"…recent research into expertise has clearly indicated that, the higher the level of expertise in a domain, the more limited the transfer [of skills to other fields] will be… Moreover, reaching a high level of skill in domains such as chess, music or mathematics requires large amounts of practice to acquire the domain specific knowledge which determines expert performance. Inevitably, the time spent in developing such skills will impair the acquisition of other skills.”
Somehow, I am less inclined to believe a blog which has a personal axe to grind for authoritative analysis of a topic. Having met and talked with Fun Fong at a tournament, the “Armchair Warrior” is way off base in his conclusions that chess skills are not transferable. I also know Bob Ferguson and have talked with him about his studies. Ferdinand Gobet was at CMU in Pittsburgh for a time doing some research. I met and discussed some issues with him way back when. The “Armchair Warrior” has mischaracterized some of their work.
The research by Gobet and Campitelli is not compelling. The examination and experimental framework they use is over a very short time frame. Other studies that are over the application of chess study over an extensive time are much more positive with regards to the effects of chess and scholastic achievement. I am well aware of potential structural flaws of some of the studies. However, the general trend is positive, not negative, toward the effects of chess study.
I could point to anecdotal evidence in my own practice in dealing with special education students in a school and what some of my students have achieved. But since I am too busy working to teach chess and do not intend to publish an academic article, you can dismiss what I am about to say. I have seen chess skills develop alongside a maturation in overall cognitive abilities of students over an extended period. There are no metrics for persistence, character development, or grit. Students have scored better on standardized tests. They have plowed through difficulties both academic and personal because of the skills learned through chess. They have learned to compete, to not give up or give in, to question authority when necessary, and develop their own view of the world rather than have it imposed upon them.
Students who take up chess are more likely to work harder to solve math problems, to do the harder problems, and not seek to be spoon fed answers. They are more inclined to try to understand the process of finding the answer than in the answer itself. They do not give up after one stab at a problem, they do not want anyone to just give them the answer. That has been my experience of dealing with chess kids and kids who do not play the game. Whether the kids have a higher IQ is irrelevant; the chess kids work harder and are more persistent.
Learning chess is like learning a language. The earlier you learn, the better. Chess appears to affect and improve language development. Don’t ask me how or why, it just does. Maybe it improves reading scores. Maybe it helps the structuring of the brain to deal with complexities of language and communication. The amount of visualization necessary to play chess, to manipulate multiple variables, and to read complicated, at least for the layman, textual material in books and in websites, has a positive effect on young chess players.
Additionally, I think there is something to HOW it is taught. Contextual development with analogical comparison/contrasting is, on its face, more likely to develop transferable skills than rote memorization of key topics, and that would be true whether learning math or learning chess.
Having met and interacted with the blogger at issue multiple times, a comment that the blogger might have a personal axe to grind is certainly believable.
Chess, among many other intellectual pursuits, develops critical thinking skills. Although somewhat nebulous to quantify, critical thinking skills can be applies to many jobs, hobbies, and daily life events.
I’d say “directly transferable” really isn’t a good representation of how chess can positively effect a person’s life.
I don’t know if there is any job out there, aside from being a professional chess player, in which chess skills is needed. It’s not like an accountant is going to look at a ledger and say to himself that he could fill out by using the Sicilian Defense. :mrgreen:
Your observations mirror my experience with elementary school children (one in particular who had Asberger’s Syndrome) and to a greater extent with prison chess. With inmates, one of the greater challenges is anger management and maintaining civil interaction both as a loser and as a winner. The latter is very important for teaching compassion for others. The underlying concept that ones decisions many times have unavoidable consequences is a very important lesson to be learned by this cohort. Also important is developing the skill to not panic when a bad move/decision is made, but to focus and press on and pressure the opponent into making a poor decision. That lesson is quite transferable if presented in that context with a discussion, or at least noting, that the skills can be used by them on release. One of the wonderful things to witness is the joy many inmates experience just having a couple of hours to be simple humans where their bad prior acts are the meaningless past for that present moment. There are even moments of palpable joy to be witnessed.
Very good point on the impact of chess on prisoners. This is very much the same opinion of a social worker I know who works in a local prison as a teacher and counselor.
Had a blast this evening playing with the inmates. There is one fellow, David, who is a good player. In a slow game we are evenly matched though I usually win because I play a better endgame. But in blitz of three or five minutes!!! I can’t touch him. His pattern recognition is very quick and accurate. The best part is that we both can and do laugh at ourselves and each other. I told him tonight that when he’s released I’m going to take him to NYC’s Washington Square Park so he can make us some real money.
I brought a demonstration board with me tonight and that drew eight new players for inmates just passing through the mess hall. Good stuff.
Yes. The ability to analyze a problem. The process of selecting and rejecting alternatives, of combining strains of thought. Also, the habit of capitalizing on advantage.
If you come away from Chess with these, the game has done you some good.
Note that it is insufficient to ask and answer affirmatively “Does chess develop transferable skills ?”. To be of value, we need to ask and affirmatively answer: “Does chess develop transferable skills better than other comparable past times in which children might regularly participate?” I believe Ferguson’s study was designed more along the lines of the latter question.