Do you think that making chess a compulsory subject for Armenia’s students is a good idea? Is this a good way of encouraging the country’s specialty, similar to what Slovakia seems to be doing now with hockey? Do you agree with the article’s claims about the many benefits of chess? Obviously, it is not a skill that is directly applicable to the job market, but for those of you who feel that it is better to teach students how to think than to teach particular skills or facts, is chess the way to go? If making it compulsory isn’t the best choice, are there other ways which schools could encourage the playing of chess? What has been your experience with playing this game/sport?
I agree that the idea of introduction of compulsory chess in schools is very interesting, indeed. First of all it surely develops critical thinking, ability to solve problems and logics. These skills are in my opinion essential in a child’s development in order to become a reasonable, thinking, and creative human being. Moreover, they prepare an individual to achieve independency sooner as they have already developed skills mentioned above. But as far as I agree that chess is a beneficial activity to do, I cannot see how it might improve reading exercises. Though you do not read while playing chess, there is no perception of text in it. Therefore I consider this particular study as irrelevant in supporting mandatory chess.
ReplyDeleteOther issue that I would like to mention is obligation of chess in classes. In fact, I hardly doubt that all of the children enjoy playing chess. After all, if you require somebody to do something that he does not like, there is a high probability that a person might grow an aversion towards a particular activity or an object. What I am trying to say is that making chess compulsory might lead into completely opposite effect than targeted. My suggestion to this issue is very simple though. Instead of making chess compulsory, Armenians should make it at least optional so children, or probably their parents as they are not yet capable of this kind of decisions yet, could choose from among more creative subjects (music, drama, and many others.) There is a possibility, however, to play something else than chess as article claims. Pupils can also play “other thinking games like bingo". But is bingo as logical as chess? I would say that this game would rather develop gambling abilities than critical thinking, sadly.
To conclude, I see that Armenians try to boost their children’s creativity but by making chess compulsory, it is not going to work properly. Instead, I have a feeling that they only want to improve their rank in the world by using a national obsession.
To start with, I think that chess is very good game with lot of benefits. I played it as a small child (and not much from that time) and I still like it more than other board games. But make something compulsory that is another affair. But first things first, let us look at advantages and disadvantages of this phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteProbably not the most important fact is that chess is cheap, therefore it could become wide spread in less developed countries. More important is that playing chess raises IQ, it strengths problem solving skills, enhances memory and fosters creative thinking (as a chess master Professor Peter Dauvergne said). Another thing is that it teaches children to take responsibility for their actions and that is crucial. What more, there are also behavioral and social attitudes to the game (shaking hands and discipline). The fact that it is independent on the age, language (while playing) and that it is possible to play in almost all conditions make it just better. The only thing that one has to know is the rules and therefore chess does not depend on any skill that can be learned, it is just matter of thinking. It is available and there is nothing to lose (except for time, but there is no time-not-spending activity). And the last thing is that clubs make environment for children what will with high probability improve the children communication skill and ability to work with people.
But nothing is perfect. There are also some disadvantages (many of them coming out of the advantages) presented. Firstly, it needs some investment in the beginning and some people to teach children. Secondly, the lesson needs time (that could be spent differently). "There is so much to learn, so many subjects to put into the curriculum, it would be a shame to lose something like music or art for chess." Raymond Keene said. Thirdly, the results are just outcome of the work. Therefore, the improvement in IQ (as there obviously is) not strictly means that it is chess that made it.
The question was about making chess compulsory. The first argument is that there are also other things that could look similarly profitably and are not compulsory. Almost every sport has quantum of benefices and none of them is compulsory. Also some video games (and in fact it is high percentage of them) develop skill and IQ and are not mandatory as it was commented in the comments below the article. The second argument (however not directly related to chess but to the action being analyzed) is that making it compulsory might lead to discouraging of many. Not all of children would be good at it and therefore lot of them would start to hate this game.
To sum it up, my opinion about making chess compulsory is clearly defined in the sentence Chris Woodhead said: “Providing chess in schools - either through clubs or classes - could be helpful, but compulsory classes are not the way forward.” I find chess more convenient in overall and I would play it with pleasure. But society is made up of many people, and I doubt that all of them would greet this in the way I would. Invest in chess is another thing. That is something what would receive all my support. Compulsory things discourage people and there are plenty other things at probably the same level (as many people could perceive it). Therefore, I agree with investing more to chess and with opening new clubs (because it is good to have the option) but making it mandatory would probably deteriorate the system (if it has to be done, then make it mandatory just for specific age of children where the IQ is being developed the most and just for some short time so it would not be insupportable).
RESPONDING TO OLI:
ReplyDeleteThe first issue in what you said is that the fact chess develops critical thinking and ability to solve problems is just visible after long training and hours of practice. I do not want to say that there is anything that would make the same result in shorter time, but what I want to say is that these improvements come out of the whole process and therefore we do not know what results there would be from other activity given the same amount of time. Another thing is that you disagreed with chess being improving your reading skills. As this is probably true, chess, however improve your perception and perseverance and these skills are essential as well as ones you mentioned.
You said that: “I hardly doubt that all of the children enjoy playing chess”. Okay, that is with high probability true, but as an argument against making chess compulsory it is worthless. As it is known, things are not made compulsory just because people /or children in this case/ like them or not. On the other hand I agree with you that people would be probably discouraged, but as well as the first argument that is not a point against mandatory chess. Your idea about just let it be as an option seems quite fair but let consider that chess develop skills and the country is just finding a good option for children to make them more developed.
The idea that it is just the country who wants to gain something is really interesting (and quite offensive indeed) but I think that this is probably the best way to do so. There are many variants that could have just worse results. The point is, countries should develop what is abundant in their region as well as talents that could potentially be there. But I agree with you in the way that chess should not be compulsory but probably make it mandatory just for one year in exactly the age IQ is being developed seems a good try for me. There are many subjects that are hated and many of them do not even refine the abilities of people.
Here is Ondrej's comment:
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that chess is a great activity to boost children’s learning skills. It not only helps kids develop critical thinking, but also creativity, the ability to think ahead about their actions and stay disciplined and well-mannered at all times. However, the question of this article is whether it is right to force all kids in Armenia to play chess.
As we read in the article, chess is huge in Armenia (comparable to hockey in Slovakia). Chess winners are regarded as celebrities and superstars and the government is spending large sums of money on the chess players. That is great, but to me it seems that it’s just not enough for the government. They want even more good players and have decided to attain that goal in this fashion. I think that this is not a good approach. First of all, if you try and force something down someone’s throat, they will take it as a chore and not as a hobby. Second, not everyone is good at chess. Some people just don’t have either the mental capacity to play it or they just don’t enjoy it. You can’t force someone to do something that they don’t like. I absolutely think that chess is good for kids and it’s awesome that the Armenian government is taking steps to promote it, but I think that they should not force it onto everyone.
I would like to react to your entry systemically in that order you posted your ideas. Firstly, you stated that chess may help children to develop critical thinking (not only you it is also in the article), but you have not described how this can be done. I see only a deep connection when I look at the fact that chess is a strategy game, and the practice of the strategy analysis can somehow develop a critical thinking when thinking about opponent’s intentions. However, if the goal is to bring up a generation with better critical skills then I think that mandatory TOK classes are a better choice.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in contrast with my obligation in the previous paragraph, I think that you have hit the topic right on its head. But your arguments may be more complex and you may add few details to support them y. Specifically, I agree with the proposition that making it compulsory is not a good move, because if you make children to do it they may experience the mandatory effect. Basically the obligation to play may put them off, and what is unwished. Moreover, some people are not suited for this mentally difficult game, and may be good at it. Thus, this may have a negative impact on them, either on their mental health or on their social status. Particularly, they may gain the status of chess fool and this is even more dangerous when whole country is extraordinary interested in chess, or in other words a chess cultural phenomenon.
The last thing which you have not discussed and is worth mentioning is that the school curriculum is already overfilled with activities, and adding the chess on expanse of something else is not good idea. Also if only the addition to current curriculum would be done the school system may get too difficult for some pupils.
Mojo
What a great article! Since I am a huge supporter of chess, it was fascinating for me to read it. I play chess at least once in a week and if I had more time I would probably even join a club. Obviously I too support the idea of a greater propagation of chess. As it was said in the article, chess can raise IQ scores, strengthen problem solving skills, enhance memory, improve concentration and calculation, foster creative thinking and teach children to take responsibility for their actions. With all this information in the back of my head, at first I thought, having chess as a compulsory subject would be a great idea. It even seemed to me as a revolutionary idea. However as I read the article to its very end, I realized it might not be as great as it seemed at first.
ReplyDeleteTo start out, as it was said in the article, there are plenty of things that could be compulsory in schools. For example cooking, as it will be useless for you to know how to win a chess game if you don’t know how to make yourself something to eat. However this is more of a different issue, as we could say the same thing about chemistry or mathematics as about chess. Nevertheless, that is not the only issue. Another issue deals with the subjects that would have to be replaced by chess, if it became compulsory. The issue stays as an issue, even if no subject would have to be replaced, as it signalizes that children will have even more things to do for school. Another thing to keep in mind is that everything what becomes compulsory loses at its attractiveness. Finally, one more issue rises, as the subject chess, would probably be one way oriented, boring and hard for those who aren’t passionate about it. However again we must realize that it is nearly impossible to find somebody who enjoys and prospers in all the subjects and therefore, I agree with Chris Woodhead, the former chief inspector of schools in England, who said that it would be good to have it at least as an option.
Branislav Skocek IB3
Ojo@
ReplyDeleteFirst of all I would like to say that we have a similar opinion about this topic. However I agree with some of your arguments more than with others. For example, I totally agree with you that the Armenian government seems to be pushing it too far and trying too hard to become the best chess country in the world. I also agree with you that if you try and force something down someone’s throat, they take it as a chore and not as a hobby. Finally, I have come to the same conclusion as you have, namely that it is great that the Armenian government is taking steps to promote chess, but forcing it onto everyone might not be the best thing to do. However there is one thing I don’t agree with you on. You said that we shouldn’t force someone to do something that they don’t like and that some people just don’t have the mental capacity to play chess. Nevertheless, doesn’t the same thing happen with subjects like chemistry and mathematics? We force students to study subjects they don’t like all the time, even if they don’t have the mental capacity to study them. Therefore I think chess isn’t an exception and in the means of feasibility I don’t see a problem with it.
Branislav Skocek IB3
Hi guys, I would like to finally enclose this long debate. Many arguments pro and against the new compulsory chess law in Armenia have been used. You were forced to contrast between arguments such as the IQ level improvement and the not a hobby anymore arguments. Many of you have shown understanding and respect to Armenia and its world known chess players, but at the same time Mojo asked himself whether it isn’t too expensive or demotivating. It seems to me that all of you have agreed on one thing, chess, compulsory or not, improves your IQ skills .
ReplyDeleteHowever I am already fed up of these super logical games and exercises. The IB opening coarse was full of it, we even have compulsory maths lessons during which I have been suffering since the first grade, until today (my best final report grade was a poor C). I used to attend a chess club, but it made no difference to my maths results. Everyone seems to forget about the people who are just not able to do the logic stuff even though they try hard. I can’t imagine being given a grade from chess, that I believe would belong to the hated group of subjects where only the more talented would win.
But if I were Armenian, my opinion would very different. As it is stated, Armenia supplies the world with the best chess players, chess is a part of their national identity/ awareness. Therefore it is obvious that politicians are doing everything they can to always be the best in the world. Look at Slovakia, politicians didn’t do anything for hockey in here, although we were the best in the world. Everyone is criticizing them now, they are blamed for neglecting one of the most important aspects of identity of an ordinary Slovakian. I don’t want this to happen in Armenia too.
I have a friend of mine who is a real chess player. I mean a REAL chess players, because he plays it a lot and he also won several competitions, not only inside Slovakia. I remember that lots of people tried to beat him but they all lost the game. He is able to play chess in his mind. He no longer needs a chess board. I absolutely admire him when he wins a normal chess game in his mind. He just tells the moves and he remembers all his and his opponent’s positions. Once he won a game against three clever girls with closed eyes. He was not allowed to look on the chess board.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I think that compulsory chess will result in better thinking children. It can develop their memory and logical thinking. Also, I think that it will improve their mathematics results in school. But I personally would not like to have compulsory chess in school. I used to take chess classes when I was approximately 10 years old or maybe less. I really did not like it. It is a very boring game for me, but I respect people who play it because I am not able to spend so much time thinking about the chess board and moves that I have to do. Although I know that chess could be very beneficial for my intellect, I do not like play it. But in Armenia, where everyone loves chess, it would be very beneficial for the society. Even if they make it compulsory for just a short time. One hour a week would be enough I guess. Perhaps, someday they will develop into the most intelligent nation in whole world.
Tomas Langer
@ Tomas Langer
ReplyDeleteI agree that making chess compulsory could be beneficial in many ways, as Dr Stuart Marguilies and Professor Peter Dauvergne have already confirmed with their research. While this seems only as beneficial for both the country and the children, I do not think it so. What about the children? I personally loathe chess and I think that there are many of them who would only agree with me. I can imagine that they wouldn’t be too excited about it being compulsory. There are other ways to get better in logic, reading and such. Really, chess is not the only option. And even if it is a national sport, that is perfectly okay, as long as they don’t force every citizen to like it. Then, you have to admit that it kind of loses its purpose as their national pastime and entertainment. Furthermore, the only ones that really excell in chess are the ones who have a certain passion for this game. If you just resolve to force someone who genuinely hates it and thinks it’s boring, they are not going to be even comparable to the ones that love chess, even if they practice for years.