Is chess good for teaching critical thinking?

[RelativeSpace]

But the idea of a chess variant where the rules change on the fly ala Calvinball -- that just makes my head esplode. Surely the quest for critical thinking need not be a one-way trip to a rubber room.

It may be a fine line, though, when going to extremes of critical thinking practice.

Could be the brain only has room for so much, and common things like how to open doors fall by the wayside when we focus on such topics excessively. There have been more than a few absent minded professors.

I wouldn't mind losing my knowledge of pop stars and their babies, though.

 

[balrog666]

Chess requires you to consider how your opponent will respond to your moves, logically, step by step, and that's 1000% ahead of any competing educational method.

It also teaches you the clear value of rote book learning (wrt openings and end games), strategic planning (which applies to just about everything), and teachers who have a clue about the subject matter (and, conversely, the utter uselessness of most unionized education majors masquerading as teachers).


Learning chess doesn't mean you can think critically but it does teach a useful precursor or two. And for most people that is two (maybe ten) steps ahead of where they would otherwise be.

 

[klaus18]

Personally, I find that cheese is at least as effective as chess.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

You know I beat the guy that won the state championship in Minnesota. I beat him and lost to everyone else. He beat everyone else and lost to me. Chess is played alot of different ways. Not all of them involve much thinking. I tended to use luck. The thinking part came during the end game.

 

[RelativeSpace]

You know I beat the guy that won the state championship in Minnesota. I beat him and lost to everyone else. He beat everyone else and lost to me. Chess is played alot of different ways. Not all of them involve much thinking. I tended to use luck. The thinking part came during the end game.

That's kind of how I play too- just go at it as fast as possible, randomly, until something appears that I can use- and then I start thinking ahead more.

I don't like thinking too many steps ahead, as it feels tedious (easy, but tedious). I prefer interesting rules that have dramatic consequences within two or three steps. Starting out randomly achieves more of that effect, so I enjoy the game more (even if I lose pretty quickly most of the time- when it actually gets going, it's more fun).

 

[llwyd]

I think chess developes logical and clear thinking, identifying the important aspects of a situation, but you can also be logical and clear within an irrational framework, and I don't if you could say that chess in any specific sense teaches you to evaluate critically such larger frameworks and contexts.

 

[Dymanic]

You know I beat the guy that won the state championship in Minnesota. I beat him and lost to everyone else. He beat everyone else and lost to me. Chess is played alot of different ways. Not all of them involve much thinking. I tended to use luck. The thinking part came during the end game.

If this comes off as somewhat I can top that, well, maybe not such a surprising thing to see coming from a person who likes chess. Is my excuse.

The "chess mentor" I mentioned above was a fellow by the name of Lee Corbin. He ran a Saturday morning youth chess club out of a rec building at Hunt park in Riverside, California. Another protégé of his was now-Grandmaster Larry Christiansen. I guess Larry (who, for all I know, might insist: "That's Mr. Christiansen to you") must have mostly outgrown the club by the time I came along, because I don't remember seeing him around much -- but I did play him once, obtaining a draw. It probably represents approximately the high water mark of my chess career.

The occasion was him making a social call on our mutual mentor so they could both bask in the glory of his having just returned from winning the National High School Championship (I guess it was; I always remembered it being the "under sixteen division of the USCF open", but stuff gets munged in memory).

To be fair, it was just a skittles game, and he was chatting with Lee on and off, and that distraction may have been a bit of "luck" that helped me to avoid getting demolished early on (which is surely how Larry was expecting things to go). In my opinion, that sort of thing is about the only way luck can insert itself into the game of chess; if the other guy's chair has a slight wobble, or the light is in his eyes... something like that.

The chatter dropped off as the middle game became increasingly gory, and we ended up at king and pawn, with me at a slight advantage (like maybe a pawn or two up), and on very familiar ground to boot -- much to Lee's amusement and delight, him knowing that I had recently been focusing very heavily on endgame strategy. I don't remember the details. Just the complete silence, the three of us intently focused on the board -- and me playing from what should have been a winning position and ending up with a mere draw instead.

Still, the fact that I once made Larry Christiansen sweat a little makes for a fond (if somewhat fuzzy) memory -- especially if I can avoid immediately neutralizing it with the recognition that I once had potential, as well as a first-rate teacher, and opted instead for the life of a stoner. Of course, those alternative time lines are fraught with perils of their own; plus, it was the early Seventies...

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

I played a game of chess with 9th board all summer long after school. every day he beat me. One day I beat him. That was that last time I saw him. He just like beating me. That was the good team. Next year I joined the bad chess team playing 9th board. I did briefly play 2nd board once though. I tended to use intuition and luck rather than thinking ahead my moves. Didn't tend to sacrifice pieces much. I tended to make it to the end game but tended to make too many mistakes at the end to be a good player. But even a luck player who gets the edge and relizes it can win.

 

[Dymanic]

I played a game of chess with 9th board all summer long after school. every day he beat me. One day I beat him. That was that last time I saw him. He just like beating me. That was the good team. Next year I joined the bad chess team playing 9th board. I did briefly play 2nd board once though. I tended to use intuition and luck rather than thinking ahead my moves. Didn't tend to sacrifice pieces much. I tended to make it to the end game but tended to make too many mistakes at the end to be a good player. But even a luck player who gets the edge and relizes it can win.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "luck player". Maybe you could expand on that.

I always was a strong positional player, a quality which was sometimes my greatest weakness. What I recognize now (more than I did then) is that I focused on position partly because it was easier than focusing on tactics, with all of its tedious depth analysis... "If I do this, he may do that, in which case I may either do this or this, but he may also do that, in which case I can't do this because he'd do that..." Mind numbing, but it can't be avoided. My tendency to adhere somewhat rigidly to the "rules" of positional play was partly inspired by a (mostly false) hope of avoiding some of that tedium. But it also influenced my pruning of the tree, in ways of which I was not always aware. By treating position as an end in itself, rather than a means to an end, I often overlooked possiblities that started with a willingness to relinquish some positional (i.e., theoretical) rule -- and even more treacherous was my tendency to overlook possibilities that started with my opponent casting positional considerations aside for the sake of some tactical goal. It used to irk me when I got beaten by a guy who, in my opinion, played badly but somehow managed to make it work (I don't recall ever blaming it on "luck", though).

Improving one's ability to hold and manipulate a large number of symbols in short term memory is not only useful, but indispensible -- for chess players, mathematicians, programmers, and many others -- but I agree with those here who have said that it does not properly qualify as "critical thinking". What does qualify as critical thinking, in my view, is more along the lines of what I just did in the above paragraph: to try to critically evaluate thinking -- especially one's own -- in the hope of avoiding various pitfalls. Many logical fallacies are mental shortcuts; attempts to arrive quickly at conclusions by skipping tedious but ultimately necessary logical steps. Sometimes, you just gotta grit yer teeth and do the work.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "luck player". Maybe you could expand on that.

I always was a strong positional player, a quality which was sometimes my greatest weakness. What I recognize now (more than I did then) is that I focused on position partly because it was easier than focusing on tactics, with all of its tedious depth analysis... "If I do this, he may do that, in which case I may either do this or this, but he may also do that, in which case I can't do this because he'd do that..." Mind numbing, but it can't be avoided. My tendency to adhere somewhat rigidly to the "rules" of positional play was partly inspired by a (mostly false) hope of avoiding some of that tedium. But it also influenced my pruning of the tree, in ways of which I was not always aware. By treating position as an end in itself, rather than a means to an end, I often overlooked possiblities that started with a willingness to relinquish some positional (i.e., theoretical) rule -- and even more treacherous was my tendency to overlook possibilities that started with my opponent casting positional considerations aside for the sake of some tactical goal. It used to irk me when I got beaten by a guy who, in my opinion, played badly but somehow managed to make it work (I don't recall ever blaming it on "luck", though).

Improving one's ability to hold and manipulate a large number of symbols in short term memory is not only useful, but indispensible -- for chess players, mathematicians, programmers, and many others -- but I agree with those here who have said that it does not properly qualify as "critical thinking". What does qualify as critical thinking, in my view, is more along the lines of what I just did in the above paragraph: to try to critically evaluate thinking -- especially one's own -- in the hope of avoiding various pitfalls. Many logical fallacies are mental shortcuts; attempts to arrive quickly at conclusions by skipping tedious but ultimately necessary logical steps. Sometimes, you just gotta grit yer teeth and do the work.

I tried to take the middle of the board. If it looked like I was winning I would start thinking about my moves

 

[Dymanic]

I tried to take the middle of the board. If it looked like I was winning I would start thinking about my moves

And if it looked like you were losing?

 

[kungfuhobbit]

Is chess good for teaching critical thinking?
No. It only features some facets of good thinking
http://www.kungfuhobbit.com/2012/06/good-thinking.html

 

[Manopolus]

I rather doubt it. Bobby Fischer was great at chess, but a complete idiot in sooo many ways that a little critical thinking might have avoided. Can it help you learn to think? Perhaps, but I don't think it really tends to transfer to other parts of your life.

Also, oddly enough, some very intelligent people (geniuses, even) find themselves completely unable to learn chess at the higher levels, even with practice (particularly true if they don't start playing before age 10 or so). It seems to be a very specific skill set, not as related to overall intelligence as chess players would have you believe. You get good at chess by studying chess (usually starting at a young age), not by being particularly intelligent, IMO... although the act of doing so may make help your memory and make you a little less likely to drop details when thinking ahead. I will also point out that chess tends to filter out those with an attention deficit (which is completely irrelevant to many other measures of intelligence and critical thinking skills).

Of course, the memorization of moves is the key skill nowadays at the elite levels... totally pointless, IMO. This is why chess is pretty much dead to me anymore.

...but yeah, in case you couldn't tell, I consider the supposed link between chess and intelligence (not to mention critical thinking) to be a bit of a myth, personally. It's a freaking game, just like any other. Working your butt off to maximize your skill at it doesn't change that. I admittedly don't have a lot of evidence for this, it's just my personal opinion. I played it for a long time, and that's the conclusion I eventually came to.

 

[Dymanic]

Of course, the memorization of moves is the key skill nowadays at the elite levels... totally pointless, IMO.

Not that again. "Shannon number". Google it.

 

[Checkmite]

Chess requires you to consider how your opponent will respond to your moves, logically, step by step, and that's 1000% ahead of any competing educational method.

What makes you think so? "Considering how your opponent will respond to your moves" has exactly zero practical application outside of sport/game-playing.

 

[Manopolus]

Not that again. "Shannon number". Google it.

No. Has no relevance to what I was saying. I was referring to the high degree of opening memorization and the search for new variations which give you an edge in competition chess, not to the search for the "perfect game" concept.

Actually, grading the usefulness of a set of opening moves nowadays involves the compilation of huge databases of tournament games and statistics regarding which side wins or draws... in some ways, perhaps another method of trying to get to the same end implied by the "Shannon Number," but not really... it's just trying to get to the most statistically workable openings in any given situation. Note that opening choice often depends on whether you need a win or a draw nowadays to win the tournament, etc.

 

[Dymanic]

I was referring to the high degree of opening memorization and the search for new variations which give you an edge in competition chess, not to the search for the "perfect game" concept.

Oh, sorry. I'm glad to hear that. In that case, I can agree that memorization of openings is important -- but only in the same sense that, say, learning to play scales is important for a musician. "Key" only in the sense of "fundamental".

For players who reach what you are calling "elite" levels, remembering openings (along with their various quirks) requires no more effort than it does for the average person to recognize the face of a familiar old friend. The point at which things begin to turn on "new variants" is, I would argue, the point where the opening ends and the middle game begins.

Then it becomes more about recognizing familiar patterns and how they relate to the current (and almost certainly unique) position. But that's not really a matter of memorization, at least not in the ordinary sense. Is it? I mean, how do you recognize a person's face? Are you fully in touch with that process? You might say that you have that person's face "memorized", but that doesn't sound quite right, does it? It implies a level of effort on your part that you probably don't really deserve credit for.

I fingerpick a tune on the guitar, and somebody says, "Hey, how are you doing that?" -- and I usually can't answer in terms of which finger is engaging which string at which particular time, because I don't notice that so much anymore, and when I try to slow it down so that we can investigate, I often can't do it without screwing up.

I think chess gets like that. The experienced player is better at noticing the things that are worth noticing, and he probably couldn't tell you how he does it other than just: "experience". Perhaps even more interesting is what that implies, which is that he's also better at ignoring the things that aren't worth noticing -- and the things he ignores, he ignores so completely that he isn't even aware that he's ignoring them. We all do that. Whether our experience was gained on a chessboard, or a freeway, or the Arctic tundra, we ignore most of what's going on, most of the time, and we don't realize we're doing it. And if we fail to notice the things that are important, we may end up dead.

"Noticing the things that are worth noticing" might even be a reasonable working definition for "critical thinking". But the OP's question has to do with learnability, and with portability from one environment (the chessboard) to other environments, and I'd have to rate that as poor -- unless perhaps (as I said earlier) to the extent that it inspires one to undertake examination of the flaws in one's own approaches to problem solving in general.

 

[Manopolus]

Oh, sorry. I'm glad to hear that. In that case, I can agree that memorization of openings is important -- but only in the same sense that, say, learning to play scales is important for a musician. "Key" only in the sense of "fundamental".

Yeah, and I probably put too much emphasis on opening knowledge in any case, since I never had a lot of it. I never had a trainer, unless you count a few lessons from IM Dragan Stamenkovic through the WCN system, and I was something like 25 years old or more by that time (and oddly, he was only 16 or 17 I think). Learned the game at around 5, but didn't really try to take it seriously until I was in my 20s... I was out here in nowhereland and really didn't have the resources until internet chess took off.

I've just noticed the absolute reams of opening theory out there and never really cared much for the idea of trying to memorize it all (especially apprehinsive about the massive e4 and d4 lines), although I did get to know the Caro-Kann, English, and a variation of the Scotch gambit that usually leads to Guico Piano lines. I never got much past 1700 on the 'net (at WCN, not yahoo or something where ELO scores were usually somewhat more inflated, as I understand it... not that the WCN scores weren't inflated, but I'm thinking a little less so), but won most of the games I've played locally over the board (ok, remembering one trip up to 1802 ELO, but it went straight down to 1600 the next day, when I probably played too many games for my brain to function properly).

I also got into it enough to read a quite a few books on chess along the way... but anyway, I pretty much tossed it aside, eventually (somewhere around age 35). I just kind of figured out how pointless the whole thing was for me... really more an ego trip than anything. It's just a freaking game, you know? I still play chess now and then, but don't exactly try to study it any more, or make any attempt whatsoever to improve my game. And, of course, it's not like I've EVER had time to enter an actual over-the-board tournament, in any case.

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

And if it looked like you were losing?

Then I lost. But really, If someone lets you take the middle of the board, it would likely take a genius to figure out how to beat you.

 

[Dymanic]

Then I lost.

By early resignation, I would presume.

But really, If someone lets you take the middle of the board, it would likely take a genius to figure out how to beat you.

A sadistic genius at that; one who would let you take the middle just to toy with you for a while before overwhelming your positional edge with his superior tactical skill. I wish I had a nickel for every time it happened to me.