what does chess help you improve?

Sort:
onthehouse
Ziryab wrote:
AxeKnight wrote:

 

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

Mostly hyperbole it seems to me.

clms_chess
iamdeafzed wrote:
clms_chess wrote:
iamdeafzed wrote:

Q: What does chess help you improve?

A: It helps you improve at playing more chess. And perhaps it's time better spent than, say, watching episodes of Star Trek Voyager on TV.
Aside from that? Probably not all that much. Chess is very esoteric in the sense that it doesn't typically have much applicability to the outside world, much like a lot of higher level mathematics. Although math actually takes some brains to do whereas it's much easier to play chess reasonably well without being particularly bright.

I do recall that those who play chess during their school years tend to make for better students (on average) than those who don't (all other things being equal), but of course correlation isn't necessarily causation, so it's quite possible that the better students are just more attracted to chess playing for whatever reason.

Also, I haven't read up a lot on this particular topic (especially lately), but I've done a little.

(Coached Chess going on 10 years (also taught at the same school for 8 years... see above post)

Nope.... their grades DO improve, because of chess. I am not quoting some study... I "see" it every year. Some kids who already have good grades play chess for me.... but it's the ones that were D and F students for years and then turn it around after playing competitive scholastic chess for a year or more....that really stand out... looking back through the years, I can still "see" their faces... and... remember some names. :)

Sorry, but your anectodal "evidence" (as well as Ziryab's) for your apparent belief that playing chess causes students to improve in their school studies is circumstantial at best. During your time watching D and F students turn into something better, did you factor in things like the observer/confirmation bias that perhaps led you not to notice the kids who showed absolutely zero improvement in their grades or perhaps whose grades went down? Were you even aware of what grades all your students got before and after they started taking lessons from you? Hm?

There's a reason why people do science, and it's to substantiate whether or not theories like yours that are based on nothing other than anecdotal "evidence" (which is to say, just about no evidence at all) are based on fact or otherwise.

Look, maybe you're right that chess playing does cause students to perform better in school. But to my knowledge at least, this has yet to proven unequivocally in the scientific community, and like it or not, that's what matters. I respect your experience teaching chess insofar as it has perhaps given you better intuition on the matter, but don't pass off your intuition as "evidence" either. It's not.

Oh, and chess may help with "...with problem solving, visualizing, strategizing, anticipation, focus, concentrateing, thinking skills, have fun, and much more", but here's the problem: no one (again, to my knowledge) has been able to demonstrably show that these aspects of problem solving, etc. extend much beyond the chess world. There's zero evidence, for example, that learning Anastasia's mate helps you solve differential equations (or something) better.

The problem with assuming things about people that you have never met and consequently know nothing about (and having an all knowing condescending attitude) is... if your assumptions are wrong... they fly right back in your face. :D

I taught reading for 8 years at the 6th 7th and at the 8th grade level (My first two years I only taught 6th). Most of my chess students were also my reading students who I received as 6th graders, but then would also have them as 7th and 8th graders. So, after having the same students for a number of years, I yesssss... knew their grades (They were my students!). But, there is sooo much more. As teachers we had to have a file of data... for each student... student grades, FCAT (State Reading Math and Science test scores), and Discovery (Reading) test scores going back three years in order to follow trends (e.g. In my case as a reading teacher student's increase or decrease reading skills in main idea, compare and contrast, drawing conclusions, etc etc etc within those 3 years). At strategic times during the year including two weeks into the school year, teachers would share their DATA with other teachers (e.g. I share my reading scores with math, math teachers share theirs with me) during a "teacher work day" (students are off) lovingly called... Data Day. 

The reason for all this... is to have detailed reading math and science scores profile for each student going back 3 years... at your finger tips. 

Why?

So you could adjust lesson plans to meet each student's individual needs (e.g. Some students are great at understanding the main idea but not so much the order of events).

So, with all this information history for each kid... IT WAS EASY TO SEE if one group of easily identifiable kids (my chess kids) made significant gains (grades and very specific reading math or science academic skill improvements) over another group of kids (non chess playing).   

Why do I share ALL this (the point)? 

To illustrate that my "observations" were not just based on a few glances at a couple of report cards per quarter, but based on real streaming data that was easily followed up and referred to so as to compare and contrast to a student's previous month, quarter or year.

The chess training I put them through isn't your once a week meet after school for an hour and pair up and play with a few lessons thrown in. It is DAILY regiment with very specific things they have to do that requires a large amount of self discipline and a large amount of my time. What are these things?...ahh thats my secret, but I can tell you that it has been good enough to win four county chess championships vs. up to 25 other middle schools including rich academy schools. 

So does that mean that every kid that plays chess for me has improved grades...  from one year over another... no. But do most kids grades FCAT scores improve compared to non playing students... YES!  

Do i think that chess makes them smarter? Not completely sure either way but I do agree with your last paragraph. More so is that they have way more self discipline, more focus, more confidance, greatly improved decision making skills all of which translate to a better student. 

Now that I got that at out of the way, can I ask you a few questions?

Have you ever taught at any level for any significant time?

Have you ever known students and their family so well that you could ask how their mom, sister brother is doing..... BY NAME.

Have you ever sat at a student's kitchen table with their parent(s) and discussed said grades and FCAT scores (and chess) and bragged about the great things their son or daughter is doing? (Yup, I was one of THOSE teachers).

Have you ever experienced a kids self confidence soar after consistantly beating adademy kids month after month and the subsequent "chess fever" excitment and pride generated at home ("My kid is playing chess? Chess?! and winning?!").   

Have you ever paid $300-$500 every year of your own money to register kids so they can play in tournaments (because their parent(s) does not have the money) because you are convinced that playing in your chess program will change their life for the better? 

You can go ahead and make your lofty pronouncments that mean absolutelly NOTHING to a kid and I will continue to do what I do... help kids. :D

iamdeafzed
Ziryab wrote:
iamdeafzed wrote:
[snip]


And once again, I'll explain what should be obvious, but apparently isn't. So read carefully. If (as I did not 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? (one edit)

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?)

Let's be clear here: the definitions of affect vs. effect (influence vs. result, to oversimplify a tad) have nothing to do with this argument. It's causation vs. correlation. I've tried to get a definitive stance from you multiple times on whether you believe there's a direct casual link between chess-playing and improved academic performance. You either believe there is or you don't. It's that simple. You asserted earlier:

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

The key word in this sentence is "helped". So let me ask...by "helped" do you mean "caused", or do you mean "correlated with". If the former, then you're positively arguing a direct casual link. In which case I want your evidence that you believe substantiates this claim.
If you're arguing the latter, then I've misinterpreted what you've been saying this entire time and all that needs to be said (and which I thought we both already agreed to) is that "correlation does not necessarily imply causation".

Ok?

Somebodysson

clms_chess wrote: <The problem with assuming things about people that you have never met and consequently know nothing about (and having an all knowing condescending attitude) is... if your assumptions are wrong... they fly right back in your face>

precisely. In my few weeks on these forums I have seen a lot of very friendly and collegial sharing of information, experiences, etc; I've also seen some ridiculous condescending accusations made about people the accuser had no knowledge about, accusations about the other person's knowledge, education, understanding of concepts, etc. Amazing.

The reliability and development (there isn't a good single English word for this word, development; in German it's 'Bildung', in  French it's 'formation', which means all of the following simultaneously: 'education and training/emotional and spiritual development/wisdom borne of experience', etc) of the accuser, imho, always dropped in my estimation. 

clms_chess
Somebodysson wrote:

clms_chess wrote: <The problem with assuming things about people that you have never met and consequently know nothing about (and having an all knowing condescending attitude) is... if your assumptions are wrong... they fly right back in your face>

precisely. In my few weeks on these forums I have seen a lot of very friendly and collegial sharing of information, experiences, etc; I've also seen some ridiculous condescending accusations made about people the accuser had no knowledge about, accusations about the other person's knowledge, education, understanding of concepts, etc. Amazing.

The reliability and development (there isn't a good single English word for this word, development; in German it's 'Bildung', in  French it's 'formation', which means all of the following simultaneously: 'education and training/emotional and spiritual development/wisdom borne of experience', etc) of the accuser, imho, always dropped in my estimation. 

:)

Somebodysson

chess helps you improve at staying up late. Causation not correlation. It also builds one's ability to endure long hours staring at a computer screen. That, I believe, is a correlation. Wink

Ziryab
iamdeafzed wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
iamdeafzed wrote:
[snip]


And once again, I'll explain what should be obvious, but apparently isn't. So read carefully. If (as I did not 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? (one edit)

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?)

Let's be clear here: the definitions of affect vs. effect (influence vs. result, to oversimplify a tad) have nothing to do with this argument. It's causation vs. correlation. I've tried to get a definitive stance from you multiple times on whether you believe there's a direct casual link between chess-playing and improved academic performance. You either believe there is or you don't. It's that simple. You asserted earlier:

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

The key word in this sentence is "helped". So let me ask...by "helped" do you mean "caused", or do you mean "correlated with". If the former, then you're positively arguing a direct casual link. In which case I want your evidence that you believe substantiates this claim.
If you're arguing the latter, then I've misinterpreted what you've been saying this entire time and all that needs to be said (and which I thought we both already agreed to) is that "correlation does not necessarily imply causation".

Ok?

The only "direct causal link" that I've seen ever in more than thirty years of teaching is that students who do not do the assignments do not pass. Everything else is might, may, usually, possibly, probably... These affects are far more than simple correlation, and something other than clear causation. If you will comprehend the nature of research in the human sciences, you must get out of your black and white thinking.

I've seen the very best teachers ruin promising students, but never through a direct causal link. I've seen the very worst teachers help students who bring very little in the way of personal capacities. I have known many an able man ruined by Chess (link) and I have friends who were young learning disabled students when I met them, and chess was one of several factors crucial to their present success. Parents have told me that my chess class and the interest it stimulated led to drastic behavioral improvements in their children. For others, it revealed serious behavioral problems that remained hidden in the absence of chess competition.

The OP asked, "what does chess help you improve?" The answers are many and varied, but they are all tentative. It may help many things and often does, but it does not guarantee success. Time spent on chess does not even guarantee improvement in chess skill.

Think of your close personal friends who died from cancer despite the treatments that helped other friends of yours to live another year or even to return to a normal healthy state with no evidence of that threat to their lives. There's a lot in medicine that is strongly or even weakly indicative of possible or probable success without an explicit "direct causal link." 

Your criterion is not always relevant in the hard sciences. It is never relevant in the human sciences.

Somebodysson
AxeKnight wrote:

Umm, "credibility", "reputation" would be good approximates for what you need.

 

ahh, yes, those would be good. Not the same, but very good. thanks. Some English words easily escape me. "Credibility" is one of those, and "reputation" is another, so bullseye. 

clms_chess
Somebodysson wrote:

chess helps you improve at staying up late. Causation not correlation. It also builds one's ability to endure long hours staring at a computer screen. That, I believe, is a correlation. 

LOL

clms_chess
Ziryab wrote:
iamdeafzed wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
iamdeafzed wrote:
[snip]


And once again, I'll explain what should be obvious, but apparently isn't. So read carefully. If (as I did not 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? (one edit)

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?)

Let's be clear here: the definitions of affect vs. effect (influence vs. result, to oversimplify a tad) have nothing to do with this argument. It's causation vs. correlation. I've tried to get a definitive stance from you multiple times on whether you believe there's a direct casual link between chess-playing and improved academic performance. You either believe there is or you don't. It's that simple. You asserted earlier:

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

The key word in this sentence is "helped". So let me ask...by "helped" do you mean "caused", or do you mean "correlated with". If the former, then you're positively arguing a direct casual link. In which case I want your evidence that you believe substantiates this claim.
If you're arguing the latter, then I've misinterpreted what you've been saying this entire time and all that needs to be said (and which I thought we both already agreed to) is that "correlation does not necessarily imply causation".

Ok?

The only "direct causal link" that I've seen ever in more than thirty years of teaching is that students who do not do the assignments do not pass. Everything else is might, may, usually, possibly, probably... These affects are far more than simple correlation, and something other than clear causation. If you will comprehend the nature of research in the human sciences, you must get out of your black and white thinking.

I've seen the very best teachers ruin promising students, but never through a direct causal link. I've seen the very worst teachers help students who bring very little in the way of personal capacities. I have known many an able man ruined by Chess (link) and I have friends who were young learning disabled students when I met them, and chess was one of several factors crucial to their present success. Parents have told me that my chess class and the interest it stimulated led to drastic behavioral improvements in their children. For others, it revealed serious behavioral problems that remained hidden in the absence of chess competition.

The OP asked, "what does chess help you improve?" The answers are many and varied, but they are all tentative. It may help many things and often does, but it does not guarantee success. Time spent on chess does not even guarantee improvement in chess skill.

Think of your close personal friends who died from cancer despite the treatments that helped other friends of yours to live another year or even to return to a normal healthy state with no evidence of that threat to their lives. There's a lot in medicine that is strongly or even weakly indicative of possible or probable success without an explicit "direct causal link." 

Your criterion is not always relevant in the hard sciences. It is never relevant in the human sciences.

+1 

clms_chess
AxeKnight wrote:

More importantly, how do you guys get those gray boxes around others' comments ... ?

Ohhh you mean...this...lol

magic :)

Ziryab
AxeKnight wrote:

More importantly, how do you guys get those gray boxes around others' comments ... ?

I hit the quote button. It works on my PC, but not on my iPad and iPhone. If you are using an Android mobile device, you will find the same limitations.

Somebodysson
AxeKnight wrote:

More importantly, how do you guys get those gray boxes around others' comments ... ?

click on the 'quote' button near the time stamp in the r.h corner of their post, and their post will be quoted in your post.  There are peculiarities about the capacity to edit the quotes...but its a learning-by-doing. 

clms_chess

Actually, Jacob Potter... Harry's little know older brother.... ummmm MUCH older :(

Ziryab
Somebodysson wrote:
AxeKnight wrote:

More importantly, how do you guys get those gray boxes around others' comments ... ?

click on the 'quote' button near the time stamp in the r.h corner of their post, and their post will be quoted in your post.  There are peculiarities about the capacity to edit the quotes...but its a learning-by-doing. 

Good word choice.

iamdeafzed
AxeKnight wrote:

More importantly, how do you guys get those gray boxes around others' comments ... ?

Click the 'Quote' link on any particular post.

Ziryab
AxeKnight wrote:

Nah ... I just realized it works differently on the iPad. I use the "quote" thing ... but it doesn't do quite the same thing on the Pad.

Posting with the iPad can blur distinctions between quoted material and response. The iPad also does not let you color or italicize text, nor manipulate font sizes.

I often post with my iPad, but equally often read posts and defer my response to a time when I can use my PC.

iamdeafzed

The only "direct causal link" that I've seen ever in more than thirty years of teaching is that students who do not do the assignments do not pass. Everything else is might, may, usually, possibly, probably... These affects are far more than simple correlation, and something other than clear causation. If you will comprehend the nature of research in the human sciences, you must get out of your black and white thinking.

I've seen the very best teachers ruin promising students, but never through a direct causal link. I've seen the very worst teachers help students who bring very little in the way of personal capacities. I have known many an able man ruined by Chess (link) and I have friends who were young learning disabled students when I met them, and chess was one of several factors crucial to their present success. Parents have told me that my chess class and the interest it stimulated led to drastic behavioral improvements in their children. For others, it revealed serious behavioral problems that remained hidden in the absence of chess competition.

The OP asked, "what does chess help you improve?" The answers are many and varied, but they are all tentative. It may help many things and often does, but it does not guarantee success. Time spent on chess does not even guarantee improvement in chess skill.

Think of your close personal friends who died from cancer despite the treatments that helped other friends of yours to live another year or even to return to a normal healthy state with no evidence of that threat to their lives. There's a lot in medicine that is strongly or even weakly indicative of possible or probable success without an explicit "direct causal link." 

Your criterion is not always relevant in the hard sciences. It is never relevant in the human sciences.

Ok, so you're not asserting a direct causation between chess-playing and academic improvement. Gotcha.
And yes, everything always is in theory might/may/probably/etc. as you said. All that's saying (basically) is there's no such thing as 100% certainty in this universe. I know that and nobody I know of expects it. That doesn't mean there aren't degrees of certainty either, and I realize you're arguing precisely this.

That said, you're missing the main point: you have to draw "black and white thinking" lines in formal science, and that black and white line between any two objects (chess-playing and academic performance in this case) is causation: direct, indirect, or none at all. Once you've definitively established the correct form of causation, then you've basically said (from a formal scientific point of view, which is the one that matters most) "ok, we have 'enough' evidence to say with 'enough' certainty that the relationship between these two objects is [direct/indirect/none]." Anything less than this is, to some extent, speculation, and while there are varying degrees of speculation ("I believe alternate universes exist" versus "I believe my son will come home from school at 4:00 P.M. today"), the point is anything less than some form of definitive causastion is, by the black and white standards of science, grounds for appreciable (non-theoretical) uncertainty.

Getting back more to chess-playing and its relationship to academic performance, I suspect it does have some positive affects on it. But I also suspect that the effects are less than some might believe, and I also suspect that the type of chess activity (merely playing a game versus reviewing annotated master-level games) makes a difference. In addition to some other variables. But these are merely intuitive guesses on my part, and I'm not going to pretend they're anything but. Unfortunately, some people here seem incapable of distinguishing between their own biased intuitions/experiences/prejudices and what we can actually say with reasonable certainty from rigorously-performed, well-documented science. Personal stories are fine for this thread of course, but don't pass this stuff off as "evidence" (beyond maybe circumstantial) either.

And treating cancer (i.e. something that's essentially a life or death matter) is not at all the same as establishing an accurate belief system (i.e. something that's essentially a non-life or death matter). Cancer treatments don't necessarily have the same kinds of black and white standards that need to be met; belief systems about how the universe operates (e.g. whether or not the earth is flat, whether aliens live on Mars, the Earth's gravitational constant, the boiling point of water, whether or not chess-playing causes improved academic performance) do.

NomadicKnight

Chess helps me land the ladies.

Somebodysson

chess keeps me humble