And why not other computer games as well?
Chess in the school curriculum? Good idea or bad idea?
Sort:
and remeber dear that in a solo performance you have to think of only what you do? Whereas in a group game another essential drops in and that is, "How can you contribute towards the collective goals?"
Being part of society is just like being part of a team. The one, not trained to trust and to be worthy of trust, means nothing in practical (team/social life). Better think of producing healthy individuals.
May 12, 2009
0
#44
why do you want to brainwash the kids with more computer games ? we got enough of that as is it. I know , I know that sometime computer are helpful, but the idea of chess and other cards and boardgames is to get to get away from the computer and interact with other (real) peoples.
yes
Watch the Lawnmover Man man 
.
They can if they learn
When Im talking about chess in te curriculum its not like free time were the kids get some boards and play blitz with eachothers... Basically they have to learn the boring stuff over and over again basic mates, the board configuration, learn anotations, piece names, rules, etc
That is lots and lots of hours for regular 7 yo to learn how to move the N and much more to understand mate in 1. A real challenge to explain them what is a draw
rich wrote:
No, some people just can't play it. I have learnt many people how to play chess. But some of them just could never pick it up.
maybe its your fault lol
If the message don't get along it is always the emissor fault not the receiver.
As Sun Tsu would put it if the battallion don't understand the orders because they are unclear its the commander's fault
we had it in (how do you call that in english), junior school highest grade. We even had a tournament at the end of the year!
Scarblac wrote:
Nytik wrote:
Even so, wouldn't you be surprised if playing chess had no impact on exam results? Considering the problem solving skills etc.
But on the other hand, time spent on chess is not spent on other things. And I doubt chess is a particularly good way to teach problem solving, and whether it adds much to the problem solving skills kids already acquire from doing problems in other classes.
Is it the objective best way to teach probelm solving? Probably not. But if it interests the kids, and makes them WANT to work on their problem solving skills, then it will yield better results than the standard methods, I imagine.
But I tend to think it should be taught as an extracarricular activity, like a sport or something, after school.
Learning how to be a gracious winner and a good loser are valuable life lessons. That's why kids who play organized sports do better in life (generalizing, I know!) than the A+ student who never plays sports. The sports kid is used to things going wrong, whereas the scholar has trouble later on because he's never faced adversity, never pushed himself to score a goal or avoid being checkmated. My basic point is that anything competitive makes people better.
Good idea, but I don't think many children would like that.
richie_and_oprah wrote:
mschosting wrote:
If the message don't get along it is always the emissor fault not the receiver.
As Sun Tsu would put it if the battallion don't understand the orders because they are unclear its the commander's fault
You may want to study a more modern communicative theory.
No need to really study there its just logic.
A as a message that needs to go to B
A gives the message B still doesen't get the point
2 choices
1 - A gives up maybe B just can't receive the message
2 - A tries different approach on the subject to get the message clear to B
Since the goal of A is to pass the message/information/anything if result = 1 then it was a failure, if A wants to be on the positive side it as to go to option 2, if the same thing happens then he should choose 2 again etc
richie_and_oprah wrote:
Choice 3 is that the reciever is not working properly.
4. Receiver purposely ignores message.
There are other options as well. One can choose to study communicative theory and one can even get an advanced degree in this field. If one wishes to spend some time pursuing the workings of the communication model, one would see there is also the concept of "interference" which creates options that stand outside blaming either the sender or receiver.
that will be the senders fault as well, he should be able to find the interference factors and adapt to it so he can pass the message, otherwise he will just fail in is goal
richie_and_oprah wrote:
mschosting wrote:
that will be the senders fault as well, he should be able to find the interference factors and adapt to it so he can pass the message, otherwise he will just fail in is goal
that will be the senders fault as well, he should be able to find the interference factors and adapt to it so he can pass the message, otherwise he will just fail in is goal
Well, that is one school of thought. But it is a paradigm that most current theoreticians have moved away from. It still has its adherents, but recent learnings have shown this to be not so true in a preponderance of cases studied.
If the reciever is not able to recieve, it is not the fault of the sender, so long as we are talking about two indpendent entities.
So, if a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it, is it the tree's fault for not being motivational enough to assemble an audience?
I'm just askin'.
richie_and_oprah wrote:
mschosting wrote:
richie_and_oprah wrote:
Choice 3 is that the reciever is not working properly.
4. Receiver purposely ignores message.
There are other options as well. One can choose to study communicative theory and one can even get an advanced degree in this field. If one wishes to spend some time pursuing the workings of the communication model, one would see there is also the concept of "interference" which creates options that stand outside blaming either the sender or receiver.
that will be the senders fault as well, he should be able to find the interference factors and adapt to it so he can pass the message, otherwise he will just fail in is goal
Well, that is one school of thought. But it is a paradigm that most current theoreticians have moved away from. It still has its adherents, but recent learnings have shown this to be not so true in a preponderance of cases studied.
If the reciever is not able to recieve, it is not the fault of the sender, so long as we are talking about two indpendent entities.
Teachers do not teach so much as they motivate others to learn, is an applicable concept here.
mmm that is suppose to be a novelty?
+ 400 B.C
Sun Tsu
If the orders don't get accross its the commander fault.
If the orders were clear then its the soldiers fault execute them 
Writch wrote:
richie_and_oprah wrote:
mschosting wrote:
that will be the senders fault as well, he should be able to find the interference factors and adapt to it so he can pass the message, otherwise he will just fail in is goal
that will be the senders fault as well, he should be able to find the interference factors and adapt to it so he can pass the message, otherwise he will just fail in is goal
Well, that is one school of thought. But it is a paradigm that most current theoreticians have moved away from. It still has its adherents, but recent learnings have shown this to be not so true in a preponderance of cases studied.
If the reciever is not able to recieve, it is not the fault of the sender, so long as we are talking about two indpendent entities.
So, if a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it, is it the tree's fault for not being motivational enough to assemble an audience?
I'm just askin'.
Easy its the tree fault...
richie_and_oprah wrote:
mschosting: FWIW, I teach, and I have my own kids. As much as I wish Chess did all the things some of its proponents claim it does, it does not.
It is not a panacea, for anything.
Teaching kids logic puzzles and mathematic word problems is just as effective (usually more) to just as many (usually more), takes less time, and has more real world applications.
that depends on your objective, if you want to teach racional thougt, problem solving exercices, logic, math basis, train concentration and so many other good things, then chess is the way to go. It is not suppose to be given chess instead of math chess can have is place in schools and it as had in some schools successful if it is not apply'd to more its because of economic reasons and not due to the faul of merit of chess class
Bit to much to have a chess in school as a subject, but it is definetly a good activity to do outside of school to compliment a childs studies.
i agree with this, maybe is a good idea just to use it as a introductory to chess and if anyone liked it then you can encourage them go to chess club etc.