The Right Way to Teach Chess to Kids

[Joshua Hu]

Re: The Right Way to Teach Chess to Kids

Comments so far

Let me just confess that I haven't finished reading the book yet. Nor have I done the sort of careful comparison of the teaching manuals that is needed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If you've really read his book then you know that these aren't his expectations at all. The whole point is to prolong, for younger children in particular, the period of learning to play chess. During this longer period of time, and in contrast to the approach in which children are taught how to move the pieces as quickly as possible, the learning about chess is deeper. By the time the kids can play a full game with all the pieces, they actually do something beyond random shuffling of the pieces. We are talking about all the kids, not just the talented ones.



James is looking at the results of chess teaching in the aggregate. That is, what happens with the thousands of kids who are taught chess? Why do so many drop out? And so on. Making generalizations about the tiny elite that play in the NAYCC kind of misses the point. He's looking at the big picture.



They not only drop out of any competitive chess, they stop playing altogether, says James. He is looking at the thousands and thousands of kids that are taught chess. And the reason for that goes deeper than other activities taking over. James claims it has to do with how children reach a kind of ceiling in their learning, they do not improve any more, and, as a result, they are frustrated with the lack of progress and abandon an activity in which they are not improving.

These other activities can be very expensive and chess, in comparison, is much cheaper. "One in three Canadian families can’t afford to enrol their kids in sports and recreation." So there are plenty out there who could be playing chess. Why aren't they?

(See http://jumpstart.canadiantire.ca/en/...y-penny-counts )

-------------------------------------------------------------------



Thanks for the reply Hans. Making things fun is critical, there's no doubt about that. James divides chess clubs into three kinds of services or groupings. He talks about

1) a club for beginners, teaching from scratch.
2) a drop in club. This is the typical NA chess club, no instruction is provided, children may or may not be welcome, and this is also the most "fun". However, as I've noted above, James claims this may simply lead to frustration and abandonment of chess.
3) an advanced club. teaching goes on, but at a higher level, in preparation for tournament play.

So, he's noting the same kind of divide that you have. He just wants to do things a little differently for the younger kids. ( number 1 above)

--------------------------------------------

Ken Kurkowski... regarding the cultural place of chess in society. I would add, as well, that sporting associations in Europe often transcend any one sport. In a word, sport is more democratically organized in Europe whereas we seem to have a heavy emphasis on elite/spectator sport and the rest can go to hell. (to be blunt)

I would say that we live in an anti-intellectual culture and this is an uphill battle. But it's worth it. Obviously, most of feel that way, why else participate in a chess discussion board?

--------------------------------------

Anyway, I am grateful for all of the comments. Let me finish the book and then I can explain how I missed his points entirely. lol.

here's the problem though, you teach kids how to move the pieces for a year, and then you have other kids who get it, and move on to tournament play etc. kids aren't stupid. it's kind of like when they trie dto make things not competitive by not keeping score during soccer games, but the kids all kept score. so the kids learning how the pieces move are gong to see the other kids playing in tournaments getting prizes etc, and they still haven't been taught how to checkmate, which is what james advocates. they will realize they are on the slow track and likely will drop out anyway.

kids may stop playing chess as they get older, but they also stop playing monopoly and other board games, and those are free/cheap. they do continue to play computer games which is probably the biggest non-sport rival for kids attention. there is one way to get them to stop playing computer games. require that they spend a year learning how to type and use a mouse before they play any games.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: The Right Way to Teach Chess to Kids

here's the problem though, you teach kids how to move the pieces for a year, and then you have other kids who get it, and move on to tournament play etc. kids aren't stupid.

The advanced kids will move ahead no matter what. I think this is cultural, in part, and maybe they're just not culturally in as much of a hurry as those of us in the Anglosphere are. Let me do a more careful read as well. Maybe I am expressing this idea incorrectly.

kids may stop playing chess as they get older, but they also stop playing monopoly and other board games, and those are free/cheap. they do continue to play computer games which is probably the biggest non-sport rival for kids attention. there is one way to get them to stop playing computer games. require that they spend a year learning how to type and use a mouse before they play any games.

This is a very good idea. I learned to keyboard/type before using a computer and it has served me very well. I've seen all sorts of people with various repetitive strain injuries of one sort or another since they skipped this step and had a job in which typing quickly was required. I sometimes think we are going to wind up with a whole generation with thumbs that no longer work properly.

There is some good data showing that kids are spending more and more time in front of the "3 TV screens" (TV, computer, and smartphone) See "How TV zombifies us and pacifies us and subverts democracy" by Bruce Levine for some actual numbers.

One aspect that I have perhaps not emphasized enough here is the whole question of the benefits of chess beyond the competitive sporting aspect. Not everyone goes on to play competitively, so James addresses this. He wants to be able to show benefits to all children who learn chess, to have more actually stick with chess (even if they don't play competitively), and I suppose to enrich chess culture generally by doing so.

He actually abandoned teaching chess in schools as he found that the long term benefits were questionable. He went back and studied pedagogy and how children learn to solve the problem. He still is associated with a chess club and has books and a website for teaching and playing.

Anyway, thanks again. More to follow, eventually.

[Joshua Hu]

Re: The Right Way to Teach Chess to Kids

The advanced kids will move ahead no matter what. I think this is cultural, in part, and maybe they're just not culturally in as much of a hurry as those of us in the Anglosphere are. Let me do a more careful read as well. Maybe I am expressing this idea incorrectly.






This is a very good idea. I learned to keyboard/type before using a computer and it has served me very well. I've seen all sorts of people with various repetitive strain injuries of one sort or another since they skipped this step and had a job in which typing quickly was required. I sometimes think we are going to wind up with a whole generation with thumbs that no longer work properly.

There is some good data showing that kids are spending more and more time in front of the "3 TV screens" (TV, computer, and smartphone) See "How TV zombifies us and pacifies us and subverts democracy" by Bruce Levine for some actual numbers.

One aspect that I have perhaps not emphasized enough here is the whole question of the benefits of chess beyond the competitive sporting aspect. Not everyone goes on to play competitively, so James addresses this. He wants to be able to show benefits to all children who learn chess, to have more actually stick with chess (even if they don't play competitively), and I suppose to enrich chess culture generally by doing so.

He actually abandoned teaching chess in schools as he found that the long term benefits were questionable. He went back and studied pedagogy and how children learn to solve the problem. He still is associated with a chess club and has books and a website for teaching and playing.

Anyway, thanks again. More to follow, eventually.

james has more stuff in his blog

http://chessimprover.com/category/richard-james/

i see the merits in aspects of his approach, but i think the time frame he's talking about could probably be compressed by 3 or 4 times, if not more.

he has nigel davies a a believer in the system and from what i understand nigel wouldn't let his son play a full game of chess until he was 12.
i don't know his son, but nigel is fanatical about this. i frankly think it's taking interesting ideas too far.
i still think james underestimates the ability of children to learn concepts, and concepts in chess, and dropping out has more to do with other factors. in my opinion, a big factor not talked about by james, is the role sugar has in children dropping out of chess. most kids are jacked on sugar, and thus cannot sit still or resist the urge to move immediately, which therefore causes kids to fail to make progress since they physically can;'t be patient. this happens whether they are playing James' modified pawn games or real tournament games.

[Bindi Cheng]

Re: The Right Way to Teach Chess to Kids

james has more stuff in his blog

http://chessimprover.com/category/richard-james/

i see the merits in aspects of his approach, but i think the time frame he's talking about could probably be compressed by 3 or 4 times, if not more.

he has nigel davies a a believer in the system and from what i understand nigel wouldn't let his son play a full game of chess until he was 12.
i don't know his son, but nigel is fanatical about this. i frankly think it's taking interesting ideas too far.
i still think james underestimates the ability of children to learn concepts, and concepts in chess, and dropping out has more to do with other factors. in my opinion, a big factor not talked about by james, is the role sugar has in children dropping out of chess. most kids are jacked on sugar, and thus cannot sit still or resist the urge to move immediately, which therefore causes kids to fail to make progress since they physically can;'t be patient. this happens whether they are playing James' modified pawn games or real tournament games.

Yeah I'd have to agree with Joshua on the sugar aspect. I've had many students in the past who just could not sit still no matter what I tell them, but more importantly the ones I see staying in chess are usually the ones winning. You have kids winning their local provincials, then the nationals and then they get owned at the World Youth. This cycle repeats for a few years before the kids who just rely on their innate talent start giving up even though they could actually be decent if they kept going. Human beings naturally pick the past of least resistance in life and chess is not a easy road at all and is therefore practically speaking, not for everyone. Talented kids like Razvan Preotu and Michael Song who are 13-14 years old (I think) spend all their time on chess while kids their age are playing computer games like dota (my favorite) or starcraft or playing football or soccer outside. Those things are a lot easier than chess and is probably less stressful too. I just think if you just look at the average kid in chess, they're just not cut out for the game that seemingly has no end in sight. There's always a higher goal to reach and progress is endless. No matter what the philosophy is in teaching chess to kids, I don't think most kids are willing to dedicate their time to something so hard and relentless when a easier path could be taken.

[Ken Kurkowski]

Re: The Right Way to Teach Chess to Kids

"I don't think most kids are willing to dedicate their time to something so hard and relentless when a easier path could be taken"
Absolutely true IMO! There's been a lot written recently about the relative roles of talent and practice (e.g. Malcolm Gladwell's 10k hrs of practice) in producing World Champions. I believe both are necessary, but I also think that 'talent' includes not just the ability to run fast or shoot a hockey puck accurately, or calculate complicated variations on a chess board. An important attribute is having an obsession with a certain activity, the willingness to spend hours and hours training (with minimal urging from parents/coaches). Whether that's a healthy thing is up for debate. The more potential reward is available (e.g. NBA basketball salaries), or social respect (e.g. cancer researcher) the healthier the obsession, I guess.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: The Right Way to Teach Chess to Kids

An important attribute is having an obsession with a certain activity, the willingness to spend hours and hours training (with minimal urging from parents/coaches). Whether that's a healthy thing is up for debate. .

This is also personality, neither good nor bad. Some people go through life doing many things half well or good enough to get by. Others like to focus on a single thing and get very good at it. Competitive chess probably attracts more of the latter.

[Joshua Hu]

Re: The Right Way to Teach Chess to Kids

This is also personality, neither good nor bad. Some people go through life doing many things half well or good enough to get by. Others like to focus on a single thing and get very good at it. Competitive chess probably attracts more of the latter.

here's james' own thoughts on the amount of effort

http://chessimprover.com/the-cynical-chess-teacher/

basically here's a paradox of his approach, kids shouldn't start too young and should start slowly. but when they get to 8 or 9 they are by his own admission too busy with other things. he states "we need to get across a different message- that if you like the game you must find time to continue because you'll develop thinking skills which will help you academically" but is the academic benefit of chess so great at age 9 that one would postpone, say learning french as he cites? i don't know, and it probably depends on the child. For the most part james sounds like an exasperated piano teacher watching the majority of his students quit after age 9. i agree with Bindi ", I don't think most kids are willing to dedicate their time to something so hard and relentless when a easier path could be taken." and this applies to piano or many other extracurricular activities where you have to work at it. i'm not really sure why chess should hold a much high status than say music. at the end of the day it's a game and you play it if you like to play it.

further if you read james' article, he talks about sitting with a kid who's just gone through 3 hours of math and french. even a 9 year old, to do that much studying, and then SIT and do chess. you can see why say hockey or other sports has an appeal because you are actually physically moving. at 9 years old the benefits of being physically fit probably outweigh any academic benefit of chess. so with james suggesting that you take a go slow approach, by the time the kids get around to actually playing a real game and thus finding of if they actually truly enjoy a real game of chess, the pull of other extracurriculars takes over. No wonder the guy is exasperated. there is really a slim window of time (probably age 5-9) IMO when you can introduce kids to chess before other activities take over, whereby you can find out if they really enjoy the game or have potential talent. in James' model kids would not start until 8 or 9 and spend a year learning to move the pieces. During this time the window of opportunity rapidly closes and kids will likely drop out before they even play their first tournament game.

much of what James writes strikes me as a purist approach. he cites kids currently mimicking moves rather than fully understanding them. this sounds like a piano teacher might saying a kid playing twinkle twinkle poorly doesn't understand the full beauty of twinkle twinkle, and is just mimicking what the teacher is says. no kidding. but how can you know if you are going to enjoying playing the piano if you only learn how to press the keys and don't attempt to play a whole song? again the window for capturing the attention of kids is short.

Don't get me wrong, i like chess, i think it's good for kids, but it's probably just as good as any number of other things kids do and then drop out of as they get older, unless they are very dedicated to the game as Bindi says and to be dedicated you need to make sacrifices.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: The Right Way to Teach Chess to Kids

Telling kids to sit down when they are "hyper" is just a really bad idea in my opinion, though I see people doing it all the time. At the Ottawa chess camp we have two one-hour periods where the kids run around (soccer being the most common activity). I noticed over the course of my first few camps that the kids who were the most hyper during the classes were the ones who ran the least. So I made it my goal to force those kids to run at least as much as the others. That had a marked effect on the amount of jitters that kids got during the chess portions of the week.

BTW, I don't think it is the sugar in the diet that is the problem with "hyperactivity", though obviously people on average consume way too much sugar. It's the almost complete lack of physical exercise that children do that is the problem. Take organized sports. A kid playing a 60-minute hockey game is on the ice for maybe 20(?) minutes. Between going to the rink, suiting up, sitting around during intermissions and when others are on the ice, then changing back and going home, the whole enchilada has to be at least a couple of hours. Compare that to playing street hockey, which was popular when I was a kid. You wrangle a bunch of neighbour kids and you are starting in less than ten minutes. No substitutions, no intermissions. We would play all day with only breaks for meals. Way more exercise.