Slashdot Mirror


How To Fix The Shortage of K-5 Scholastic Chess Facilitators

theodp writes The good news, writes Michael Thomas, is that wired kids are learning chess at an unprecedented rate. Young children learning chess from tablets can quickly become more knowledgeable than their parents. But the bad news, laments Thomas, is there is so much demand for scholastic chess that there are not enough experienced chess facilitators to go around. Could technology like RFID-tagged chess pieces or services like ChessStream.com be employed to referee second-grader chess matches, Thomas wonders, or are more well-meaning-but-not-necessarily-expert human facilitators — a la T-ball coaches — the answer?

77 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. Hook, line, s... by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

    A "shortage"! Quick, import more H1B's!

  2. If they learn chess on tablets, by John.Banister · · Score: 1

    perhaps they will also play chess on tablets.

    1. Re:If they learn chess on tablets, by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      But PacMan keeps eating my pieces

    2. Re:If they learn chess on tablets, by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 1

      Either that, or just poin a webcam at the table so that a remote judge can be contacted when needed.

      When I played chess as a kid, we'd often play tournament games without a referee. Both players are required to write down the moves (unless short on time) so the game can be played back afterwards if there's any ambiguity. This approach might not work if one of the players is an asshole, but none of the members of our club was.

      The proposals in TFA (brain implants, rfid tags in chess pieces) are stupid beyond belief.

    3. Re:If they learn chess on tablets, by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      The proposals in TFA (brain implants, rfid tags in chess pieces) are stupid beyond belief.

      I have to agree. When I think of special technology for this, what first comes to mind is a variation on the "keyboard projected onto the table" idea, only it's a chessboard projected onto the table. If the software could know which squares were occupied and which weren't, it wouldn't even need to be able to distinguish one piece from another.

    4. Re:If they learn chess on tablets, by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I remember having a cheap chess set in the '80s that did that. I don't know if it knew which piece was which, but it knew pieces were there. It even could play you, but you had to move the pieces for the "computer". This sounds like using the same thing that was cheap 30 years ago, so it doesn't sound hard at all. But TFA made it much harder than it had to be.

    5. Re:If they learn chess on tablets, by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      I worked on a boat in AK with an old (East) German chief engineer once. He had a slightly more expensive version where the computer would move a magnet under the board to drag the pieces for its move. If a webcam could see the board, it should be easy for any smartphone capable computer to referee play, provided it saw the game from the beginning. I expect modern pattern recognition is up for 64 squares of two alternating colors and whether one has a piece on it or not.

  3. Er Ma Gerd.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    What will we as a society do with an unprecedented crisis such as this looming? With all of the other myriad crises plaguing our nation, this is what keeps me up at night.

    1. Re:Er Ma Gerd.... by Kohath · · Score: 1

      First, try not to panic.

      This is a stressful time for all of us, but we will get through this.

    2. Re:Er Ma Gerd.... by istartedi · · Score: 1

      Obviously, this means war. And strip searches at bus stations. Problem solved.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  4. An absurd "crisis"! LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Every minute playing chess would be better spent learning about algorithms, computer programming, or biology.

    The last thing any parent or teacher should do is encourage playing chess at any serious level. It's like encouraging people to compute logarithms or trigonometric functions longhand on paper; there's some initial benefit in learning some abstract ideas, but then it's just mechanics. And the same is true for chess, and computers have established this in a dramatic way, by showing that simple but fast and deep searches with very simple heuristics can beat any human who has ever lived. A $0.50 pocket calculator can bet any human at the sine function game!

    The argument made in that article that chess is somehow good for the goals of "STEM" makes me laugh out loud, but simultaneously weep that the idea was proposed with apparent sincerity...

    1. Re:An absurd "crisis"! LOL by Great+Big+Bird · · Score: 1

      I don't think "space" will just inspire. It can and has produced significant advances (and thus careers) — although that benefit might not be running on all thrusters anymore.

    2. Re:An absurd "crisis"! LOL by m00sh · · Score: 2

      Every minute playing chess would be better spent learning about algorithms, computer programming, or biology.

      The last thing any parent or teacher should do is encourage playing chess at any serious level. It's like encouraging people to compute logarithms or trigonometric functions longhand on paper; there's some initial benefit in learning some abstract ideas, but then it's just mechanics. And the same is true for chess, and computers have established this in a dramatic way, by showing that simple but fast and deep searches with very simple heuristics can beat any human who has ever lived. A $0.50 pocket calculator can bet any human at the sine function game!

      The argument made in that article that chess is somehow good for the goals of "STEM" makes me laugh out loud, but simultaneously weep that the idea was proposed with apparent sincerity...

      Every minute spent training for a marathon is useless because we have cars. A $50 junker can beat the fastest marathon runner.

      Why is learning about algorithms useful? For every algorithm you learn, there are at least a dozen implementation of the said algorithm.

    3. Re:An absurd "crisis"! LOL by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      Every minute spent training for a marathon is useless because we have cars.

      Training for a marathon improves physical conditioning and fitness which is arguably useful in it's own right. Cars satisfy transportation needs, but they do little or nothing to improve physical conditioning or fitness. They're different things and not really comparable.

      Why is learning about algorithms useful? For every algorithm you learn, there are at least a dozen implementation of the said algorithm.

      It's the algorithm that's important, not the implementation. Algorithms are discrete methods of abstract problem solving and study of them improves both abstract thinking and general problem solving capability. The game of chess for example is well solved by minimax searching of decision trees with a few chess specific evaluation functions thrown in. Further refinements and sufficient processing power allow even the best human players to be reliably defeated, but the basic concept remains the same: minimax search of decision trees. The game of chess can be part of a course on game theory or an introduction to algorithms, but the grand parent is correct that any more serious study or effort at mastering the game, outside of subjective entertainment value, is largely wasted given that computers are better at it than most or even all humans. Moreover, the mastery of chess doesn't seem to provide any special educational or intelligence benefit that couldn't also be had with many fewer hours of more generally applicable study of game theory, algorithms, computer science or mathematics.

    4. Re:An absurd "crisis"! LOL by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Why is learning about algorithms useful? For every algorithm you learn, there are at least a dozen implementation of the said algorithm.

      Well said. I play chess because it increases my ability to organize my thoughts and...........it's fun.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:An absurd "crisis"! LOL by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Training for a marathon improves physical conditioning and fitness which is arguably useful in it's own right.

      And yet we constantly hear of studies that show a high degree of constant mental activity is good for the physical condition of the brain and keeping it exercised reduces the risk of dementia.

      In pretty much any physical or mental activity we do as people we gain some kind of benefit. Reading has a benefit, playing computer games has a benefit, solving Rubik's cubes has a benefit, and so does playing chess. I could think of worse things for teenagers to do than mentally stimulating their minds while competing with each other.

    6. Re:An absurd "crisis"! LOL by CodeBuster · · Score: 2

      Similar process here, use it or lose it.

      I haven't played a serious game of chess since I took up programming decades ago. Why spend time learning to play chess when I can write a program that will beat most humans? Even a novice programmer could create a very strong chess AI using information that's publicly available. Chess was an early area of interest in AI and game theory but it's largely a solved problem now, used as an example of minimax search in undergraduate textbooks on the subject.

    7. Re:An absurd "crisis"! LOL by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      I play chess because it increases my ability to organize my thoughts and...........it's fun.

      Took you a while to think of that last one though, eh? ;)

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    8. Re:An absurd "crisis"! LOL by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

      Every minute playing chess would be better spent [fill in your personal alternative here]

      Perhaps people like, y'know, playing chess as a game? It's interesting, it passes the time, and it's actually quite challenging to become even moderately good at the game. The fact that algorithms can play chess is irrelevant, playing chess is not an activity that humans play algorithmically - they learn to play it intuitively, using pattern recognition and a bit of analysis, not exhaustive analysis and a whole bunch of rules, tables and a large database of known games to draw on. Chess programs employing 'simple' heuristics don't beat every human player - top players can still beat the top programs, though it's getting close. The programs in typical chess implementations do beat novice players, but in turn they are easily beaten once you get better at the game.

      It's like saying there's no point playing soccer because a machine that can fire balls into a net could be easily built that would beat a human goalie every time. It really misses the whole point.

    9. Re:An absurd "crisis"! LOL by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I play chess because it increases my ability to organize my thoughts and...........it's fun.

      Took you a while to think of that last one though, eh? ;)

      I had to organize my thoughts first

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:An absurd "crisis"! LOL by Kalium70 · · Score: 1

      If people get too worried about this, we will take an activity that kids enjoy doing just for fun into a high-pressure ordeal from that kids dread.

    11. Re:An absurd "crisis"! LOL by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The argument made in that article that chess is somehow good for the goals of "STEM" makes me laugh out loud

      I have to agree with this. I was a successful player as a student; my high school team won the national championship, I won an individual state championship, and before this article I had no idea there was even anything called a "chess facilitator."
      Chess was not in any way a "gateway to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics." Other than the satisfaction and enjoyment of the chess itself, the one other thing it did for me later was give me a couple of big breaks in my career, as I unknowingly (at the time) impressed somebody during some casual games.
      Anything I learned about "science, technology, engineering and mathematics" I learned in spite of playing chess, not because of it.

    12. Re:An absurd "crisis"! LOL by Skip1952 · · Score: 1

      Surely you can't be serious? Learning how to operate under pressure, becoming comfortable with a crowd scrutinizing your play AND behavior, meeting people whose brains enjoy similar mental games/puzzles, how to lose gracefully; these are all very valuable skills.

      Learning to operate under pressure? Why not let everyone be a hockey goalie, not only do you get pressure and scrutiny but when you make a mistake a siren blares and a red light goes on. Did I mention all the people that cheer, or boo? Oh, and don't forget the handshake with the winning team at the end of the game!

      --
      == Shipwrecked and comatose
    13. Re:An absurd "crisis"! LOL by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      And it is just a boring simplistic game. Hell after a few months learning the basics it is basically just memorising every combination possible. Chess is for Autistics, forget about it and play something worth your time.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    14. Re:An absurd "crisis"! LOL by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      You are missing the GP's point here.

      He is not missing the point. Sure, chess is a good brain exerciser. But there are plenty of other activities that are just as good, but are also actually useful in their own right.

      When I was in high school, I learned to play chess well enough to compete in tournaments. I also became a pretty wicked Go player. In hindsight, I consider all of that a waste of time, and I regret it. I should have spent that time becoming a better programmer, a better circuit designer, or a better writer or even better at conversation. Those things would have actually made a difference in my life.

      Now that I have kids of my own, I have taught them both chess and Go, but only at the friendly-game level. We spend a lot more time playing with Lego Mindstorms, and writing games in Scratch or Python.

    15. Re:An absurd "crisis"! LOL by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " Why spend time learning to play chess when I can write a program that will beat most humans? "
      To develop thinking skills. Planning, changing, thinking many steps ahead.

      Everything you learn from chess would make you a better computer programmer.

      Also, I doubt you can right an algorithm that will beat most mediocre chess players. Try it some time.

      Yes, you said most humans. If you literally meant most humans, well then duh. Most human don't know how to play.
      "Even a novice programmer could create a very strong chess AI using information that's publicly available."
      ah, you are a C&P programmer. Great. Like we need more of those.

      "but it's largely a solved problem now, "
      I don't think you know what that means, becasue it is not largely solved. Checkers is largely solved..
      Of course what does largely solved mean? When speaking of an algorithm, either it's solved not or it's not.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    16. Re:An absurd "crisis"! LOL by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Because chess is cheaper? more easily accessible? doesn't encourage bulling? create a civilized event?
      Are we seriously at a point where on a nerd site, chess is being compared to hockey?
      WTF, has the world gone mad?
      Hockey has all the worse elements of society in it, Chess has all the best.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    17. Re:An absurd "crisis"! LOL by itzly · · Score: 1

      Everything you learn from chess would make you a better computer programmer.

      No, it would make you a better chess player. If you want to be a better computer programmer, time is better spend on studying and writing computer programs.

    18. Re:An absurd "crisis"! LOL by McDrewbie · · Score: 1

      Chess as a game also teaches people how to be compete and be competitive and be good losers and good winners, and how to learn from their mistakes, and how teach others, and how to have fun, play games and learn at the same time. And it builds self confidence. I'm sure there is an algorithm for that, but I pity the person who needs to spend the time to derive it. (though i don't pity the person who chooses to figure it out, just not one who needs to/) You are suggesting chess as a means to a certain end, but chess is a process and an end and means all in one. You simple minded coders. So funny with your programs and such. We appreciate your efforts and achievements but not everything has to be done in code, not everything has to be programmable, not everything has to be networked.

    19. Re:An absurd "crisis"! LOL by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      Have you ever taken a course in AI? The minimax algorithm is already guaranteed to produce the optimal outcome in a zero sum, non deterministic, perfect information game such as Chess provided that the weights of the branches in the tree are an accurate representation of the value of a given position. This means that the only part of the algorithm that requires any real creativity is the position evaluation function of which there are several good examples in the published literature. The depth of the search in the game tree, which is equivalent to look ahead, is a good approximation for the strength of the play. It turns out that a 4 move look ahead is good enough for a relatively strong program, regularly beating most chess novices and a lookahead of 8 moves and more, especially when combined with a good position evaluation function and databases common openings and all possible 5 piece endgames, produces grand master level play. So playing Chess is essentially an exercise in search of a game tree. There are some small improvements to be won at the margins at grand master level play with more sophisticated position evaluation functions, as demonstrated by the IBM Deep Blue team in the games against Kasperov, but 99% of human players never approach grand master level of play in Chess and would lose most games played against Fritz on the hard settings.

    20. Re:An absurd "crisis"! LOL by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      correction: Chess is deterministic in that a given input, current board position plus one move, will always produce the same output. The rest still holds.

  5. Schools cutting extra-curriculum by buckfeta2014 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The issue is with schools cutting extra-curriculum activities, because the teachers want to get paid, and the schools can't afford it. Fix that somehow, and you'll probably get all the coaches you need, not just for chess club, but for sports and the arts.

    --
    Buck Feta. You know what to do.
    1. Re:Schools cutting extra-curriculum by buckfeta2014 · · Score: 1

      I doubt it. Our high school had several sports, for both genders. Go take your feminism somewhere else.

      --
      Buck Feta. You know what to do.
  6. Youth Chess is Moving in the Wrong Direction by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've had two kids now in youth chess and this article smacks of the "wrong direction" I think the youth chess movement is headed.

    The trends I saw included:
    #1) More PAID chess instructors. Er...for what? The best instruction...and players...are already online, with fully developed laddering, ranking, tutorials, etc.
    #2) More REMOTE tournaments. What is this...hockey now? This is a huge barrier to families (e.g., smart immigrants, kids with divorced parents) who can't afford to truck the two hours in each direction - and overnight (i.e., requiring a hotel) meets are on the horizon.
    #3) Life AFTER chess is discouraged. In my "gifted" experience, you learned chess in first or second grade, and could take down just about anyone in middle school, but then you moved on from games into programming, higher math, or something else with a lot of other people who outgrew chess as a daily or even weekly activity. However, "outgrowing chess" is no longer OK with this crowd...instead you're expected to keep playing until you ladder up or burn out - yikes.

  7. Tech for a non-issue by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1

    Could technology like RFID-tagged chess pieces

    Is this a tech-for-no-reason article?

    The article gives a long example where players need to figure out things like checkmate. That's the most trivial of problems, which players need to figure out just to complete the game. Plus, average children at the K-5 (outside of tournaments) have a house rule where capturing the enemy king is a checkmate, which is the same effect.

    An easy question if you are an avid chess player, but what if you are not?

    If you're at a tournament for that, then you really need to play a few chess matches yourself - even if it's against BattleChess, Chessmaster, or plenty of other free computer programs that can have their difficulty significantly reduced.

  8. It's a joke article by Animats · · Score: 2

    Come on. The article is a joke. " A chess facilitator brain implant would be wired between perception and cognition. You would just look at the board and know if it is checkmate." Did the original poster not realize this?

    1. Re:It's a joke article by phizi0n · · Score: 1

      Come on.
      The article is a joke.
      " A chess facilitator brain implant would be wired between perception and cognition. You would just look at the board and know if it is checkmate." Did the original poster not realize this?

      It's more along the lines of astroturfing than a joke. The linked article is a blog post on a data analysis company's website. The author is basically dreaming up ways for his company to profit off a minor/nonexistent problem.

    2. Re:It's a joke article by RDW · · Score: 1

      It's not a joke article or astroturfing. He's just using humorous examples of improbable technical solutions to the problem, when of course the real answer is to get more adults involved in helping the kids to learn chess (which is his real point). He's written elsewhere about a K12 chess tournament sponsored by his company:

      http://blogs.sas.com/content/s...

  9. Not to detract from our roots... by quietwalker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Do we really need to promote chess playing to a group of imaginative, energetic children who have just barely grasped the concept of role-taking, and are only barely ready to understand - much less compete in - competitive or team sports? Did they do something to earn this sort of punishment? Are these sort of felons?

    Don't get me wrong; I was in a "Chess and Tactical Games Club" when I was in Highschool. We played warhammer 40k with minatures, star trek combat on a hex map that looked like a starscape, and recreated WW2 naval battles in the gym with wood blocks, marked ropes and protractors, played Risk and Axis & Allies. We even played a few economic simulator games.

    However, I can't remember playing a single game of chess. This is largely because playing a game where a turn took an hour and a half was more fun than playing chess, and that's coming from a highschool geek back when the term meant something.

    My guess is that there's only a perceived shortage of k-5 scholastic chess facilitators, rather, if the number is higher than 1, we probably have more than we ought.

    1. Re:Not to detract from our roots... by shobadobs · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, how will a child barely ready for team sports ever be able to play a one-on-one board game?

      FFS, kids play on team sports at that age. Have you ever heard of tee-ball?

    2. Re:Not to detract from our roots... by aliquis · · Score: 2

      Yeah, why bother with Chess?

      How does it matter really?

      I remember reading on BGG how someone brought Hive (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2655/hive) to some group of (children? I'm quite sure) chess players (possibly related to his or her own kids?) they tried it out and of course they wanted to play Hive rather than Chess (it was new for them) and he/her was told to not bring it any more.

      Even though it's not very different. Move (and in Hive case place) your different pieces around until you win.

    3. Re:Not to detract from our roots... by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong; I was in a "Chess and Tactical Games Club" when I was in Highschool.

      Here's the question I want to ask.

      What about the schools WITHOUT chess clubs/teams or "tactical games clubs"? Yes, not everyone went to one of those schools with all those geek clubs like chess, rocketry, games, AV, computers.

    4. Re:Not to detract from our roots... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Chess encourages short-sighted tactical thinking with no concern for the consequences. You aim to take a single position (capture the king), even if it destroys *everything* in the process. Every move is about maintaining the tactical position, which is a short-term goal.

      Go can be taught to four-year-old kids. It encourages abstract strategy across the larger plane: tactical battles are carried out based on their worth in the overall strategy. Do you enclose or run? Capture or let live? These make the difference between territory and influence, between scoring points and gaining control of the board. Which is worth more now? Which will provide you better control later? What is urgent, what do you need to win in the long run?

      Chess is a game for small minds.

    5. Re:Not to detract from our roots... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You think teaching chess is punishment?
      You are seriously stupid. Kids grab onto chess at a really early age. Not all of them will continue, but they enjoy the basic learning, and it's a cheap, and easy way to each them how to think.

      " I can't remember playing a single game of chess. "
      You're loss. It teach better long term straevy, tactice then any game you mentioned., and it has a way to progress, should you choose, in a measurable way.
      I've play all the game listed. Nothing is as pure for reasoning and strategy then chess.

      "highschool geek back when the term meant something."
      ah, scotsman fallacy coupled with ignorance, well done. Chess also teaches taking pride in thinking deeply. Based on you post, you could of used a few games of chess.

      You are essentially saying "I've never played chess seriously, therefor it's not as good as these other game I played".
      Stupid.

      Since you seem to value this sort of thing I"m going to say it seen thought its not actually data:
      I've been playing strategy games since 1972, and I still do. A few times a year me and about 14 friends rent a house and play games for 4 days.
      I played chess in school pretty seriously, for a while. did well, but I never liked competing seriously as a child.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Not to detract from our roots... by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      There are two main types of chess games. In one, someone manages to checkmate while there are still a lot of pieces on the board. You seem to only be familiar with this type of game. It's possible to prioritize for that over holding onto pieces, with strategies like "gambits" taking that idea back to the opening move.

      But when both players are good enough that this doesn't happen, you get a drawn out type of game where very subtle position advantages allow picking off pawns, or exchanging a better piece for a worse one. Eventually those swaps knock out most of the pieces on the board, and then the person with an advantage in "material"--the pieces they still have--will normally win. One of the things you need to learn as a competative chess player is how to checkmate when you only have a small advantage like that. Can you win a game where you have a king and a bishop left vs. just a king? There's a whole body of research on pawnless chess endings that to this day hasn't considered every possibility yet.

      So how do you tell which type of game you're playing? That's the trick--you can't until it's over. If you goof on a risky push to checkmate and it fails, you can easily end up down in material and then playing the other type of game at a disadvantage. That's where people who are good at tactics instead of memorization can really shine--no one memorizes optimal play when you're already down a piece or two. The entire risk-reward evaluation changes when you're in a position where you must do something risky to win, because being conservative will eventually result in you losing to the person with more pieces.

      And if you think there are so few combinations here that it's possible for the person who memorizes more to always win, you really need to revisit just who has the "small mind" here because you don't understand Chess at all. Go is really the simpler game here because it only has the long-term strategy to worry about. Chess players have to worry about a long-term game of position and material trade-offs, but at the same time you have to guard against short-term win approaches too. Your long-term game is worthless if you get nailed by a Fools Mate.

    7. Re:Not to detract from our roots... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      There are two main types of chess games. In one, someone manages to checkmate while there are still a lot of pieces on the board. You seem to only be familiar with this type of game. It's possible to prioritize for that over holding onto pieces, with strategies like "gambits" taking that idea back to the opening move.

      Yes, this is how minor skirmishes in Go work. The difference is in the way your play comes out.

      In Chess, the capture of a piece or the loss of a piece means something. Being in a specific square at a specific time means something. You are trying to establish a tactical advantage for the moment, so that you can move further toward your tactical goal of capturing the king.

      In Go, fights work the same way. The sacrifice of a piece, or the capture of a piece, or of a group, or the solidification of a group, the push into a certain area, a cut to separate two groups, these mean something. They may make the difference between life and death of your stones.

      When all that is done, in Go, you have a position which may make an outward-facing wall, or may have blocked off some territory. You might let yourself get closed in, giving your opponent enclosure of an area worth a point or two, but immediately facing his already-strong group, and thus unable to influence the game. Or, if that area is open, you might run out some, sacrificing points and potential strength for the chance to destroy your opponent's influence or prospects for more points. You may let a small group die simply because this will give you an extra move, allowing you to take control of the game and begin wearing down your opponent before he can shore up some obvious weaknesses. You may play outward to create a wall, giving your opponent points but gaining influence so that you can later capitalize on this strength.

      Imagine if you could lose one chess game by winning another, or by capturing the king with rook coming up the middle rather than the knight coming up the left side. Imagine, still, if the individual games didn't matter; you win or lose by the whole of your effort, combined, and in full arrangement. And imagine you do all these things in parallel, and have to consider how they affect each other.

      Welcome to Go.

    8. Re:Not to detract from our roots... by quietwalker · · Score: 1

      For a child between the ages of 5 to 10, yes, it's punishment. Especially in an age of tv on demand and nerf guns and xbox and legos and the whole world outside.

      It's not an "easy way to teach them how to think," it's a way to teach them how to think about chess, which has limited value.

      Chess also has very little to do with reasoning. At one level, the short-breadth min-max search for the next best would qualify, but since we're not great at that as humans, we fall to using pattern recognition gained through rote play experience. That is not reasoning and there's very little strategy. "Go Fish," has more inherent possibilities for strategy.

      Let's focus on reasoning though. How can you explain pointing out my personal experiences as being invalid (as they are rightly anecdotal and not data) and then counter by providing your own anecdotal examples, except through a lack of reasoning?

      Perhaps you need to play more ... well, obviously not chess.

  10. As a taxpayer, I support chess on tablets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As a taxpayer, I support chess on tablets.
    1) No chess pieces to lose.
    2) Program can ensure chess rules are always followed
    3) school chess tournaments can be conducted via telephone/internet, avoiding unnecessary transportation. Seriously, there is a long tradition of chess by mail, or phone, and these are kids in public schools.
    4) all of which mean, less expensive adult labor is needed to make things work.

  11. Sargon II on Commodore 64 by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    I learned the basics of playing chess in the fifth grade when the guidance counselor picked a club for me since I had zero interest in joining any of the school clubs. I didn't master the game until I got Sargon II for the Commodore 64. After playing a game everyday for two years straight, I was able to defeat the computer on the highest difficulty setting most of the time.

    1. Re:Sargon II on Commodore 64 by greg1104 · · Score: 2

      Sounds about right. I played enough tournament games to estimate I was about a 1450 player at my best, and playing Sargon II on the Apple was a pretty evenly matched game. The key to beating early chess games like that, and this is still useful for any small memory chess opponent, is to play something weird. You need to get the computer out of its opening book library as soon as possible, without making an overtly bad move. Moving a pawn a single space forward where most players would taking advantage of being able to move forward two can be enough to break you out of a small book. You could easily tell when Sargon went "off book" because the time it spent thinking about moves went up dramatically, especially on its highest difficulty setting.

      I learned some ideas like this from David Levy's excellent 1983 book Computer Gamesmanship. With Sargon, I recall I would do somewhere around 5 moves from the standard opening library before inserting one aimed to go off-book. The first few moves in a chess game tend to be very similar because they work. You don't want to yield control of the middle of the board in favor of breaking out of the book on your first move; that's counterproductive.

  12. Re:New Headlines by sjames · · Score: 1

    Helicopter parents are so last year. We have drone parents now.

  13. They nailed it 500 years ago by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

    "[Chess] is certainly a pleasing and ingenious amusement, but it seems to have one defect, which is that it is possible to have too much knowledge of it, so that whoever would excel in the game must give a great deal of time to it, as I believe, and as much study as if he would learn some noble science or perform well anything of importance; and yet in the end, for all his pains, he only knows how to play a game. Thus, I think a very unusual thing happens in this, namely that mediocrity is more to be praised than excellence."
    -- Castiglione, The Book of the Courtier, 1528, Book II para. 31, Singleton translation

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:They nailed it 500 years ago by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Careful, Richard Feynman once said something very similar about computer programming:

      Well, Mr. Frankel, who started this program, began to suffer from the computer disease that anybody who works with computers now knows about. It's a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is you *play* with them. They are so wonderful. You have these switches - if it's an even number you do this, if it's an odd number you do that - and pretty soon you can do more and more elaborate things if you are clever enough, on one machine.

      After a while the whole system broke down. Frankel wasn't paying any attention; he wasn't supervising anybody. The system was going very, very slowly - while he was sitting in a room figuring out how to make one tabulator automatically print arc-tangent X, and then it would start and it would print columns and then bitsi, bitsi, bitsi, and calculate the arc-tangent automatically by integrating as it went along and make a whole table in one operation.

      Absolutely useless. We *had* tables of arc-tangents. But if you've ever worked with computers, you understand the disease - the *delight* in being able to see how much you can do. But he got the disease for the first time, the poor fellow who invented the thing.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  14. Get the T ball couches by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    ... its more then sufficient for the referring of chess matches between children.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  15. As an actual, full-time chess coach... by DamienRBlack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am a full-time chess coach for K-5 kids. I have over 200 students that I see every week. At first I though this article was going to address the very real demand for more skilled coaches in K-5 schools. Instead, the article is trying to push a software/hardware solution that would make it "easier" to adjudicate games and tournaments. This solution is addressing a problem that doesn't actually exist.

    Here is the problem they present as an example: an 'argument' between two students about whether a position is checkmate. The presented solution: a variety of software/hardware that will make it easier to 'referee' the position. This is ridiculous. When two students are having an argument, figuring out whether there is checkmate on the board is usually the easiest problem to solve. Getting the students to calm down and be good sports is the hard part.

    In addition, there is no shortage of adjudication at tournaments. One or two coaches can easily handle the problems of 300+ students in a tournament. We don't need legions of people equipped with apps to go watch children's games. To make the article even more irrelevant, most tournaments across the world are run with a "non-interference" rule. This means that the tournament staff cannot actually comment on whether a position is checkmate. It is up to the students to come to a decision on their own, agree and report. The coaches with let them report an incorrect result if that is what they agree on. It is part of the game. So the coach doesn't actually need to know whether the position is really checkmate.

    The only time an actual ruling needs to be passed is if the students can't come to an agreement. This is very rare and will usually only happen 1 in 2000 games or so. We don't need to RDIF tag all of our 16000+ tournament pieces just so that 1 in 2000 games someone who knows nothing about chess can make an accurate ruling. We'll just bring over an expert in those cases.

    A quick aside to those questioning the benefits of K-5 chess, it is hugely beneficial to students. Sure, it would be great if they spent the time they did on chess on other things, like algorithms or biology. However, most students don't get super worked up about algorithms. They aren't going to willingly spend 15 hours a week on algorithms. They will happily spend that time on chess however, and chess is teaching them a lot of the same skills. Critical thinking, carefulness, perseverance, recovering from mistakes, cause and effect, and on, and on.

    The most important skill that students learn is how much effort you have to put into something in order to really become an expert. Nothing else a child does in their K-12 years really teaches them that in order to be an expert, you need to spend years and years working on it. Chess is very good at driving this point home.

    Anyone saying things like "every minute playing chess would be better spent learning about algorithms, computer programming, or biology." has clearly never sat a kindergartener down and try to teach them algorithms. Every day. For a year. Teach them chess. They will grasp it. They will want to learn. It is fun. They will gain skills that you wouldn't be able to impart in other ways.

    But you don't need to take my word on it. The benefits of chess have been have been well studied. Scholastic chess is one of the few things that has been proven to consistently increase academic performance, collage success and future income.

    1. Re:As an actual, full-time chess coach... by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      The only time an actual ruling needs to be passed is if the students can't come to an agreement. This is very rare and will usually only happen 1 in 2000 games or so. We don't need to RDIF tag all of our 16000+ tournament pieces just so that 1 in 2000 games someone who knows nothing about chess can make an accurate ruling. We'll just bring over an expert in those cases.

      As an expert, what is the most difficult ruling you have ever had to make?
      I'm not a chess expert but I can't imagine any situation that would actually require an expert to resolve, as opposed to somebody who just read the rules and played a couple of games once.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:As an actual, full-time chess coach... by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      I would like your opinon on the game of Go.

    3. Re:As an actual, full-time chess coach... by top_down · · Score: 1

      Telling if a position is mate or not is easy.

      The more challenging situations usually arise because young children are often playing without a clock, don't have to write down their moves and don't have the skills to remember even a few moves back. This means there are situations where you have two highly emotional kids and a position on the board that cannot be reconstructed. Cheating, parents and time pressure may also be involved.
       

      --
      Anyone who generalizes about slashdotters is a typical slashdotter.
    4. Re:As an actual, full-time chess coach... by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      So are you saying that there is no shortage or anything, or that you need more people to stop the children from throttling each other when they lose?

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    5. Re:As an actual, full-time chess coach... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You should look into Go. Chess is a small, very limited game that teaches poor thinking.

    6. Re:As an actual, full-time chess coach... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "like algorithms or biology"

      While important, neither of those teach deep thinking, and alternative outcomes.
      And, Chess teaches algorithms and how t apply them. Granted they are called maneuvers.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:As an actual, full-time chess coach... by Wargames · · Score: 1

      Agreed. RFID'ing chess pieces, brain implants, insane! Why can't they simply learn the rules? It's not that complicated.

      I taught after school chess for several years after I was laid off after 9/11 and ensuing telecom crisis-debacle. Parents and teachers believed chess was good for the children and gave me the opportunity to share my expert knowledge. The per-hour pay was not half bad, based on number, but the number of hours per week was small. You never know who is going to be the next Magnus Carlsen or Susan Polgar and make a life of it. There was an equal mix of girls and boys in my classes which ranged from 8 to 42 kids, aged 6 to 16. One school I taught at most kids had ADD and/or Aspberger's who particularly loved chess and teachers said chess was measurably beneficial for their performance in other classes.

      Chess teaches kids valuable life skills such as the ability to analyze, have patience and consideration, develop strategies and tactics and understand the difference, make decisions under pressure given time and resource constraints, take calculated risks, and of course sportsmanship and a good bit of psychology, etc. while still being a safe activity. I suppose tennis teaches many of the same things too, while giving good exercise to the body, however, tennis courts take up a lot more space and tennis probably has more injuries. GO too is a great game, I look forward to the time it reaches the international standing of chess. GO is an even simpler game from a rules point of view but a more complex, in terms of combinations and strategy. Perhaps we are not ready for it.. it boggles my mind. Philosophically, it is difficult to say whether one pastime is better than another, but kids do love chess!

      To sum it up, If you want more people teaching or playing chess, you have to value it more. Despite the $1,000,000 tournament in Vegas putting down $1000 for the entry fee is taking a gamble even if you are a sandbagger. There is little money in chess playing unless you are at the top, writing books, or organizing $1,000,000 chess tournaments. Alas, there are benefits from chess that you can't buy with money. I personally got a lot out of teaching chess, but I have to pay a mortgage and support a family, so I am a much better valued programmer. It's good to see that there are chess scholarships now and chess popularity is exploding. I can only imagine a day when a chess coach gets paid like an NBA coach, football coach, or soccer coach...., not.

      --
      -- Each tock of the Planck clock is a new world and here we are still life. --
    8. Re:As an actual, full-time chess coach... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      At least it's not team sports, where the parents assault the coaches or referees when their children lose.

    9. Re:As an actual, full-time chess coach... by LienRag · · Score: 1

      I stopped playing chess once I learned Go, but could you explain how there can be disagreement over a checkmate?
      If one player is able to make a legal move that prevents the checkmate, then it's note checkmate. Otherwise it is.

      And about "checkmate in x" if one player can't see it or disagree, you just play it.

      What could I be missing?

  16. thank you by SethJohnson · · Score: 1

    Most inspired and insightful post I've read on Slashdot all year.

    Thank you for teaching children.

  17. Chess resourses by Dollyknot · · Score: 1

    Anyone looking for chess resourses could do worse, than visiting my website. http://dollyknot.com/chess.html/

    --
    It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. Yet one more example by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    All I can say is there damn well better be gender equity in grade school chess, as these testosterone fueled second grade boys oppress and damage the psyches of the girls, leading to a critical lack of both STEM and Chess Playing females.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:Yet one more example by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      In grade-school chess it's the 9 year old girls you have to watch out for.

  20. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  21. Obama has a Russian chess tutor by Dareth · · Score: 1

    Obama has a Russian chess tutor named Putin.
    Don't think they are playing on tablets and they may just be betting the entire world!

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  22. How does one become one? by McDrewbie · · Score: 1

    I could be one how does one do so?

  23. Re:New Headlines by xclr8r · · Score: 1

    The shortage on experienced facilitators is nothing new. back in the day 80's/90's I kept having to explain what 'en passant' was and pull it up in the chess manuals to inform the adults that yes this was a legal move. At least my own chess club facilitator was keen on learning something new and distributed the knowledge to the rest of the club.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

    --
    Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
  24. Re:New Headlines by greg1104 · · Score: 1

    En passant moves are Chess's Easter Egg. "Dude, check it out...if you move the pawn like this, the game just silently takes it!"

  25. Don't encourage by phorm · · Score: 1

    Yes, deity forbid that those children find fun in a competitive intellectual venture. The horror!

    Really, they should all be sitting down to Starcraft tournaments with doritos and mountain dew readily nearby.

    Actually, even better, ban both of those, and redirect any funding the useful things like the local sports/football club.

  26. thanks by BattleAlertHack · · Score: 1

    This is really good news thanks for share !

    --
    Get great apps on your phone Battle Alert Hack
  27. Re:Hey, idiot: by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    It's not from Wikipedia. We don't spend all of our time on that website, only you. Why are you all butthurt? What difference does it make? The point is valid, chess is a waste of time beyond learning the basics.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!