Chess in schools?

Should chess be a mandatory course in schools, next to math, biology, etc., even taught perhaps as early as elementary school?  Or is it inappropriate to teach it as a subject?

I don't think it should be taught as a subject. It improves acedemic performance, but it is not necessary for live. Math and language is. It would be nice if more schools had chess clubs, but chess shouldn't be taught as a subject.

Joseph Henry Blackburne was asked this question, and replied:

Decidedly not. I know a lot of people who hold the view that Chess is an excellent means of training the mind in logic and shrewd calculation, prevision, and caution. But I don't find these qualities reflected in the lives of Chess Players. They are just as fallible, and as foolish if you like, as other folk who don't know a Rook from a Pawn. But even if it were a form of mental discipline—which I take leave to doubt—I should still object to it on the ground of its fatal fascination. Chess is a kind of mental alcohol. It inebriates the man who plays it constantly. He lives in a chess atmosphere, and his dreams are of gambits and end games. I have known many an able man ruined by Chess. The game has charmed him, and as a consequence he has given up everything to the charmer. No; unless a man has supreme self-control it is better that he should not learn to play Chess.

See Edward Winter, "Chess and Alcohol" (January 7, 2009).

Playing at Chess, is the most ancient and the most universal game known among men; for its original is beyond the memory of history, and it has, for numberless ages, been the amusement of all the civilized nations of Asia, the Persians, the Indians, and the Chinese. Europe has had it above a thousand years; the Spaniards have spread it over their part of America, and it begins lately to make its appearance in these States. It is so interesting in itself, as not to need the view of gain to induce engaging in it; and thence it is never played for money. Those, therefore, who have leisure for such diversions, cannot find one that is more innocent ; and the following piece, written with a view to correct (among a few young friends) some little improprieties in the practice of it, shows at the same time that it may, in its effects on the mind, be not merely innocent, but advantageous, to the vanquished as well as to the victor. The Game of Chess is not merely an idle amusement. Several very valuable qualities of the mind, useful in the course of human life, are to be acquired or strengthened by it, so as to become habits, ready on all occasions. For Life is a kind of Chess, in which we have often points to gain, and competitors or adversaries to contend with, and in which there is a vast variety of good and ill events, that are, in some degree, the effects of prudence or the want of it. By playing at chess, then, we may learn,

I Foresight , which looks a little into futurity, and considers the consequences that may attend an action ; for it is continually occurring to the player, "If I move this piece, what will be the advantages of my new situation? What use can my adversary make of it to annoy me? What other moves can I make to support it, and to defend myself from his attacks?"

         II. Circumspection , which surveys the whole chess-board, or scene of action, the relations of the several pieces and situations, the dangers they are respectively exposed to, the several possibilities of their aiding each other, the probabilities that the adversary may make this or that move, and attack this or the other piece ; and what different means can be used to avoid his stroke, or turn its consequences against him.  

III. Caution , not to make our moves too hastily. This habit is best acquired by observing strictly the laws of the game, such as, "If you touch a piece, you must move it somewhere ; if you set it down, you must let it stand:" and it is therefore best that these rules should be observed, as the game thereby becomes more the image of human life, and particularly of war; in which, if you have incautiously put yourself into a bad and dangerous position, you cannot obtain your enemy's leave to withdraw your troops, and place them more securely, but you must abide all the consequences of your rashness.

And, lastly, we learn by chess the habit of not being discouraged by present bad appearances in the state of our affairs, the habit of hoping for a favorable change , and that of persevering in the search of resources . The game is so full of events, there is such a variety of turns in it, the fortune of it is so subject to sudden vicissitudes, and one so frequently, after contemplation, discovers the means of extricating one's self from a supposed insurmountable difficulty, that one is encouraged to continue the contest to the last, in hopes of victory by our own skill, or, at least, of giving a stale mate, by the negligence of our adversary. And whoever considers, what in chess he often sees instances of, that particular pieces of success are apt to produce presumption, and its consequent, inattention, by which more is afterwards lost than was gained by the preceding advantage, while misfortunes produce more care and attention, by which the loss may be recovered, will learn not to be too much discouraged by the present success of his adversary, nor to despair of final good fortune, upon every little check he receives in the pursuit of it, That we may, therefore, be induced more frequently to choose this beneficial amusement, in preference to others which are not attended with the same advantages, every circumstance which may increase the pleasures of it should be regarded; and every action or word that is unfair, disrespectful, or that in any way may give uneasiness, should be avoided, as contrary to the immediate intention of both the players, which is, to pass the time agreeably. Therefore, firstly: If it is agreed to play according to the strict rules, then those rules are to be exactly observed by both parties ; and should not be insisted on for one side, while deviated from by the other: for this is not equitable. Secondly. If it is agreed not to observe the rules exactly, but one party demands indulgences, he should then be as willing to allow them to the other. Thirdly. No false move should ever be made to extricate yourself out of a difficulty, or to gain an advantage. There can be no pleasure in playing with a person once detected in such unfair practices. Fourthly. If your adversary is long in playing, you ought not to hurry him, or express any uneasiness at his delay. You should not sing, nor whistle, nor look at your watch, nor take up a book to read, nor make a tapping with your feet on the floor, or with your fingers on the table, nor do any thing that may disturb his attention. For all these things displease ; and they do not show your skill in playing, but your craftiness or rudeness. Fifthly. You ought not to endeavour to amuse and deceive your adversary, by pretending to have made bad moves, and saying you have now lost the game, in order to make him secure and careless, and inattentive to your schemes; for this is fraud, and deceit, not skill in the game. Sixthly. You must not, when you have gained a victory, use any triumphing or insulting expression, nor show too much pleasure ; but endeavour to console your adversary, and make him less dissatisfied with himself by every kind and civil expression, that may be used with truth, such as, "You understand the game better than I, but you are a little inattentive ;" or, "You had the best of the game, but something happened to divert your thoughts, and that turned it in my favour." Seventhly. If you are a spectator while others play, observe the most perfect silence: For if you give advice, you offend both parties ; him, against whom you give it, because it may cause the loss of his game; him, in whose favour you give it, because, though it be good, and he follows it, he loses the pleasure he might have had, if you had permitted him to think till it occurred to himself. Even after a move or moves, you must not, by replacing the pieces, show how it might have been played better: for that displeases, and may occasion disputes or doubts about their true situation. All talking to the players, lessens or diverts their attention, and is therefore unpleasing: Nor should you give the least hint to either party, by any kind of noise or motion. If you do, you are unworthy to be a spectator. If you have a mind to exercise or show your judgement, do it in playing your own game when you have an opportunity, not in criticising, or meddling with, or counselling the play of others. Lastly. If the game is not to be played rigorously according to the rules above mentioned, then moderate your desire of victory over your adversary, and be pleased with one over yourself. Snatch not eagerly at every advantage offered by his unskillfulness or inattention; but point out to him kindly, that by such a move he places or leaves a piece in danger and unsupported; that by another he will put his king in a dangerous situation, &c. By this generous civility (so opposite to the unfairness above forbidden) you may, indeed, happen to lose the game to your opponent, but you will win what is better, his esteem, his respect, and his affection; together with the silent approbation and good will of impartial spectators.

- me

I'd figure that once kids know the game, it may be used as a vehicle to better learn and understand other concepts, and comprehend it easier....who knows....

Chess can be a good club or elective... Unfortunately, not enough people will take it as a regular course in order to maintain it...

ADK

"Inappropriate"? No. But a wise use of time and money? No.

Only a few students in every class would take a course on chess seriously. And think of all the whiners who would complain that their GPAs are being lowered because they can't maintain a 1600 rating =/

right

Chess is fun and all but it probably should not be taught as a subject but should rather be played as an after school club or just for free time.

Kirsan Ilyumzhinov has made chess a mandatory class during the first three years of elementary schools, in the Republic of Kalmykia.

I'm calling shenanigans on HeavyArtillery.  Most of that whole thing was Ben Franklin's "Morals of Chess"

Don't take credit when it isn't yours to take.

no. should be an elective to other school activity. 

I don't see anything wrong with offering chess as a subject for credit, but it shouldn't be mandatory.

I would like the idea of having more educational chess clubs: what schools could do is research local chess clubs and recruit strong players from them as coaches. This might keep kids more interested as they would know they are improving

In Russia there is experience of teaching chess in specific schools.

It's positive.

Chess is a game that appeals to the mind that enjoys solving problems. That being said, there seems to be two types of children in this regard: those who like to solve problems and those who like to create problems...lol

In my humble opinion, nowadays chess as a required course would not work in American public schools, particularly not in elementary or even middle school. The American child has too much freedom (and they know it) and too many other choices and distractions (Wii, PlayStation, etc.). I have witnessed, however, chess being offered as an elective in some private high schools. My oldest son was in an after-school academic program when he was 13, and part of his curriculum was chess.  The goal was not to find a prodigy, but to compliment the logic course he had to take. There was no in-depth study, just set up some boards and let the kids play.

I think that chess is a good thing to learn, but I believe that it's more important to get children involved in team sports. We Americans can be so egotistical; we already think we're smarter than everybody in the world. A one-on-one game like chess will only exacerbate our hubris. Team sports teach leadership and how to respect and rely on your teammates.