a chess point of view, note how many Chess World Champions lacked a father in childhood for various reasons, the most horrific case being of Viktor Korchnoi (entire family killed by starvation during the German siege of Leningrad, he survived only because an aunt worked at a candy factory.)

https://edu.fide.com/

@AlexiHarvey said in #37:

V1g1yy: your 'Waiting for Superman' is on youtube but behind a paywall.
That's too bad because it didn't used to be and it's worth watching. I wonder if it's not available on public tv somewhere (online).

I am against the idea of chess being a compulsory part of the school environment. This is not because I am against chess per se (obviously). My observation is that every enthusiast thinks that their particular hobby is so influential on development that it just must be incorporated into the curriculum, or provided with massive funding.

I hear this from football fans trying to promote a charity, Latin teachers, musicians, artists, etc.