Besides a great way to train minds to think better, chess can be a tool
to improve foreign language grades, and not just because of "j'adoube"
and "en passant".

What would the average student rather do, conjugate irregular verbs in
the preterite subjunctive mode, or read a chess magazine in that
language?

Tom Alciere
http://ChessLinks.info

An interesting article on a friend of mine who was a young African
American chess prodigy, and I believe turned those talents learned in
chess to good use as Chef and Businessman:

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/loc...staurant_owner

Unfortunately, the popular stereotype of chessplayers tends to obscure
the truth: chess is good life preparation, practiced properly, of
course. Harold knew that he was very good at the game, but forego
"making master" to life pursuits.

Harold and I discussed cooking once, and we both agreed that a recipe
could be pursued algorithmically, like a computer, or heuristically,
the way humans search chess positions for the recipe to success. He
took recipes of all sorts and modified them to his way of thinking -
the same way he would approach a chess position, and the rest is
history. In other words, he made TNs from the recipes of others!

Knowing different languages helped him in a number of ways.... and one
IM from the Nordic countries is a teacher of foreign languages as a
second language, what we would call ESL here, and contends many of the
teaching methods used in ESL teaching could be applied to learning
chess. I used to play him often on ICC, but have forgotten his
name.....

A smart man, and I was very proud to see him featured in this way. His
dad, my Uncle Harry, would be very proud of him, rest his soul.

wrote:

Besides a great way to train minds to think better, chess can be a tool
to improve foreign language grades, and not just because of "j'adoube"
and "en passant".

What would the average student rather do, conjugate irregular verbs in
the preterite subjunctive mode, or read a chess magazine in that
language?

Tom Alciere
http://ChessLinks.info


You should check your links before you post them. There're many broken
links and many well known links are missing. You should also have a
link to my website. A million people a day visit my site. I'm by far
the most popular chess celebrity.

Sam Sloan

wrote

Unfortunately, the popular stereotype of chessplayers tends to obscure
the truth: chess is good life preparation, practiced properly, of
course. Harold knew that he was very good at the game, but forego
"making master" to life pursuits.

I have to differ with this comment. Chess is a wonderful pastime but,
judging from the types of people who play seriously, it evidently teaches
very little about life that is worth knowing. I have been playing tournament
chess since 1967, and the vast majority of players I know today are
under-achievers. Yeah, I know an MD who plays competitively, and of course
eveyone will point to the few successful (in life) chess players we read
about in the magazine. But by and large, chess players are smarter than
average but less successful than their IQ peers by a very wide margin.

In my opinion the reason is that chess is a solitary game that attracts the
type of person who likes working and solving problems by himself (E.g. I
have worked by myself in this attic for 17 years).

Chess players do things like drive delivery trucks, work for the post
office, and hold various other low-paying positions.

By contrast Bridge players, on average, are very successful and accomplished
in life -- some might say they are over-achievers. Many are teachers, stock
brokers, lawyers, doctors. They drive fancy cars and go on expensive
vacations. Chess players drive second-hand jalopies and vacation at
tournament sites, eg Philadelphia during the July 4 weekend.

Think about all the serious chess players you know: How many are successful
in life in the traditional sense?

Angelo

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

Think about all the serious chess players you know: How many are successful
in life in the traditional sense?

You see, that's just it. It is possible that I am in the minority
(again!), but I have seen the exact opposite - a few who fit the
stereotype, but most lead productive lives.

Most of the juniors in my era and area were very successsful - the late
David Mote was a master who was the first person from his law school to
argue in front of the Supreme Court, Roger Covey, who taught me gambits
( I do curse him occasionally for teaching me the Elephant Gambit 30
some years ago; I really love that garbage opening!), became a
multi-millionare and a well-known connosieur of oriental art, and those
are just a few of the stories...

I think the issue is whether or not you let chess rule your life. Chess
is a great servant and a terrible master.

The trouble, as I am sure Angelo would admit is that no one has done
any research on the life success of chess players, which leaves us at
the individual anecdote level.

wrote:
Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

Think about all the serious chess players you know: How many are successful
in life in the traditional sense?

You see, that's just it. It is possible that I am in the minority
(again!), but I have seen the exact opposite - a few who fit the
stereotype, but most lead productive lives.

Most of the juniors in my era and area were very successsful - the late
David Mote was a master who was the first person from his law school to
argue in front of the Supreme Court, Roger Covey, who taught me gambits
( I do curse him occasionally for teaching me the Elephant Gambit 30
some years ago; I really love that garbage opening!), became a
multi-millionare and a well-known connosieur of oriental art, and those
are just a few of the stories...

I think the issue is whether or not you let chess rule your life. Chess
is a great servant and a terrible master.

The trouble, as I am sure Angelo would admit is that no one has done
any research on the life success of chess players, which leaves us at
the individual anecdote level.

I think this entire line of argument is flawed until you define
"success in life." As it stands everyone can claim victory based on the
definition of "success in life" they choose. And I agree with you about
chess as servant vs chess as master.

The Historian wrote:

I think this entire line of argument is flawed until you define
"success in life." As it stands everyone can claim victory based on the
definition of "success in life" they choose. And I agree with you about
chess as servant vs chess as master.

It is a broad target, but correct, until there is a definition of
"success," you turn to its polar opposite, failure, and I look at
failure in life like one Supreme Court Justice viewed pornography, "I
know it when I see it."

But we can ask questions - is Dan Heisman successful, having given up a
good paying job for the uncertainty of chess teaching? I know he
doesn't make the same amount of money, but probably is very happy and
well-adjusted, which makes him a success.

Until someone does some real studies on this - and there definitions
can be made, where the reader is free to disagree - it stays anecdotal
in nature.

On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 11:18:31 -0400, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
wrote:

wrote

Unfortunately, the popular stereotype of chessplayers tends to obscure
the truth: chess is good life preparation, practiced properly, of
course. Harold knew that he was very good at the game, but forego
"making master" to life pursuits.

I have to differ with this comment. Chess is a wonderful pastime but,
judging from the types of people who play seriously, it evidently teaches
very little about life that is worth knowing. I have been playing tournament
chess since 1967, and the vast majority of players I know today are
under-achievers. Yeah, I know an MD who plays competitively, and of course
eveyone will point to the few successful (in life) chess players we read
about in the magazine. But by and large, chess players are smarter than
average but less successful than their IQ peers by a very wide margin.

Being a serious chess player requires an equally serious time
commitment, time that *could* be spent on a profession or other
activities. Some people believe that the act of mastering chess has a
training effect that transfers to other activities. If this is true
(and I'm a wee bit skeptical about this), then the career time "lost"
to chess is offset by the resulting increase in mental power,
diligence, competitive spirit, etc., resulting from chess. But does
one get full value in other spheres for the time invested in chess? I
doubt it.

In my opinion the reason is that chess is a solitary game that attracts the
type of person who likes working and solving problems by himself (E.g. I
have worked by myself in this attic for 17 years).

It's also a tempting escape for those bored with other tasks, it lets
children compete on more or less equal terms with adults, the
impoverished compete on more or less equal terms with the well-to-do,
the uncultured or inarticulate with graduates of top universities, ,
and offers something reasonably close to perfect justice (you play
better, you do better). In the short run, it's hard for the world to
compete.

Chess players do things like drive delivery trucks, work for the post
office, and hold various other low-paying positions.

By contrast Bridge players, on average, are very successful and accomplished
in life -- some might say they are over-achievers. Many are teachers, stock
brokers, lawyers, doctors. They drive fancy cars and go on expensive
vacations. Chess players drive second-hand jalopies and vacation at
tournament sites, eg Philadelphia during the July 4 weekend.

Think about all the serious chess players you know: How many are successful
in life in the traditional sense?

Obviously, there are many exceptions. But, in general, what Angelo
says makes sense to me, relative to traditional definitions of
"success". Now, whether the satisfaction inherent in playing the game
makes one happy.... well, in the long run we're all dead anyway.

Angelo

Mike Murray wrote:
Being a serious chess player requires an equally serious time
commitment, time that *could* be spent on a profession or other
activities. Some people believe that the act of mastering chess has a
training effect that transfers to other activities. If this is true
(and I'm a wee bit skeptical about this), then the career time "lost"
to chess is offset by the resulting increase in mental power,
diligence, competitive spirit, etc., resulting from chess. But does
one get full value in other spheres for the time invested in chess? I
doubt it.

That is hitting the nail on the head, again, although it is a related
question instead of the main one. It is where I would claim that chess,
like many other brain-building activities, has a synergistic effect. So
instead of doubting it, I believe one does get full value, but the
proof is lacking... There are a few doctoral dissertations on this
topic that show positive effects, but we all know that only a large
scale study could even begin to provide the first building block of
actual "proof"....

Great topic!

I've asked myself this question more than once. "How many people who
play at the 2200 to 2400 are equally successful in another area in
life?"

Let's see. I remember meeting a doctor in Oklahoma that is about 2300.
One of my best friends in the west coast is a manager at a large
company and a Life Master. (He's retired from playing though.) A PhD
guy on the west coast. Umm.... I might have to repost on this topic,
but for now -that's it!

On the flip side, I have seen MANY master level players who I perceive
to have no life other than the 64 squares and the pieces that inhabit
them. I just had a pleasant discussion about some classic chess games
at a local club with a 2200 player. Knew about 100 of the classic games
FROM MEMORY, SOME SIDE VARIATIONS INCLUDED! Just from being around this
guy, I perceive that he doesn't have any other thing going for him, but
chess.

Anybody who is above 2200 has my utmost respect. Anybody who is above
2200, AND is doing equally excellent things in another area in life
has my utmost admiration.

I really believe for the majority of strong players, a price must be
paid. A price of a ton of time, focus, and dedication that has to be at
times drained from other pursuits. I've seen some masters pay IMHO too
high a price. Divorce. Alcoholism. No strong contact with loved ones
and family. Nothing but chess moves in the head.

wrote:
Mike Murray wrote:
Being a serious chess player requires an equally serious time
commitment, time that *could* be spent on a profession or other
activities. Some people believe that the act of mastering chess has a
training effect that transfers to other activities. If this is true
(and I'm a wee bit skeptical about this), then the career time "lost"
to chess is offset by the resulting increase in mental power,
diligence, competitive spirit, etc., resulting from chess. But does
one get full value in other spheres for the time invested in chess? I
doubt it.

That is hitting the nail on the head, again, although it is a related
question instead of the main one. It is where I would claim that chess,
like many other brain-building activities, has a synergistic effect. So
instead of doubting it, I believe one does get full value, but the
proof is lacking... There are a few doctoral dissertations on this
topic that show positive effects, but we all know that only a large
scale study could even begin to provide the first building block of
actual "proof"....