Compulsory chess
- Thread starter Miss Chicken
- Start date
Better than compulsory sport, which is what we have in this great nation of intellect.
You've been watching too much Harry Potter
I was never fond of chess. Even as a kid, I always felt that it required too much thought and effort for too little actual benefit to my life. I remember thinking: "I can see what you're meant to do, how you're meant to think to win, but why on Earth would I want to work that hard for it?"
I always felt that if I was going to expend that much mental energy, I wanted it to be for something I felt gave me results, rather than for its own sake. It seemed to be idle intellectual masturbation, or mental navel-gazing, though of course as a kid I couldn't put it in those terms.
For instance, apply the kind of strategic thinking and theory of mind clearly involved in chess to real people and real life, and you'll get much more interesting results than on a sterile chess board. Win a chess match, and you win a chess match. Win at life, and you get extra sweets or more time to play. Same skills, better results. Plus you get to see how multiple people react simultaneously, rather than just one. It's simply a more interesting and productive exercise, at least to my way of thinking.
Even simply as an intellectual training exercise, it's not particularly efficient at teaching you the core lesson of both real life and chess: it's not the game you play, but who you play it against.
Leaving all that aside, should it be part of a compulsory curriculum? No, but that's mainly because I think we already ask our schools to do too much that is really parental responsibility anyway. I do think every responsible parent should teach their children it (or something similar, anyway) as part of exposing their kids to a broad range of activities and pastimes so they can grow as people.
I always felt that if I was going to expend that much mental energy, I wanted it to be for something I felt gave me results, rather than for its own sake. It seemed to be idle intellectual masturbation, or mental navel-gazing, though of course as a kid I couldn't put it in those terms.
For instance, apply the kind of strategic thinking and theory of mind clearly involved in chess to real people and real life, and you'll get much more interesting results than on a sterile chess board. Win a chess match, and you win a chess match. Win at life, and you get extra sweets or more time to play. Same skills, better results. Plus you get to see how multiple people react simultaneously, rather than just one. It's simply a more interesting and productive exercise, at least to my way of thinking.
Even simply as an intellectual training exercise, it's not particularly efficient at teaching you the core lesson of both real life and chess: it's not the game you play, but who you play it against.
Leaving all that aside, should it be part of a compulsory curriculum? No, but that's mainly because I think we already ask our schools to do too much that is really parental responsibility anyway. I do think every responsible parent should teach their children it (or something similar, anyway) as part of exposing their kids to a broad range of activities and pastimes so they can grow as people.
I don't think it's a bad thing for schools to have chess, but to make it compulsory? Seems like too specific a thing to mandate imo, so I don't like it. While I hate sport being compulsory here, at least that's a broad subject that encompasses a lot of variety.
So while I don't mind the idea of them adding chess, as others have suggested, it should at least include other games. There are plenty of other strategic board games that can teach similar skills, even if chess is the more complex game.
So while I don't mind the idea of them adding chess, as others have suggested, it should at least include other games. There are plenty of other strategic board games that can teach similar skills, even if chess is the more complex game.
Exactly, first they bring out the fun 'family'-games and teach you that playing games is all about the social interaction of the people playing.
Then they put you down in front of that board (that looks like a kitchen floor) and expect you to do nothing but sit there and think. And, if that wasn't enough; you may only think about the 'game'
Anyway, I'm currently reading up on it as a friend and I have decided to play it as a forum-game. I even went out and bought myself a chess-set:
Just my luck though; I'll have to go back and complain: there were no dice in the box.
Then they put you down in front of that board (that looks like a kitchen floor) and expect you to do nothing but sit there and think. And, if that wasn't enough; you may only think about the 'game'
I remember reading very recently about "chess-boxing", which is apparently now a real sport, based on some original fictional story. You play a chess game in between boxing rounds. I believe London beat Berlin to the World Championship.
I just felt like I was reading a James Bond novel for a second there.
Compulsory chess makes about as much sense as compulsory athletics, I guess. But overall, I think it would be better simply to provide more funds for children who are good at things besides sports.
Our school system had annual track meets in which every school in the district participated. It would have been nice to have an annual chess tournament too. An annual drama festival would be a good thing as well.
Our school system had annual track meets in which every school in the district participated. It would have been nice to have an annual chess tournament too. An annual drama festival would be a good thing as well.
I was being a smart ass.
Although, I grew up playing this, which was only slightly less violent than the original Mortal Kombat, and very similar to the chess game in Harry Potter.
A.question for all people here who like playing chess - have you ever play Chinese Chess (not to be confused with Chinese Checkers)?
I have, yes. I even have a nice set of jade Chinese chessmen that my Dad bought on his last official visit to China, before he left the provincial civil service.
The funny thing is--when I had a chance to play with two Chinese students, they found my jade pieces confusing, and asked to play with the normal (to them) round wooden pieces.
ETA:
Apparently, the Chinese version is closer to the original Indian game, and it has some funky pieces, like the cannon. But I prefer the standard, international version. In my experience, it's much more difficult to attack in Chinese chess, and this leads to more drawn games.
Having played the game a few times, though, I have been able to use it as an illustration whenever I have to lecture on Chinese history (which is not often). Specifically, I mention that in Chinese chess, the Emperor (King) has to stay in his palace with the two Mandarins.
The funny thing is--when I had a chance to play with two Chinese students, they found my jade pieces confusing, and asked to play with the normal (to them) round wooden pieces.
ETA:
Apparently, the Chinese version is closer to the original Indian game, and it has some funky pieces, like the cannon. But I prefer the standard, international version. In my experience, it's much more difficult to attack in Chinese chess, and this leads to more drawn games.
Having played the game a few times, though, I have been able to use it as an illustration whenever I have to lecture on Chinese history (which is not often). Specifically, I mention that in Chinese chess, the Emperor (King) has to stay in his palace with the two Mandarins.
Bad idea to me. I don't think chess improves anything. The skills one uses in chess one either has or doesn't have, and then uses them in chess if they do, can't use them if they don't.
Having it as an open option, however, *is* a good idea.
On a side note: I played Chinese Chess during my elementary school years, too.
Having it as an open option, however, *is* a good idea.
On a side note: I played Chinese Chess during my elementary school years, too.
Similar threads
