Armenia Makes Chess Compulsory In Schools

Hugh Pickens writes "AFP News reports that chess will become a required subject in primary schools in Armenia, where children from the age of six will learn chess as a separate subject on the curriculum for two hours a week. The lessons, which start later this year, will 'foster schoolchildren's intellectual development' and teach them to 'think flexibly and wisely', says Arman Aivazian, an official at the Ministry of Education. President Serzh Sarkisian, an enthusiastic supporter of the game, has committed around $1.5 million to the scheme in a move to turn the country of 3.2 million people into a global force in the games, says Aivazian. 'Teaching chess in schools will create a solid basis for the country to become a chess superpower.' Armenia's national team won gold at the biennial International Chess Olympiad in both 2006 and 2008, and the country's top player, Levon Aronian, is currently ranked number three in the world."

Comments

Brilliant!

[Bifurcati]

Their president should be Knighted! :)

Seriously, though, this is an intriguing way of fostering logical/analytical/creative thinking. I wonder if there is any peer reviewed literature on the impact of chess on children?

Re:Brilliant!

[migla]

Yup. I'd be interested to know if maybe some Battle for Wesnoth or Nethack might produce some results too, especially considering some pupils might find playing those more enjoyable.

(And there would of course be plenty of other examples aswell.)

If I was the supreme principal of the land, I'd draw up goals regarding logic and whatnot that the chess-playing is desired to accomplish and have teachers and kids find the most suitable game for each. I don't think chess can be the best fit for everyone.

Re:This is genius

[Zaphod The 42nd]

His argument was that if you compete to be good at academia, then there are more potential jobs to take advantage of the skills you gain from competition, than there are jobs where we need people who are extremely good at athletics. There's no paradox or contradiction, and you're misusing the word irony.

Re:Meanwhile in the USA...

[thephydes]

Unfortunately your comment was labelled "Funny". "Sad but true" would have been more accurate. I can assure non-believers (in chess) that many of my best students in Math are also very good chess players. Correlation yes, causative maybe but the thinking processes seem to be similar.

Re:This is genius

[SharpFang]

Except if you are -very- competetive about athletics, you don't have time for properly learning all the rest (but being a promising athlete helps to pass).

You're just barely getting by, and in the end you are not competent in your learned work field. You're extremely competetive though, so you do get to a higher (managemental) position than the nerds who didn't compete at sports and learned their job instead.

And that's the image of your current corporate structure. Highly competetive, aggressive, and utterly incompetent jerks are the managers, meanwhile talented experts stay at the bottom, because not being very competetive doesn't fit the image of a "person deserving a success" for the managers, who, after all, fought tooth and nail for their positions.

Yes, it's true there is a lot of jobs which are easier to get if you have all the competetive skills. It's easier to get a better-paying job that way. It's definitely profitable to the person in question. It's just utterly harmful to the whole system.