what does chess help you improve?

Playing chess doesn't even help improve my chess.  Not playing chess helps me relax.  

@iamdeafzed You are quite right about the limits of anecdotal evidenc However, scientific studies have been done on chess. The results are inconclusive, but suggestive. Anecdotal evidence, too, is suggestive. When anecdotal evidence runs counter to scientific analysis (arguments in American politics are characterized by such cases), the anecdotes are strategies of diversion. Anecdotal evidence, however, may inform efforts to develop appropriate scientific studies. These studies may then confirm the hunch.

Hypotheses do not materialize out of thin air. They grow out of prior studies and they arise from a lump on the head after the fall of an apple, metaphorically speaking.

The best chess related studies have not examined the benefits of chess. Chess has served as a means to test ideas regarding human memory, especially the memories of exceptional performers. Despite these studies since 1894, the results have not affected popular misconceptions regarding so-called photographic memory.

Even so, there have been studies on the benefits of chess. These studies have shown academic improvements. The controls have been weak in most cases. Hypotheses that chess improves academic performance remain tentative hypotheses.

It is not true that no studies have been done. It is not true that there is no scientific evidence that supports the observations of clms_chess. It is not true that benefits have been proven through rigorous studies.

Many more tests have been done.

The relationship between Anastasia's checkmate and differential equations is a textbook example of moving the goalposts.

You need to do a little more. Maybe a lot more.

My dogs did eat the security envelope for my ballot for last week's election. Consequently, I had to go to a polling center to get another one, and I had to tell them my dogs ate the envelope. Those old ladies laughed at me. Both ladies and the man there laughed. Then one old lady told the other, "give the poor kid an envelope." My dogs tore up my Costco coupon book, too. I told them about that. They didn't laugh. Coupons are serious business.

The studies that I have seen related to chess and aging have been limited to popular press (they mention actual research, but the reporters fail to describe the research well, as reporters always will). These articles have listed chess among other mental agility games, including crossword puzzles and Sudoku. I hope they are correct. I'm hoping chess will help me to remember the names of my children.

I am in my 50s. My memory is showing evidence of lacking capacities that it had when I was in my 30s. However, my chess skill is improving. I expect to be better at 60 than I was at 50. I may even get close to master by then. Maybe even cross that threshhold.

Totally agree!

Interesting inquiry, I likewise also wondered too, if chess, if at all improved or developed transferable skills. I typed a blog some time ago which raises the same question...

http://www.chess.com/blog/kiwi_overtherainbow/the-invisible-gorilla-formula-to-success

I believe chess has many advantages, one being is that it is a venue which provides a platform to practice problem solving, a test to see if you remain calm, to assess your logical methodical approach to thinking. It can help develop a thinking mind, thinking is a skill, which many of us take a lifetime to acquire.  

Chess has given me some really nice biceps.  I went from 8 inches to 14 inches in 28 days.

I think chess can make you "smarter", it can improve visualization, memory, discipline and logical thought. Also it is a training tool to exsercise your brain, like sudoku but an another level.

I don't think it makes you smarter however, can help with learning patience, strategy, deception, etc...

I'll be blunt...what's your point exactly? Because I read your reply and frankly, I came to the conclusion that you don't even have a good grasp of what's being argued here. You managed to argue two completely contradictory points in your rejoinder:

1.) However, scientific studies have been done on chess. The results are inconclusive, but suggestive.

And then:
2.) These studies have shown academic improvements.

So which is it? Stance 1. or 2.?

In addition, you went off on an entirely irrelevant tangent about how anecdotal 'evidence' (which is to say, no evidence at all) inspires hypotheses for future experiments. So let's be clear: how scientific hypotheses are or aren't inspired has nothing to do with what's being argued here. It's entirely irrelevant.

Lastly, you obviously didn't understand the point I was making in comparing Anastasia's mate to math. Follow me here...if chess-playing causes students to perform better in their academic studies (as you've at least argued via point 2. above), then it must follow that chess-playing improves a student's performance in at least one subject. That subject could be art, music, math, writing, basket weaving, or something else entirely, but it has to be at least one subject.
In other words, the fact that I chose to compare Anastasia's mate to math instead of basket weaving is completely irrelevant.

I learned how to peel oranges thanks to chess.

@iamdeafzed My point is that you clearly do not understand the research that has been done, nor how it has been done, nor why. You perceive a contradiction where none exists because such research is outside your area of competence.

 These studies have shown academic improvements. These scientific studies are inconclusive because there have been too few, and some have lacked adequate controls.

The studies that have been done are a beginning. The research has been limited, but it is far from non-existent, far from unscientific. 

Teaching fifth graders chess has helped them learn multiplication, according to research. It also has helped with reading. The elementary students tested were not reading Paul De Man, The Rhetoric of Romanticism but may be have been reading Madeleine L'Engle, A Wrinkle in Time. Differential equations is comparable to De Man. Fifth grade math is more akin to fifth grade reading like L'Engle. You are offering college math to test elementary school chess. That's moving goalposts to another city, not just further away on a single field.

the 'fact' is this: chess is both modern and postmodern, always has been, always will be, until that great big solution in the sky 'solves' chess. Chess has always lived at the intersection of modern and postmodern, long before postmodern even had its first birthpangs. Chess is both logical and romantic, rule-following and thumbing-its-nose-at-rules, art and science;trying to make it fit one or the other is doomed to reductionist trivialism.  

Something to that affect was suggested in post #79, but was not unanimously recieved.

It helps you improve at chess

There are two extreme views that dominate these discussions:

a) chess offers no secondary benefits, and

b) chess has proven educational / social / emotional benefits.

Both of these views are wrong. Some research supports the second view, but advocates of the first can easily point out weaknesses in the research.

Another thread on this topic brought out a useful link: http://people.brunel.ac.uk/~hsstffg/preprints/chess_and_education.PDF. The book that article appeared in was published in 2006. I read it then. I have not carefully compared the web version to the printed version, but my impression after reading both is that there were no substantive changes between presentation and publication.

The conclusion there expresses what I have been attempting to suggest:

"...there is a huge chasm between the strong claims often found in chess literature and the rather inconclusive findings of a limited number of studies. The extant evidence seems to indicate that (a) the possible effects of optional chess instruction are still an open question; (b) compulsory instruction is not to be recommended, as it seems to lead to motivational problems; and (c) while chess instruction may be beneficial at the beginning, the benefits seem to decrease as chess skill improves, because of the amount of practice necessary and the specificity of the knowledge that is acquired. 

 This chapter has critically reviewed the extant literature, and has proposed avenues for further research. We hope that the somewhat negative conclusions we have reached will stimulate the next wave of empirical studies. While chess may not 'make kids smarter,' it may offer what De Groot calls 'low-level gains' for our society, and it would be a pity not to exploit this opportunity." 

When did I ever say there was no research done on this topic? Give me even one example of something I typed that suggests this. All I've argued is that (to my knowledge) such research has not demonstrably established a causation between chess-playing and improved academic performance. I'll ask you point blank...do you even understand clearly what I've been arguing the whole time?

"Teaching fifth graders chess has helped them learn multiplication, according to research. It also has helped with reading"

Ok, so you are asserting causation between chess-playing and academic performance. Give me some details about these studies that (you claim) demonstrate this. Some articles that have abstracts on the studies done would be preferrable, but I suppose I could settle on a few details about the studies done (what years they were conducted, names of the scientists involved, how many students they tested, what the general testing methods were, etc.)

And once again, I'll explain what should be obvious, but apparently isn't. So read carefully. If (as you assert) chess-playing causes improved academic performance, then it must follow that the improved academic performance will manifest itself in at least one area of academics. That area could be 5th grade math, it could be college-level math, it could be post-graduate level math, it could be 1st grade reading level, it could be 7th grade basket weaving level, it could be kindergarten level spelling. For our purposes, it doesn't matter what specific area of academia we're talking about. All that matters is that chess-playing improves something. I used differential equations merely as an example (hence the phrase, 'for example').
So how is saying that your assertion must improve some area of academics moving the goal posts?

Teaching does not cause effective student performance. However, good quality teaching is not without affect.

Student learning is not physics.

(Do I need to explain the difference between effect and affect?)

oh brother. here come the arrogant,  self-congratulatory put downs.  There goes the neighborhood. 

Ian Rogers has an interesting take on today's game: http://m.thehindu.com/sport/other-sports/a-morethanuseful-achievement/article5333287.ece/

Meh, I think people are making a big deal over nothing.  Let's see what's happened after 5 games.  First WCC game jitters, laziness, stupidity, feigning, overconfidence, who knows.  IMO doesn't really matter and too soon to say.

More reasonable to try harder with white?  Absolutely.  But Carlsen is staying true to his style.  Lazy in the opening.  It got him this far.  I find the sentiment "got him this far, but he can't win with it" to be silly.