Is chess good for teaching critical thinking?

[JJM 777]

In chess you are given rules, and then you follow them.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by cornsail

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

Well, I suppose that the blueberry yogurt thing could possibly be some kind of code.

I hear that paranoia and mental illness is quite common among top chess masters.

The Five Craziest and Most Brilliant Chess Grandmasters of all Time

Fischer is #1 on the list of course.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Originally Posted by DrDave

I'm intrigued how that code would work in a game with as many possible moves as chess

Blueberry yoghurt = Take that pawn on queen's bishop 4 with your knight
Raspberry mousse = Pawn to kings rook 3
etc.

It isn't something a sane and logical person would dream up. For the code to have much meaning you'd have to stock an awful lot of flavors, and eat an awful lot of yogurt during the match. I wouldn't bring something like that up if it hadn't happened. Sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction.

[Dipayan]

Like some others have mentioned before, chess can be broken down into two broad skill requirements -

- Opening & end game: Theory, and theory.
- Middle game: Pattern recognition and analytical* skills

Not sure how critical thinking plays a role here (assuming the regular meaning of 'critical thinking').

But yes,chess should be included in all curricula simply because of the sheer beauty of it.

*Edit: When I mention 'analytical skills' it actually comes back to pattern recognition. Other than simple tactics - if I play this, she plays that, then I play this, then she plays that and I take her queen - deep analysis comes simply from visualizing a position that one knows is favourable for oneself, and then making move that helps in achieving that position.

[cornsail]

I've learned to play many games and if there's one game that's improved my critical thinking it's poker.

I could see chess being decent working memory exercise (thinking multiple steps ahead) maybe. But I don't see how it could get people to question what they're taught, confront their own biases or make them more open minded.

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by cornsail

I've learned to play many games and if there's one game that's improved my critical thinking it's poker.

I could see chess being decent working memory exercise (thinking multiple steps ahead) maybe. But I don't see how it could get people to question what they're taught, confront their own biases or make them more open minded.

It's interesting to compare chess and poker thinking. I consider both to be very high forms but different. Chess is more forcing and mathematical. Things can be proved and refuted. Plans can be worked out in advance, sometimes very far, with one mind being taken along a path by another, sometimes all the way to eventual defeat. Play through some of Karpov's games to see how a tiny advantage acquired in the first few moves can be nursed to a win through the remainder of the opening, the middlegame and the endgame.

Poker is much less clear-cut but involves no less skill in manipulating the opponents' thought processes to make them believe things that favour you. The opportunities to 'force' don't come up so much. As a chess player who has dabbled in poker, not altogether successfully*, I greatly admire those who are at home in its environment. Btw. I know there is also calculation in poker but that's confined to each deal whereas the business of mastering another player over the course of a long session will not be the result of knowing the odds better, but of reading and misleading. Poker has the fog of war, which some can penetrate better than others.

It's obvious chess teaches critical thinking just as it teaches all the kinds of thinking you need to play chess. Not so obvious what poker teaches but I bet it's useful whatever it is.

* I have discovered it's not good to smile broadly when you get a good hand, in case anyone wants to pass that around.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Upper-level chess isn't played move-by-move; there are standard suites of moves, standard gambits or tactics, that each player will use.

Really? That isn't a very good description of Chess as I know it.

There are some standard patterns that occur. Good players are the ones who recognize those patterns and take advantage of them. Great players are the ones who can look at the board as it is and force their opponent into one of the standard patterns.

I've read some of the literature about Chess and improvement of academic skills. I'm skeptical of them, although they seem well documented. Basically, they studied school kids before and after Chess was introduced into the curriculum, and there tended to be improved academic performance after Chess.

Regardless of whether or not that improvement in academic performance was in any sense caused by Chess, I'm extremely skeptical of Chess as a tool for critical thinking development. It's too narrow in focus. The only thing that I see it being marginally valuable for when itcomes to teaching critical thinking to children is as a demonstration that not all opinions are valid. In many games, people will insist that they are really good at playing the game, and they know all the great tricks, and when they lose they blame the dice or the cards. In Chess, you cannot (rationally) blame bad luck. If you lose, it's because whatever you thought would work, didn't.

Quote:

You can't improve your critical thinking skills by wrote memorization of conversational gambits, and doing so is the mark of someone who's just gotten into the field (the epitome of this is, again, fallacy sniping--where someone merely calls out recognized [or presumably recognized] fallacies without giving them due consideration).

I've never heard the term "fallacy sniping", but it's a wonderful term. There are indeed a great many posters on JREF guilty of it, and they pat themselves on the back for being great critical thinkers.

[anglolawyer]

Actually top level chess involves a combination of employing vast theoretical knowledge as well as general playing ability. The depth of opening research required to play at top level is truly daunting, especially now that computers are properly on the scene and have shown how razor sharp play (for the moment) is superior to rule-based, principled development (concentrate on the centre, don't move the same piece twice etc., are inferior to a concrete analysis whoch identifies the best move in the given position, which may involve flouting any number of 'rules').

English Grandmaster Matthew Sadler described the amount of work he would have to put in to prepare for a single Bundesliga game when explaining why he was giving up the game professionally. It would take him several days to prepare for one game. This is why Fischer proposed a version of the game in which the back row pieces are randomised so as to eliminate the advantage of deploying and the chore of acquiring opening knowledge.

I forget how large Kasparov's own opening data base grew to be but it was dauntingly massive, demanding sheer memory, as well as understanding. The modern game, at the highest level, is entirely different from the one Fischer played and a world away from that of the first half of the last century.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by BStrong

Strategic and tactical thinking yes, critical thinking, maybe.

Learning about planning and the horizon effect, to be precise -- leading your opponent down a path they cannot see until it's too late -- a path with danger just beyond the horizon they see to.

It was their deep understanding of the horizon effect and how computers work with it that let the top chess masters hold off challenges from AI as long as they did.


That one of the greatest of all time, Bobby Fischer, was a CT nut, shows it clearly is no critical thinking prophylactic against woo.

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by cornsail

I've learned to play many games and if there's one game that's improved my critical thinking it's poker.

Maybe it's just that "critical thinking" is somewhat multi-faceted, and poker helps to develop those aspects that are more likely to be of value in real-world situations involving complex social interactions.

The current wikipedia page on "critical thinking" begins with a simple and straightforward statement: "Critical thinking is thinking that questions assumptions" (citation needed). That surely applies to both chess and poker, but not in exactly the same way.

There is a psychology to chess (as well as a lot of psycho chess players), but it's possible to ignore that completely when analyzing a position. Your opponent may be attempting to employ psychological tactics like deception or intimidation, but everything you need to know about the position is right there in front of you, so it really boils down to your ability to evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of various lines of play. With poker, the psychological aspect of the game is its most dominant feature. Experienced players will recognize when a player is sticking to a rigidly analytical approach and adapt their play accordingly, just as they will adapt to other styles of play (bluffing a lot; whatever). What's going in the other guy's head is at least as important as what's happening with the cards.

[pakeha]

How is it no one has posted up this?

Quote:

"Amberley excelled at chess -- one mark, Watson, of a scheming mind."
-- Sherlock Holmes, "The Adventure of the Retired Colourman

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Rasmus

I don't see the relation at all.
Tactics, yes. But critical thinking?
How?

Some commedian said: "I was playing chess with a friend and he said 'Let's make this interesting', so we quit playing chess."
I dropped out of college (informally) for a year and played chess. The next year I took a senior-level Algebra class and a senior-level Mathematical Logic class (in the Logic class I was one of two undergrads in a class of six the first semester and the only undergrad in a class of four the next semester). I aced Algebra and Logic. Chess did that. Chess feels like Algebra; you move symbols around to get some desired result. So, does chess teach critical thinking? Ummm...dunno. Bertrand Russell said he briefly became enthralled by chess and quit when he recognized how captivating the game could be. {Play chess} intersect {accomplish something} = {}.
I'd rather see kids study auto mechanics or masonry.

[Almo]

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

{Play chess} intersect {accomplish something} = {}.
I'd rather see kids study auto mechanics or masonry.

I don't like chess, but I couldn't disagree more with this. I know someone who struggles daily with this weird notion of what it means to "accomplish" something.

[cornsail]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

Maybe it's just that "critical thinking" is somewhat multi-faceted, and poker helps to develop those aspects that are more likely to be of value in real-world situations involving complex social interactions.

The current wikipedia page on "critical thinking" begins with a simple and straightforward statement: "Critical thinking is thinking that questions assumptions" (citation needed). That surely applies to both chess and poker, but not in exactly the same way.

There is a psychology to chess (as well as a lot of psycho chess players), but it's possible to ignore that completely when analyzing a position. Your opponent may be attempting to employ psychological tactics like deception or intimidation, but everything you need to know about the position is right there in front of you, so it really boils down to your ability to evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of various lines of play. With poker, the psychological aspect of the game is its most dominant feature. Experienced players will recognize when a player is sticking to a rigidly analytical approach and adapt their play accordingly, just as they will adapt to other styles of play (bluffing a lot; whatever). What's going in the other guy's head is at least as important as what's happening with the cards.

Agreed to some extent. IMO the most difficult thing about learning poker is that it can be extremely difficult to know if you're playing well or not. You can't say "I won big that hand, therefore I played it well" or "I lost big that hand, therefore I played it poorly" [it can be really hard to drill this results oriented thinking out of your head] or even "I'm up big after those few thousand hands, so I've been playing well". The variance is just too large. You can say something like "I'm up after my last 50 thousand hands and the stats show that it is very likely this is due to me outplaying the competition", but you can't determine from this which decisions made in which hands were good, bad, etc.

You also have to learn to think in terms of EV and weighted probability distributions, which is not very intuitive and often dictates calling with what is most likely the worst hand on the river and so on.

I think if it has anything to teach as far as critical thinking is concerned it's gaining a better understanding of variance and statistics (very important in science), challenging our bias toward thinking "event A was followed by negative consequence Y, therefore A was bad or vice versa". I have a hard time imagining a truly good poker player saying "I took a homeopathic remedy and I got better shortly after that, so homeopathy must work!"

I wouldn't teach poker to kids in school and expect it to accomplish anything, though. It took months just for me to start thinking about it semi-properly. And of course I don't know how much if any of those skills transfer outside of the game for most people.

[Zelenius]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

He's not "just one example"; he was allegedly "the greatest player ever", and he seemed to possess very weak critical thinking skills despite his rarely-matched mastery of chess. This suggests very strongly that chess does not impart these skills.

When Garry Kasparov was defeated by the IBM machine, he insisted that the machine was a fraud; that the technician operating the computer was telling it what moves to play. Essentially, he was claiming that he was beaten by the technician, not the machine. Yet the technician was in plain sight, entering nothing but Kasparov's moves into the computer. I personally happen to think Kasparov is a greater player than Fischer; but whether or not you agree, he was the undisputed world champion at the time and he demonstrated a blatant failure of critical thinking.

I realize Fischer was the best or nearly the best at chess for a long time. Obviously, Fischer was also a deeply disturbed individual. It's the human condition, even the smartest, most rational among us can have blind-spots due to how we compartmentalize our minds, and due to mental illness. Kasparov isn't nearly as irrational as Fischer, he just reacted emotionally and irrationally to a computer beating him. I'm not sure if he still believes the technician or a real person actually beat him.

Also, the OP said nothing about how well one is at chess reflects their critical thinking skills. So being better at chess ≠ being a better critical thinker or even a thinker generally. It's no brain panacea, it has very serious limitations.There's no reason to believe that a Grandmaster is necessarily better at applying critical thinking than a chess amateur, except perhaps in chess, if it is critical thinking they are actually using. Beyond a certain very low level, there are diminishing returns or none at all, for what chess can do to improve critical thinking ability. Obviously, the "transfer" of reasoning skills from chess to all other areas of our lives is a lot less than many of us(myself included) would have hoped.

Another interesting case of extreme irrationality existing alongside genius in the same brain is Kurt Godel, one of the greatest mathematicians who ever lived. He was a master of mathematical logic, yet starved to death because he refused to eat anything due to his belief that everyone was trying to poison him. It would be foolish to dismiss his incredible contributions to mathematics due to his madness. I could list many more chess champion crazies, and prominent scientists, but you get the picture.

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Zelenius

...Another interesting case of extreme irrationality existing alongside genius in the same brain is Kurt Godel, one of the greatest mathematicians who ever lived. He was a master of mathematical logic, yet starved to death because he refused to eat anything due to his belief that everyone was trying to poison him.

Godel suspected that someone was trying to kill him. Godel, who observed that self-referential statements create logical problems, was right.

[Wayward son]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

When Garry Kasparov was defeated by the IBM machine, he insisted that the machine was a fraud; that the technician operating the computer was telling it what moves to play. Essentially, he was claiming that he was beaten by the technician, not the machine. Yet the technician was in plain sight, entering nothing but Kasparov's moves into the computer. I personally happen to think Kasparov is a greater player than Fischer; but whether or not you agree, he was the undisputed world champion at the time and he demonstrated a blatant failure of critical thinking.

I have some problems with this statement. First of all Kasparov did not think that the technician beat him at chess. The claim that was made (or implied) by Kasparov and some others at the time was that Deep Blue could have at certain times been essentially playing what is called "advanced chess" where a strong GM combines with a chess program to result in a stronger playing strength than either would alone. There have been advanced chess tournaments since that time which have shown that human and computer combined are stronger with each doing what they do best. One of the main members of the Deep Blue team was Joel Benjamin, a strong GM. The technician who entered Kasparov's moves and played the moves on the board for Deep Blue was not sitting with Deep Blue - it was in a room elsewhere in the building. The technician simply had a laptop that relayed the moves.

I think that conspiracy theories surounding Deep Blue are silly. And I thought that they were "out there" at the time I first heard them. However, I do recognize that it is a lot easier to look back with the passage of time and make the claim that anyone who thought such a thing was possible demonstrated a blatant failure of critical thinking, for the simple reason that within 3 or 4 years other programs showed they were capable of playing in a manner similar to Deep Blue. But at the time Deep Blue played many moves in a manner that shocked many of the strongest GMs in the world (like Seirawan). Deep Blue was a major leap. There was nothing to compare it with in the preceeding years (including its own prototype from 1995 and 1996) and, as it was immediately removed after the competition, nothing to compare it with in the year or two following. In that vaccuum I think that skepticism about the computer's performance was not a blatant failure of critical thinking. There was a single anecedote, of an extraordinary performance, following which the program was hidden from public view.

Having said all that, by the time the documentary on this conspiracy theory came out - (which was 2003 I believe) there were many chess programs which were playing in a manner similar to Deep Blue (and by this time Deep Blues logs had been released). Kasparov's continued insistence that the program may have cheated, along with his many other views, are what show him to lack critical thinking skills.

[kblood]

There are several kinds of thinking, but yet. Chess is a good way of developing one kind of critical thinking.

[Wayward son]

Originally Posted by cornsail

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


The World Championship match of 1978 was held in Baguio, Philippines. There was controversy off the board, ranging from X-raying of chairs, protests about the flags used on the board, hypnotism complaints and the mirror glasses used by Korchnoi. When Karpov's team sent him a blueberry yogurt during a game without any request for one by Karpov, the Korchnoi team protested, claiming it could be some kind of code. They later said this was intended as a parody of earlier protests, but it was taken seriously at the time.

This was posted as evidence of other GMs who were/are insane conspiracy theorists, and I don't think it necessarily qualifies. I have never seen any evidence for Karpov or Korchnoi holding conspiracy theory views. That, of course, does not mean it is not out there, but I have read Korchnoi's autobiography, and saw little to indicate that Korchnoi would know about let alone care about conspiracy theories - he cares about chess - and that is about it. Karpov appears to be roughly the same. The 1978 World Championship match (as well as the 1981 match between the two of them again) was a gong show. But the nuttiness was likely less a reflection of the two players themselves, and more a reflection of their team members, as well as the cold war political turmoil of a match between Karpov representing the USSR and Korchnoi who was THE defector, and an enemy of the state. Korchnoi had to leave his wife and son behind. For the second match his son was sent to a Gulag. Two high stakes matches, between two players (and their teams) who had as much distrust of the other as is humanly possible. Things get weird (part of it psychological to try to throw your opponent off) for sure. But that doesn't mean that either hold insane conspiracy theorist views.

Having said that, I don't feel that someone who holds no conspiracy theorist views is necessarily a better critical thinker than someone who holds some or even many. It depends on life experience and certainly many of the chess playing greats (Benko, Gulko and Bronstein come to mind, and of course Korchnoi. Ludek Pachman was imprisoned from 1968 until 1972 and tortured just short of death during that time) from places like the former USSR had life experiences that left them with good reasons to be susceptible to conspiracy theories.

[Wayward son]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

The Five Craziest and Most Brilliant Chess Grandmasters of all Time

Fischer is #1 on the list of course.

Any list which does not include Paul Morphy is pretty suspect (only Fischer can top him in my opinion). I think we should also remember that many perfectly sane, rational people go a little nutty towards the end of their life and should probably not be included. There were a lot of early warning signs with Fischer and severe mental illness that lasted decades. Same thing for Morphy. But, I don't think for example, that Steinitz spending a couple weeks in a psych hospital in the last year or two of his life puts him in the same category.

[Zelenius]

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

Godel suspected that someone was trying to kill him. Godel, who observed that self-referential statements create logical problems, was right.

I think you have to be "insane" to discover such paradoxical ideas. So yes, he was right, and he was insane, at least in his later years.

[cornsail]

Originally Posted by Wayward son

This was posted as evidence of other GMs who were/are insane conspiracy theorists, and I don't think it necessarily qualifies. I have never seen any evidence for Karpov or Korchnoi holding conspiracy theory views. That, of course, does not mean it is not out there, but I have read Korchnoi's autobiography, and saw little to indicate that Korchnoi would know about let alone care about conspiracy theories - he cares about chess - and that is about it. Karpov appears to be roughly the same. The 1978 World Championship match (as well as the 1981 match between the two of them again) was a gong show. But the nuttiness was likely less a reflection of the two players themselves, and more a reflection of their team members, as well as the cold war political turmoil of a match between Karpov representing the USSR and Korchnoi who was THE defector, and an enemy of the state. Korchnoi had to leave his wife and son behind. For the second match his son was sent to a Gulag. Two high stakes matches, between two players (and their teams) who had as much distrust of the other as is humanly possible. Things get weird (part of it psychological to try to throw your opponent off) for sure. But that doesn't mean that either hold insane conspiracy theorist views.

Having said that, I don't feel that someone who holds no conspiracy theorist views is necessarily a better critical thinker than someone who holds some or even many. It depends on life experience and certainly many of the chess playing greats (Benko, Gulko and Bronstein come to mind, and of course Korchnoi. Ludek Pachman was imprisoned from 1968 until 1972 and tortured just short of death during that time) from places like the former USSR had life experiences that left them with good reasons to be susceptible to conspiracy theories.

Fair enough, but to me it shows that they was some irrational thinking going on at that championship.

I don't think playing chess makes people any more or less likely to believe in conspiracy theories. I think it may be possible that on average good chess players might even be less likely to be susceptible to nutty conspiracy theories than the average Joe, but were this to be the case I doubt it would be because they play chess, but rather because they are naturally intelligent.

This is just speculation, of course.

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by cornsail

I think it may be possible that on average good chess players might even be less likely to be susceptible to nutty conspiracy theories than the average Joe, but were this to be the case I doubt it would be because they play chess, but rather because they are naturally intelligent.

I think it may be possible that highly intelligent people are more likely to become targets of actual conspiracies. Just because you're paranoid, that doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

[GlennB]

For training in useful analytical thinking I'd rank bridge far higher than chess. There's little or no use for inference and deduction in chess, whereas they are everything in good bridge.

I'd say a good bridge player would make a far better Sherlock Holmes than a good chess player

[cornsail]

Originally Posted by Dymanic

I think it may be possible that highly intelligent people are more likely to become targets of actual conspiracies. Just because you're paranoid, that doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

I specified "nutty conspiracy theories", because of course conspiracies do happen sometimes.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by cornsail

Fair enough, but to me it shows that they was some irrational thinking going on at that championship.

I don't think playing chess makes people any more or less likely to believe in conspiracy theories. I think it may be possible that on average good chess players might even be less likely to be susceptible to nutty conspiracy theories than the average Joe, but were this to be the case I doubt it would be because they play chess, but rather because they are naturally intelligent.

This is just speculation, of course.

I didn't mean to suggest that chess makes people irrational. However, it seems to me that critical thinking isn't a necessary skill for mastering chess (as opposed to things like logic and pattern recognition). That leads me to question why chess even would incidentally "teach critical thinking". I do not believe it does.

[Mark6]

I do not see how chess could possibly teach critical thinking. Critical thinking involves examining incomplete, and possibly downright fraudulent, evidence, and deciding whether it is valid or not. In chess all information is out in the open, the only question is how to act on it. I can see how Minesweeper could teach critical thinking skills, or poker, or any game where one must act on incomplete information. But not chess.

[cornsail]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I didn't mean to suggest that chess makes people irrational. However, it seems to me that critical thinking isn't a necessary skill for mastering chess (as opposed to things like logic and pattern recognition). That leads me to question why chess even would incidentally "teach critical thinking". I do not believe it does.

Agreed.

[RelativeSpace]

I think learning chess is excellent for thinking in general (though maybe not critical thought specifically)... but as with any game, there are diminishing returns after the basic game play has been learned and the player has obtained a certain degree of proficiency.

A game like chess, but with dynamic and changing rules, might do better (adding more dimensions, more pieces, changing pieces)- but the more effective it is in this sense, the harder it is to design the game itself.

[Zelenius]

Originally Posted by RelativeSpace

I think learning chess is excellent for thinking in general (though maybe not critical thought specifically)... but as with any game, there are diminishing returns after the basic game play has been learned and the player has obtained a certain degree of proficiency.

A game like chess, but with dynamic and changing rules, might do better (adding more dimensions, more pieces, changing pieces)- but the more effective it is in this sense, the harder it is to design the game itself.

I mostly agree. This is why some chess players prefer Shuffle Chess or Chess 960, since the position of the back pieces is randomized before play. All too often, the first several opening moves of many players, especially Grandmasters are all standard openings that rely on rote memorization. Randomizing the back pieces forces players to put more original thought into their opening moves.

[cornsail]

Good point. I love Fischer Random.

[Bikewer]

I found chess to be good for examining a problem in detail and to think of all the possible ramifications of your actions. For constantly balancing all the elements of chess; power, positon, and time.
However.... I understand that at the upper levels of play, most of this goes out the window on a conscious level.
Much like the music student who achieves fluency in sight-reading. At some point it just starts to "work" and the student doesn't have to say "Hmmm... that's an e-flat." (and much like learning to read...)
The advanced chess player sees the board as patterns, and processes this information quite differently than do lesser players.
That's why grandmasters can easily do the trick of playing a dozen opponents at once; a single glance at the board gives them all the information required.

[RelativeSpace]

Originally Posted by Zelenius

This is why some chess players prefer Shuffle Chess or Chess 960, since the position of the back pieces is randomized before play.

Now that sounds pretty fun. That could even get me back into chess (I haven't played in a very long time).

When I play most games, I can only play a few times before losing interest. I really enjoy learning new games and playing those first few times until I 'get it'. After that, I like to move on.

[GlennB]

I'm not sure I'd like having 2 bishops of the same colour

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by RelativeSpace

A game like chess, but with dynamic and changing rules, might do better (adding more dimensions, more pieces, changing pieces)- but the more effective it is in this sense, the harder it is to design the game itself.

I played a fair amount of tournament chess during junior high school, a phase which ended abruptly when I discovered weed, and girls (both of which happened around the same time, and neither of which was very useful as a tool for learning critical thinking). Though it was not encouraged by my chess mentor, the fellow who conducted the youth chess club where I learned to play "chess for blood", we used to play a lot of varieties of "freak chess". Double chess (each player gets two moves in succession), Scotch chess (white moves once, black twice, white three times, etc), Super chess (any piece, king excepted, may move to any unoccupied square on the board, with some limitations; pawns cannot super-promote, bishops may not change color). My favorite was one we called "Ultima". Especially fun to play in front of an audience of chess players unfamiliar with the variant, with rich opportunities to deadpan lines like, "You can't coordinate my immobilizer, because it puts you in check from my leaper".

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.

[Mark6]

I had seen MANY variants of chess, and played some. Half-chess: 5x5 board with each side having only 1 of each back piece, and pawns move no more than one space. Two on two chess: cross-shaped board with 128 spaces, four sets of pieces (white, black, green and red), with white and green against black and red. Boards with more than 8 squares on a side. Wraparound boards where pieces can move off on left and come out on right, or top and bottom, or both. On a wraparound board with odd number of squares a bishop becomes a chameleon -- changes square color when it "comes around". Etc.

[Almo]

Half Chess is Los Alamos Chess, designed to be tractable by early computers in reasonable time.

[franklinveaux]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

I don't think chess can teach critical thinking skills.

At the lower levels, it's merely learning the rules. This may be analogous to learning the rules of debate, but it's certainly not identical to it--the rules of chess, like all games, are arbitrary, in a way that the rules of debate and argument are not. Further, chess has a limited scope, while critical thinking really doesn't.

At the higher levels it's worse. "Extra Credits" did an episode about ballance in videogames that highlighted the issue with chess: the fact that the game is so perfectly ballanced means that the overwhelming majority of tactics have been tried, perfected, named, and classified. One learns to recognize tactics and utilize counter-tactics.

In my misspent college youth, I used to be a bit of a chess nut. I took a class in chess theory from a professor who held a master's ranking at chess and a grandmaster's ranking at go.

One of the things he said about chess is that, contrary to popular myth, high-level chess players very rarely look more than a couple of moves ahead, and then only in unusual circumstances.

Instead, he said, becoming a high-level chess player is all pattern recognition and pattern matching. When you start playing chess, he said, you see a board with a bunch of pieces on it. When you become a master, you don't see a bunch of pieces; you see a bunch of patterns, and you use those patterns toward configurations you recognize that you can win from. At a grandmaster's level, you don't see patterns; you see patterns of patterns. But that's all it is. Not strategy, just pattern recognition.

That, he said, is how masters do the common chess trick where they will play a dozen opponents simultaneously. They are not memorizing the boards or planning ahead in any of the games. They're simply coming up to each board as though they'd never seen it before, and doing pattern matching.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

Some commedian said: "I was playing chess with a friend and he said 'Let's make this interesting', so we quit playing chess."

Sounds like something Stephen Wright would say.

[Dymanic]

Originally Posted by Mark6

I had seen MANY variants of chess, and played some. Half-chess: 5x5 board with each side having only 1 of each back piece, and pawns move no more than one space. Two on two chess: cross-shaped board with 128 spaces, four sets of pieces (white, black, green and red), with white and green against black and red. Boards with more than 8 squares on a side. Wraparound boards where pieces can move off on left and come out on right, or top and bottom, or both. On a wraparound board with odd number of squares a bishop becomes a chameleon -- changes square color when it "comes around". Etc.

One variant my chess mentor did encourage was "King and five". Each player gets only a king and five pawns, which he may arrange anywhere he likes on his half of the board as long as the king isn't in the front row -- but someone holds up a partition during the setup so that neither player can see the other's arrangement until play begins. It's a good way to learn about "opposition" and "stepping into the square" and other aspects of king and pawn endgame strategy.