BBC: Should every child be made to play chess?

Kids are forced to do all sorts of stupid things. I don't see why making chess mandatory is any different.

That's a lazy argument. If you can't come up with a good reason, don't do it.

I see no legitimate reason to have it forced.

I think it can be a useful tool and should be an option, though.

Yeah, that's more an argument for why about half of our current high school and college curriculum should be axed outright, not one to throw chess in there too :|

edited 30th Oct '12 8:55:29 PM by Pykrete

Hey, if I was in charge of the school system, I would make the only subjects probability, stats, and rhetoric.

Also someone had a point. Chess is a part of the culture. It's not as vital a part of the culture as it is in Armenia, but it's definitely one of those things that would be more useful in understanding US and British culture than Go.

The varied classes are required for people to live a healthy life.

Chess is not one of them nor should it be. At best, I agree with a Chess Club being available(if the School can seriously afford any Clubs). I don't find it necessary compared to real life skills.

Chess is not a life skill by any means. A class on Probability/Psychology is far more useful since it covers more than Chess itself.

Hmm. No, I don't think it should be mandatory. Forcing stuff on children, especially something that's technically an extra-curricular activity is very self-defeating.

But. In my brother's school, part of their time-table each week is devoted to a single extra-curricular "class", and they have a range of options to choose from, including chess (and Magic actually ) which marks me as an interesting idea. I don't know what effect is has overall because I haven't really looked into it, but it could be a good idea to implement across a wider range of schools.

Not every kid is capable of sitting down long enough to play a game of chess, let alone be good at it. That latter point is pretty important for kids. If they aren't good at something, a lot of children don't see the point of it. There are any number of child psych reports and studies out there to prove that so I don't see the need to dis the idea any further than pointing that out.

I would give them an opportunity to play Medieval Total War 2, as that is a really good game, but I wouldn't be so crass as to make it mandatory.

I use to enjoy playing go when it was a game only for very smart well travelled educated people such as myself, but from the look of this thread it seems like it's become hipster alternative to chess.

Thread Hop

I like chess. I do not, however, like it when anyone is made to do some kind of mandatory "fun" thing that they clearly do not want to do. I remember when I was younger and I was forced by my parents and brother to play Mahjong because they all wanted to play and you needed four people. Now, I did not like Mahjong because I was not very good at it and kept losing to everyone, but on the other hand it would have been rather selfish if I refused to play because then no one would have been able to play (okay, not true but Mahjong is at its best when you've got four players). I went along with it, but it fostered a lifelong hatred of Mahjong. So I don't care what the alleged benefits are, mandating that a child play X games of chess per year, whether they love it or hate it, is Wrong.

Yes, but didn't you learned that sometimes you have have to do things you don't enjoy for the sake of other people? You learn an important life lesson then.

That, in some way, is a Strawman analogy though because in that example he has to play or else other people cannot play. In the topic we're talking about is making kids play chess by force. One is a person doing the thing he dislikes for the sake of other people and the other is more analogous to being forced at gunpoint to play chess (not that extreme, obviously. But the nature's the same).

I'm not sure if artificially forcing kids to do anything like that is a good training for them to be able to do things they do not like for the sake of other people.

True. My thought process was that in a way, it was an officially voluntary but unofficially mandatory thing — in one scenario you are bound by mandate of law to play a game whereas in the other you are bound by the mandate of family obligation. In both cases you can't refuse.

I agree that it might be beneficial for a child to learn how to play chess but I can't envision a situation in which this means they must play chess.

edited 2nd Nov '12 2:41:42 PM by HouraiRabbit

I don't think playing chess is a good requirement. Some people, like me, just aren't good at it. It's not like math where you might need it in the future, there's no job that requires chess knowledge. They should encourage kids to play logic games (which the schools I went to already did, i.e. the site funbrain.com), but not specifically chess. My stepdad forced me to take a chess class at the local college with other kids, and I was awful. I lost every game and it just made me feel worse about myself.

Children would be better served if they were forced to learn basic logic and persuasion skills. Chess is a game and, while I have nothing against it, the stereotype of Smart People Play Chess and The Chessmaster just annoys me. If it were true, Bobby Fischer would have taken over the world instead of the train wreck his life became.

I could see an argument for any school to expect children to learn chess. But not for all schools to expect this. Let is be a quirk of a particular school and let our nation be a diverse group of thinkers.

^^Smart is not the same thing as senseible.

It's not really a family obligation when they let you off for not playing (which is what your post reads like) though.

Also, people are absolutely nothing like chess pieces. In fact, chess teaches a belief that life is much simpler and easily predicted than it is. If you want to learn people skills, play poker.

Actually, while shogi and chess are both of the chess family they are much more different than a lot of people are making them out to be in this thread. The chief difference being that in shogi one can use captured enemy pieces by placing them (anywhere, with a few minor restrictions) on the board instead of moving a piece on that turn. To "make up for this" the pieces are generally weaker, that is have a more limited range of movement, than in chess and quite a few of them don't move backwards, though they can promote to a piece which does on the last 3 lines. This creates a fundamentally different flow to the game and it also makes it more complicated, not to mention you never get an "end-game" in the sense that you do in chess. While a good chess-player obviously have an advantage when learning shogi and vice-versa the two are pretty different strategically. Saying that they are essentially the same does both games a disservice.

But putting that aside, I don't hold either game (or any other for that matter) in high enough regard that I think it should be mandatory for kids to learn. While it's true that most people who are good at chess are also good at academic pursuits, the opposite does not hold true. At all. Personally I've never been able to really get into chess, I just can't concentrate enough on it, to be particularly good at it. And since playing chess on a non-amateur level is not really part of what I would call a well-rounded general education I don't see why one should make it mandatory in schools.

edited 3rd Nov '12 5:15:59 PM by Mathias

(Threadhop)

Armenia clearly already has a compatible culture for something like this (as in kids are less likely to get rebellious about being forced to play a game that's so popular there) as well as it being a good money earner and point of pride for the country, so fair enough I suppose.

Anywhere else, if you taught this mandatorily, what would have to be displaced from the curriculum? It probably sounds like a good idea to someone who thinks compulsory subjects magic the time to do them out of thin air.