Tim Redman, Candidate for USCF Executive Board
Tim Redman
Dear USCF Voter,
I write to announce my candidacy for the USCF Executive Board. In the
fourteen years since my last service on the Policy Board (1978-1985),
many of you have encouraged me to run again. Those suggestions have
been very gratifying to me personally, but time and again I have
demurred, saying simply that I had no new ideas to contribute. For
that is how I see these elections: they provide an open forum for the
discussion of ideas that could benefit chess. Ideas, not
personalities.
Why am I running?
About a year ago, over lunch, another USCF Voter urged me to run for
the Board, and once again I made my usual response -- I don't have any
new ideas. Mike Cavallo was with us at that lunch and he responded
quickly: "Actually, that's not true. There's college chess." I had to
admit that Mike was right. As many of you know, over the past several
years I have been working to promote the development of college chess.
I've had some success at my university, the University of Texas at
Dallas, in convincing the administration to provide academic and
competitive scholarships to chess players. I am fortunate to be
teaching at a university with an enlightened central administration.
And USCF administration has been very receptive to my suggestions of a
college team discount and an Internet National College Chess League.
The current Board, particularly President Don Schultz, college liaison
Garrett Scott, and Treasurer Tom Dorsch, as well as the New Windsor
staff, particularly Executive Director Mike Cavallo, Assistant
Directors Beatriz Marinello and Ernie Schlich, and Chess Life Editor
Glenn Peterson, have all been supportive of my ideas for the promotion
of college chess. But I am enough of an old hand (a member of the "La
Caissa Nostra" as one wit has put it) to know that if these efforts
are to thrive, a Board advocate who is directly involved in their
design and implementation is needed. I think there are other areas
where I can contribute as well. So I'm running for the Board in '99.
My background and experience in brief.
I have served chess as the president of the Illinois Chess Association
(twice) and the Ohio Chess Association (once). I was USCF
Vice-President (on the Sperling Board, 1978-1981), USCF President
(1981-1984), and Immediate Past President (on the Doyle Board,
1984-1985). I have chaired the Nominations Committee, the Rules
Committee, and the Ethics Committee, and I am currently chair of the
College Chess Committee. I have been a part of the Federation's
delegation at four meetings of the FIDE General Assembly. With the
help of Gerry Dullea, I edited the 3rd edition of the Official Rules
of Chess (1987). I am an award-winning journalist and a member of the
Chess Journalists of America. Thus I will bring to the Executive Board
expertise in the areas of publishing, FIDE, USCF Rules, and an
historical perspective that will help the Federation during the
current difficult period. I should add that there is another reason
for my running. At a difficult period in my life, chess provided a
great refuge and solace. Whatever service I can offer to chess comes
from an ever lively sense of gratitude for what it gave me then. I am
also a player, and was briefly among the top twenty-five junior
players in the country. I still love tournament chess though I don't
seem to do very well at it anymore.
Professionally, I am a tenured full professor of literary studies at
the University of Texas at Dallas, a Category I Doctoral Institution
that serves as the public honors university of Texas. I have a second
career as an author, and am currently finishing a biography of the
American poet Ezra Pound. The book is under contract with Henry Holt,
Inc. which has provided a $50,000 advance. I have a New York agent, I
am an active member of PEN (the international association of
professional writers), and I occasionally review biography for The
Dallas Morning News. I have been able to use my professional skills
and background for the promotion of chess and in the area of chess and
education.
The current USCF financial crisis.
Late last Fall, USCF Treasurer Tom Dorsch called the attention of
Board colleagues to an alarming operational deficit. Several of them
refused to heed the warning, but Tom continued to insist that his
figures were correct. Last February in New Jersey at the U.S. Amateur
Team East three members of the current Executive Board (Dorsch, Eade,
Lieberman) convened an emergency meeting to address the current USCF
financial crisis. I was scheduled to attend, but a sickout by the
American Airlines Pilots' Union forced me to change plans: more than
one thousand flights, including my own, were canceled. Many Federation
leaders, including Mike Cavallo, attended the financial workshop that
weekend. The Board meeting never materialized due to a lack of a
quorum. The USCF President, though at the hotel, would not attend, and
two other Board Members, Vice President Bill Goichberg and
Member-at-Large Garrett Scott did not come in for the meeting. A
workshop was held instead.
I have received several different accounts of that workshop, including
useful reports by Jim Pechac and Leroy Dubeck. Although predictions
about how the Federation will finish this fiscal year vary, the
consensus among many of our financial experts (Mike Carr, Tony
Cottell, Steve Doyle, Dubeck, Dorsch, and Pechac) is that our
situation is difficult. Dorsch's predictions have proven correct. At
this point, based on the most recent (March) figures, it appears that
we are heading for approximately a $160,000-170,000 operational loss
this year. After adjustments needed for a bad debt are made by our
accountants, the loss may total as much as $200,000.
A single bad year like that can be absorbed by an operation the size
of the Federation. What is more disturbing to me is the marked
increase in USCF indebtedness that has occurred in the past two years.
We borrowed $175,000 last fiscal year to replenish inventory and cover
operational losses. This year we have a $450,000 note coming due to
cover a greater operational loss. The note must be paid down entirely
to retain the favorable rate of interest, which would mean taking
money temporarily out of Life Member Assets or negotiating a higher
rate of interest with the bank. There is an additional $75,000 due to
the bank on a note that covered the upgrade of our computer system as
well as another $15,000 still owed to the system vendor. There is
evidence to suggest that some vendor payments are being delayed by the
USCF due to cash flow concerns. This trend -- increasing indebtedness
to cover operational losses -- must be stopped immediately.
On the Positive Side
There is an old saying in economics, "genius is a rising market." A
rising market and hefty profits create the impression of great
capability and insight on the part of management. They also underwrite
and conceal a lot of mistakes and transaction costs. The corollary to
that old saying might be "folly is a falling market." When economic
times are tough, an illusion is created of mismanagement and error
while positive operational accomplishments are often overlooked. In
the heat of the current political campaign, it is important not to
fall into the blame game. We need to adopt a more nuanced approach not
only as we assess what problems exist and how we can fix them, but
also as we recognize the positive accomplishments of the current
administration.
I have a friend in Italy, Paolo Ameglio, who owns a
seventeenth-century villa in the hills overlooking the ancient port of
Genova. I have stayed with his family many times over the past thirty
years. Every hundred years or so the terra cotta roof needs to be
replaced (they are very durable). A few years ago Paolo was bemoaning
the fact that it was his bad luck to own the family property at a time
when the roof needed fixing. It cost him $250,000 since according to
Italian law historic buildings must be restored using historically
accurate materials and techniques.
The current administration took over at a time when the roof needed
fixing, both literally and metaphorically. Inventory and
infrastructure badly needed upgrading. The roof, phone system, and
computer system were all showing their age. USCF catalog inventory
(books and equipment) was overvalued, outdated, and not selling. To
give just a single, personal example: at the U.S. Open in Alexandria,
Virginia in 1996 I couldn't find a single thing I wanted to buy in the
USCF concession room. For the first time in my life I left a chess
store without buying a thing. Last month at the National Open in Las
Vegas, I spent more than $150: inventory has definitely been upgraded
and chess expertise has been brought to bear on our merchandise
selections. During a time of low interest rates, inventory improvement
was a wise management choice.
I am not terribly worried by the money spent on the new computer
system and other infrastructure upgrades or repairs. That money
represents a necessary investment in operational efficiency. Further,
we need to replenish and update inventory to maintain a competitive
operation. In the days of amazon.com if an item is not available we
may permanently lose a customer. But we simply cannot continue to
borrow money to fund operations.
Immediate needs.
We need to get an accurate reading of our current situation. At the
May Executive Board meeting in New Windsor, which I will attend, the
budget for the next fiscal year will be presented. In the past few
years, budgets have been overly optimistic. Helen Warren recently told
of a Policy Board meeting at which revenue figures were increased
irresponsibly. I was present at that same meeting with Helen
(Somerset, New Jersey, May 1995) where the revenue side of the budget
was unabashedly and openly overestimated. We must stop indulging in
wishful thinking. Mike Cavallo has done a good job at keeping expenses
down, but revenues are also down, due in part to market factors, as
Myron Lieberman has shown in a recent, influential memo. The Internet
Chess Club is now the venue of choice for many players, and people can
find attractive prices for books and equipment at such locations as
the World Wide Web Chess Superstore. We will need to adopt an
austerity budget for '99-'00. The fairest way to achieve this goal is
not by singling out one or two programs to cut entirely, but by
sharing the pain by percentage reductions across the board. Candidates
in the current election who do not admit the need for expense
reduction are either naive or disingenuous. Pie-in-the-sky thinking
must stop now.
Herman Drenth proposed the creation of a USCF Finance Task Force at
the workshop in New Jersey. The Board appointed Leroy Dubeck as Chair,
with members Mike Carr, Lee LaFrese, and Fred Townsend. Responding to
the urgency of the current situation, the Dubeck Task Force has
completed its work in record time and submitted its recommendations to
the Board. Its suggestions have focused on enhancing revenues and will
take time to implement. Among other things the report stresses the
need for an in-house web site and web master both for play and sales,
an online rating system, an online membership option, and online
catalogs and publications. It also suggests that the Federation take
advantage of our competitive advantage -- expertise -- and publish its
own line of chess books. These ideas are welcome and I will discuss
them in more detail below and in forthcoming mailings. But in addition
to adjusting to the new market climate and new technology, I wish to
consider the larger question of promoting chess, what has worked for
us and what hasn't.
Promoting chess: an historical overview.
Unlike Signore Ameglio in Genova, we do not have to fix things using
old methods and materials. We can innovate. At the same time we can
learn from what has worked in the past as we plan for our future. What
follows is a summary of proven ideas for the promotion of chess.
Phase one: ratings and regulation.
In my lifetime, the U.S. Chess Federation has passed through four
major phases of growth and development. The first phase after our
founding (in 1939) saw the invention by Kenneth Harkness of the USCF
rating system (later made mathematically rigorous by Arpad Elo). The
Harkness list was first published in 1950. Players in the early
'fifties were eager to join the USCF just to get a rating. For the
first time, valid and reliable comparisons of playing strength were
made possible among players across the country without the need for
time-consuming regional and national round robins. The concomitant
introduction of the Swiss system tournament, championed by George
Koltanowski (the most successful chess promoter of the century),
allowed larger numbers of players than before to compete in weekend
tournaments. The Swiss system led to an aggressive American style of
play, needed for success in the new tournaments. The cautious European
style bred in round robins, though still necessary in international
tournaments, produced too many draws, fatal in the fast-paced weekend
Swiss.
Of course every strength can create a concomitant weakness. The rating
system has been corrupted by the increase of class prizes to almost
ridiculous dimensions. Human nature being what it is, sandbagging has
become so common as to be almost an accepted practice within the chess
community. Does anyone seriously believe any longer that a player who
wins a multi-thousand dollar prize in a B section is really a B
player? At the National Open last month in Las Vegas Mike Cavallo told
me that the Unrated section was being called by some the "foreign
expert" section. In an attempt to curb these abuses, the Federation
has evolved an ever more elaborate system of rules and regulations to
prevent them. I think that by and large this approach, meant to keep
the great tournaments profitable for large organizers, has failed.
Competitors no longer believe in the fairness of class prizes and
legitimate class players are discouraged and no longer compete. No
system of rules and regulations will ever keep up with the human
ingenuity employed in circumventing them, so it is time to start
deregulating USCF chess. Of course I do not want to prevent any
organizer from offering large class prizes and developing rules to
keep up at least the appearance of fairness. But an organizer who was
willing to limit large class prizes only to players who had maintained
a rating in that class for a period for three years or more after
continuous play might be pleasantly surprised at how many class
players returned to play at the prospect of honest competition.
The Federation has a legitimate, neutral function that works to our
advantage: certifying and credentialing accurate ratings. A relatively
disinterested group such as the USCF is necessary for chess
competition, and we can take advantage of our historical position as
that group. Chess expertise, unbiased oversight of competitions, and
the maintenance of a valid and reliable rating system remain key
strengths of our national organization.
Phase two: the local or national hero.
The second phase, the one that most of us remember, was the Fischer
phenomenon. Careful international cultivation and support by USCF
leaders such as Dubeck, Edmondson, and Skoff led to the historic 1972
world championship match and the Fischer boom. The Federation took
calculated advantage of cold war tensions and individual genius to
achieve the greatest membership expansion in its history. Fischer's
triumph also led to international acceptance of the Elo system which
had mathematically predicted his astonishing victories despite
widespread disbelief. The ratings-driven Swiss system was easily able
to accommodate the huge influx of members.
Alas, this phase had its weakness too. Genius cannot be replicated and
the kind of character that drives an individual to spectacular
intellectual achievement through an obsessive focus on one activity
can also drive the same individual away from that activity -- the
psychological investment in success is so great that the psychological
risks of failure become unacceptable to the ego. So the Fischer boom
led to the Fischer bust and USCF spending on the expectation of
another Fischer match led to financial catastrophe. The principle
behind the Fischer phenomenon is still valid -- the promotion of chess
through a local or national hero -- but the other attractions of our
society and the material rewards offered by other activities (such as
becoming a physician, the career path chosen by Gatta Kamsky), lure
many talented players away from the game. I still remember GM Jim
Tarjan's eloquent speech to the USCF Delegates in Phoenix in 1978. He
described how he had been attracted to chess on the promise that one
might make a decent living from the game during the Fischer boom
years, only to find during the bust years that such was not the case.
Jim is now a librarian. The USCF had not yet found a way to
sufficiently reward chess artistry and excellence, though such a way
was to come in the third phase.
Phase three: chess as a social good.
I place the beginning of the third phase in 1986 with the foundation
of the chess- in-the-schools program in New York by Fan Adams and
Bruce Pandolfini. Certainly there were scholastic tournaments before
then, most notably Bill Goichberg's important national program of
USCF-rated scholastic events during the 'sixties and 'seventies. But
the change that came in 1986 represented a different approach in this
country -- the systematic cultivation of chess as a social good --
that has gradually gained acceptance, notably in New York, but also in
other areas (I am most familiar with the innovative Warren program in
Illinois and the Dallas-Area-Chess-In-Schools program -- a now-
independent outgrowth of the New York Program -- for which I serve as
board member and educational advisor.).
Of course the educational benefits of chess have been recognized
internationally for some time. I gave a paper ("Chess as Education:
Character Assassination or Life of the Mind?") summarizing some of
those studies back in the 'seventies at the Lincoln, Nebraska National
Endowment for the Humanities Conference on Chess. Dr. Robert Ferguson
has contributed a great deal to disseminating these positive results
by keeping an up-to-date chess and education research summary
available to anyone interested. The explosion of anecdotal evidence
and rigorous research (most notably the Margolies study) has convinced
many people that chess can provide help for what ails us in this
country, a solution as true for inner-city schools as it is for
suburban talented and gifted programs. We are still in the midst of
this exciting new popularization of chess which has benefited many
USCF members by providing chess teaching jobs for masters and experts
paid for by public entities and private foundations. This new approach
offers potentially great benefit to the USCF. In this regard Rachel
Lieberman's seemingly quixotic efforts to promote chess as a means of
combating teen pregnancy prove to be right on track with a growing
national trend. Phil Inness on the rec.games.chess.politics discussion
group on the Internet eloquently called for the need for chess as a
positive alternative to harmful activities. "It is not enough to `just
say no,'" Phil posted. "We have to provide our youth with something
they can say yes to. Chess does that." Chess offers the dual advantage
of promoting intellectual growth, similar to but more durable than the
so-called "Mozart effect," as well as developing increased
self-esteem. I am proud to be a part of a most remarkable group of
business people and educators, Dallas- Area-Chess-In-Schools, that is
working to make chess happen in inner-city Dallas.
I don't see a downside to this phase, though chess purists might argue
that it will alter the nature of the game. Perhaps if there is a
downside it is that some chess instructors are fine players but aren't
sufficiently prepared as teachers. Already the teaching approach to
chess that is gaining acceptance de-emphasizes the competitive nature
of the game and emphasizes its problem-solving aspect. Teachers will
tell you that some children are put off by being forced into a
win-lose contest though they can become very engaged with chess
intellectually and benefit from it. I know that my godson (age six)
likes to play chess but doesn't like the game to proceed to a victory
or loss because he isn't comfortable with that aspect of the game. I
think that chess in the future will be evolving in the multiple
directions called for in Milan Vukcevic's brilliant keynote speech at
the Hawaii U.S. Open and will embrace problemists, multi- dimensional
chess, bughouse and other new forms of chess, and many other creative
activities using chess as a base.
Wired versus tired.
The fourth phase of chess development in this country has been the
introduction and growth of Internet chess. Unfortunately, despite
frequent admonitions over the years from Myron Lieberman, despite the
Barry board's direction to the New Windsor staff to implement an
Internet chess presence, despite Bob Holliman's attempt to include a
$100,000 item for the development of Internet chess at the 1996
Delegates' meeting (recently reiterated in a campaign mailing), the
USCF has lagged behind both such cutting-edge software such as
provided by the Internet Chess Club (ICC) and even such trailing-edge
software provided by the Free Internet Chess Server (FICS). Just as
the Swiss system drove out the round robin and the weekend Swiss drove
out the club chess tournament, so now Internet play is driving out the
weekend Swiss, the current foundation of USCF activity and success.
I should preface the following discussion with a disavowal. Although I
started computer programming at my high school in the middle 'sixties
(remember the bad old days of Fortran IV and punch cards anyone?), I
am not a programmer or computer scientist. On the other hand, within
my own field, I have published on the implications of hypertext and
hypermedia, and I address these issues as a post-McCluhan scholar and
critic who is very aware of the impact of various media upon human
activity.
The Federation is making limited progress in adapting to the new
technology. The new National Collegiate Chess League just finished its
first season of Internet matches between universities and colleges
using the ICC. The use of the Internet as a medium for play seems
firmly in the hands of the ICC at this time, but with the near
prospect of increasing speed and bandwidth, the Internet is about to
make a quantum leap and we must be ready for the next jump. A recent
issue of Scientific American (May 1999) called my attention to the
development of a second-generation web language, extensible markup
language (XML), completed early last year by the World Wide Web
Consortium (W3C). Although it's too early to predict that XML will
replace the currently standard HTML (Hypertext Markup Language), it is
clear that something will, and that a necessary investment of USCF
resources, as called for by the Dubeck Task Force, will put us back
into the Internet game. Although I am reluctant to criticize the
current administration, in this particular regard I believe that Tom
Dorsch and Bob Holliman, as well as the Dubeck Task Force, are correct
in pointing us again in the direction of a web presence.
Another approach to the use of the Internet in providing and promoting
chess requires our immediate attention. That approach involves the use
of the Internet as a broadcast medium. While still in its early
stages, the new technology suggests a number of possibilities for
Federation participation and growth. Let's call it the new
connectivity. You don't need to be an engineer to see how the new
compression technology, MP3, is changing the music industry, nor do
you need to be a soothsayer to see where the new partnership between
AT&T (telephone) and TCI (cable) will lead. With T-1 connections now
increasingly common in universities and businesses, with "Internet 2"
being subscribed to by most major research universities (including
UT-Dallas), and with cable Internet connections already or soon
available in such trial markets as my home city of Plano, we will soon
inhabit a wired world. The fact that this world will be available only
to the economically advantaged gives us an added incentive to make it
also available in inner-city areas through chess-in-the-schools
programs acting with corporate partners. A new commercial consortium
headed by Bill Church is currently working to set up Internet matches
between schools and to broadcast grandmaster competitions around the
world via the Internet.
The Synergy Solution
Let's recap the four phases of successful chess promotion since 1950.
First was the success of the rating system. The Federation acted to
provide an accurate assessment of playing ability, acting as a
guarantor of players' ratings as a true indicator of their strength.
The success of the Swiss-system tournament led to another kind of
certification, that of tournament directors. Before long I think we
will be certifying chess coaches and chess teachers as well. Thus a
legitimate task of the USCF is to act as a kind of accreditation
agency, certifying the legitimacy of ratings, the fairness and
knowledge of tournament directors, and the skill and preparation of
teachers and coaches.
The second phase dramatically demonstrated the promotional potential
in the success of a local or national hero. The USCF rating system
predicted Fischer's success; Fischer's success validated the Elo
system now used internationally. The same rating system can first
identify local talent as players move up the competitive ranks; it can
be used to legitimate claims of previous unknowns and allow them
quicker entry into tournaments where they can prove their mettle. The
winning home team or hometown hero will always attract the favorable
media attention that helps promote chess.
The third phase of successful chess promotion involves the use of
chess to promote a social good. Chess in prisons, chess for talented
and gifted students, chess for economically disadvantaged children in
inner cities, and the use of chess to combat teenage pregnancies, drug
use, and after-school crime, all of these represent promising or
proven uses of chess to address the many ills of contemporary society.
These programs are starting to attract widespread attention and
support while at the same time they allow many players to pursue their
love of the game and its beauty while making a living at a
chess-related activity.
The fourth phase will require that we adopt the new Internet medium.
Inner-city schools can play Internet matches with suburban schools.
The U.S. championship can be broadcast with commentary over the
Internet. USCF-rated play through the adoption of an Internet
membership or enhancement can give instant feedback through a
constantly updated rating. The Internet can provide automatic
tournament sections generated through an electronic
organizer/tournament director, and even helpful automated advice when
things go wrong tailored to the players' rating and linked to a
purchase suggestion and automatic shipping. The hardware cost of an
in-house server is not high. The software costs will be more extensive
(I think Bob Holliman's estimate for both of $100,000 the first year
is correct) but they can no longer be avoided.
All of these four methods for the promotion of chess have proven their
worth and they will continue to be successful. For our future success,
the Federation must focus on activities that combine two, three, or
four of the above proven approaches. This is the synergy solution.
Other issues, other programs.
In future mailings I will expand upon these ideas. I will discuss some
pressing issues facing the Federation at this time, in particular our
role in FIDE, and USCF governance reform -- the issue of direct versus
indirect election of the Executive Board. I will update you on the
chess program at the University of Texas at Dallas and its partnership
with Dallas-Area-Chess-In-Schools as well as on the increasing
international attention given to chess and education and its future
impact upon the Federation. I will also discuss the USCF's going into
the publishing business (an idea proposed many years ago by erstwhile
Chess Life Editor Burt Hochberg) and other revenue-enhancing ideas.
I am eager to hear from you about your concerns. I am most reliably
reached by e-mail <red...@utdallas.edu> though I can be reached by
telephone between 6:00am and 9:00pm Central Daylight Time. If you
call, leave a message since I screen my calls (I live in a prosperous
area of Dallas and am constantly bombarded by telephone sales
people.). If I am there I will pick up, otherwise I will get back to
you. I also have a fax machine in my home office (972) 596-7517.
The Federation has reached a crucial point in its history. We must
position ourselves now for the new millennium. I believe this election
to be the most important since 1978. You have and will receive
mailings from many candidates. I am sure you will consider them
carefully before you choose our future.
Cordially,
Tim Redman
----------------------------------------------------------
Chess (mostly) curriculum vitae for Tim Redman
1965 joined the U.S. Chess Federation.
1966 directed my first chess tournament.
1967 interim Executive Director, Chicago Chess Club.
interim Editor, Illinois Chess Bulletin.
1968 Illinois Junior Champion.
1969 Greater Chicago Junior Champion.
Among the top 25 players in the U.S. under the age of 21.
1970 Lived in Rome, Italy.
1971 Rome.
1972 Became a National Tournament Director.
Co-produced the TV show on the Fischer-Spassky match for
WTTW Channel 11
PBS station in Chicago. Guest host.
Elected Regional Vice-President, USCF (Midwest).
1973 Co-directed the record-breaking U.S. Open in Chicago.
Member, Pan-American Intercollegiate Championship
University of Chicago
team, Atlanta.
1974 Named an International Arbiter of FIDE
1975 Directed the U.S. Open and the U.S. Closed Championship.
Chair, USCF nominations committee.
1976 Lived in Rome.
1977 Rome.
1978 Elected Vice-President, USCF (three-year term).
Columnist ("Ask The Masters") Chess Life.
Columnist ("USCF Commentary") Illinois Chess Bulletin.
1979 Contributing Editor, Chess Life.
1980 President, Illinois Chess Association.
1981 Elected USCF President (three-year term).
1984 Chair, USCF Rules Committee.
President, Illinois Chess Association.
[1984-1998: Lecturer, University of Wisconsin-Parkside ('84-85).
Instructor, Ohio State
University-Lima Campus ('85-'87), Ph.D. in Comparative Literature,
The University of
Chicago ('87), Assistant Professor, Ohio State-Lima ('87-'89)]
1985 Served on Policy Board as immediate past president.
Received USCF Distinguished Service Award.
1986 Represented the USCF at the FIDE Congress in Seville to revise
the rules of chess.
1987 Editor, The Rules of Chess, 3rd edition (New York: David
McKay, 1987).
1988 President, Ohio Chess Association.
1989 Moved to Dallas, Texas.
[Assistant Professor, School of Arts and Humanities, The University of
Texas at Dallas ('89-'91), Ezra Pound and Italian Fascism (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1991), Associate Professor (tenured)
(91-'98), Associate Dean and College Master, School of Arts and
Humanities ('91-'92), full Professor ('98).]
1995 Suggested chess program at UTD.
1996 First chess scholarships awarded at UTD. Since then we have
awarded academic scholarships that take chess into account, chess
teaching chess assistantships, and scholarships as prizes for the
Texas High School Champion, the Texas Grade 12 Champion, the
Dallas-Area-Chess-In-Schools Grade 6 Champion, and the top 11th grade
student in the Denker Tournament of High School Champions.
Chair, USCF Ethics Committee.
1997 UTD placed second in Pan American Intercollegiate.
Elected Chair, USCF College Committee.
Appointed to the Board of the USCF Charitable Trust.
Founding Director, Dallas-Area-Chess-In-Schools (John Jacobs,
President).
Proposed discounted dues structure for college team members and
formation of first National College Chess League over the Internet.
1998 Chair, ad hoc Committee to recommend the Executive Director's
compensation to the Executive Board. Peter Dyson was the other
committee member.
Re-elected Chair, USCF College Committee.
1999 UTD places first in the first-ever National College Chess League,
played over the Internet on ICC.
Chair, ad hoc Committee for Executive Director compensation (with
Peter Dyson).
Candidate for the USCF Executive Board.
[PHOTO]
Tim Redman standing with members of the 1997-1998 University of Texas
at Dallas Chess Team (seated from left to right: Noureddine Ziane,
Jason Doss, James Dean, Shivkumar Shivaji).
JGraham
>
<deleted stuff>
> I am fortunate to be
> teaching at a university with an enlightened central administration.
> And USCF administration has been very receptive to my suggestions of a
> college team discount and an Internet National College Chess League.
The is a Intercollegiate Chess League where participants are not
required
to have uscf memberships and the school does not have to have uscf
affiliation.
Aside from ignorance, why would anyone want to play in the uscf one.
<deleted stuff>
> Herman Drenth proposed the creation of a USCF Finance Task Force at
> the workshop in New Jersey. The Board appointed Leroy Dubeck as Chair,
> with members Mike Carr, Lee LaFrese, and Fred Townsend. Responding to
> the urgency of the current situation, the Dubeck Task Force has
> completed its work in record time and submitted its recommendations to
> the Board. Its suggestions have focused on enhancing revenues and will
> take time to implement. Among other things the report stresses the
> need for an in-house web site and web master both for play and sales,
> an online rating system, an online membership option, and online
> catalogs and publications. It also suggests that the Federation take
> advantage of our competitive advantage -- expertise -- and publish its
> own line of chess books. These ideas are welcome and I will discuss
> them in more detail below and in forthcoming mailings. But in addition
> to adjusting to the new market climate and new technology, I wish to
> consider the larger question of promoting chess, what has worked for
> us and what hasn't.
>
>and success.
>
<deleted stuff>
The idea that the uscf should operate a www server is insane!! Almost
every
company from the smallest to the largest outsources this function. For
one thing, the uscf is not large enough to need its own server. Again
we are having serious delusions about what sized company we are. And
while the uscf could benefit from a fulltime webmaster, a server really
should have an operator 24 hours a day. The uscf does not need a T1
line,
and should not have to bear the expense of this and other items that
owning its own server would entail. Do you have any idea of the costs
involved?
Jerry
stan
board. Namely: Vision and long range planning. I am left to believe that if
he is elected he would wish to delegate the responsibility and authority to
the USCF ED and his staff.
Were I in a position to cast a vote (I'm not), I would want to vote for this
man based on his platform. However, before voting I would want to assure
myself that this man's word is good. I would talk to those that know him
and who have worked with him. If I found that he was an honorable man, I
would not hesitate to vote for him.
StanB
JGraham
Why is the designated as a response to my post rather than his?
You havent answered either of the points that I raised about
the uscf in college chess and the cost of an inhouse web server.
Actually the present leaderships delegated plenty of responsibility
and authority to the USCF ED and his staff. Thats why were broke.
Jerry
Chesspride
>required
>to have uscf memberships and the school does not have to have uscf
>affiliation.
>Aside from ignorance, why would anyone want to play in the uscf one.
>
>
There you go Jerry...showing your anti-USCF bias.
Get with the program...OK?
Eric C. Johnson
JGraham
>
> >The is a Intercollegiate Chess League where participants are not
> >required
> >to have uscf memberships and the school does not have to have uscf
> >affiliation.
> >Aside from ignorance, why would anyone want to play in the uscf one.
> >
> >
>
What are you talking about? Why should I prefer a league with
substantial
membership fees to a league with no membership fees? I think it is
almost comical that you are trying to sell something that someone else
is providing for free.
> Get with the program...OK?
Whose program? I dont owe you anything. If you want my business,
you have to be selling something that I want at a competitive price.
Jerry A. Graham
> Eric C. Johnson
Gilbert Palmer
Tim Redman wrote in message
<3749e06a...@nntp.mindspring.com>...
(600 lines snipped - I read every word honestly and enjoyed
most)
Although not a voter in the USCF election, a member of the USCF
or even a resident of the USA it is interesting to see the
different aspects of the election forming, although I am not
sure that rec.games.chess.misc is an appropriate forum.
One thing I have not seen in any of the statements on the
newsgroups is the mention of chess as a game and its place in
the hierarchy of other games.
As a chess fan I can appreciate the eloquent words you put
forward regarding the educational and social benefits of chess,
but I do not in all honesty think that the surveys which have
been done can be of any use what-so-ever unless a comparative
study is done with say backgammon, or monopoly or draughts or
bridge or cribbage or dominoes or scrabble not to mention some
of the excellent PC based games.
I have read a fair amount (not academically just as an
interest) about the benefits of chess being introduced into
schools (particularly Venezuela) and correct me of I am wrong
but I believe that after an initial and brief period where
pupils newly introduced to chess did show signs of increased
ability to concentrate - the long term benefits of chess study
were not at all conclusive - in fact the only thing that the
pupils showed any increase in overall ability at was the
ability to play chess.(!)
In very simplistic terms : I get the impression that there are
those who honestly believe that being taught chess is somehow
'good' for a child. I remain to be convinced that chess is any
more beneficial than say 'Boggle' or Scrabble or Snap (a great
game).
Chess to me is 'just' a game - it is my favourite - but I would
hate to think that I would have been compelled to learn about
it in a formal school environment, and I think I would be
concerned if my own children were compelled to learn Backgammon
at school - a game which has comparable areas of opening
theory, middlegame theory and pattern recognition (and a damn
sight more fun to play with a child - for the child and the
adult).
My own view if I think about it is that while chess ranks with
me as the World's Greatest Board Game I think that many of we
players credit other skills we have as being in some way
associated with our knowledge of the game. (There may be some
truth in this of course but do we really want to make it
compulsory?).
Personally I doubt this very much and feel it misguided for a
national federation of a 'game' to contemplate a policy which
reflects any belief (hunch?) that there is something inherently
superior about chess (over other games). Any attempt arising
from this belief to try and steer chess into the waters of
academic respectability is in my opinion fraught with dangers
for the overall good of the 'simple' game of chess.
Gilbert Palmer
A Chess fan
stan
JGraham wrote in message <374A38...@nystar.com>...
>stan wrote:
>>
>> Tim's post is a fine example of what a board member should bring to the
>> board. Namely: Vision and long range planning. I am left to believe that
if
>> he is elected he would wish to delegate the responsibility and authority
to
>> the USCF ED and his staff.
>>
>> Were I in a position to cast a vote (I'm not), I would want to vote for
this
>> man based on his platform. However, before voting I would want to assure
>> myself that this man's word is good. I would talk to those that know him
>> and who have worked with him. If I found that he was an honorable man, I
>> would not hesitate to vote for him.
>>
>> StanB
>
>Why is the designated as a response to my post rather than his?
>You havent answered either of the points that I raised about
>the uscf in college chess and the cost of an inhouse web server.
---Wasn't the intent of my post to respond to your points. I had not
considered them.
>
>Actually the present leaderships delegated plenty of responsibility
>and authority to the USCF ED and his staff. Thats why were broke.
---Are you saying the board should run the store and not the staff? Great we
can get rid of the staff and save money by letting the unpaid board answer
the phone. I think the reason the results of operations are not so good is
because the board micromanages and makes the operations ineffiecient.
StanB
>Jerry
Jerry
No. I am saying that the Board needs to hire a better ED at a better
price.
I disagree that the board micromanages the office. I know of no example
of this. The board should be observing the office and making policy
decisions.
As I see it, the board ignored all of the problems with the office until
it
was too late.
Jerry
--
Free web ads are again available for chess goods, services, and
activities. Some restrictions apply.
email: ch...@nystar.com
http://www.nystar.com
http://www.nystar.com/free.htm
http://www.nystar.com/chess
Bruce Leverett
learned a number of games in the "formal school environment":
American football, soccer, basketball, and so on. The idea of
learning games in school is not so mind-boggling. Why not chess?
Chess is just a game to me, too. It has been just a game to me for
about 37 years. I played chess with my father, and I have played
chess with my daughter. Chess has been good to me. Is any other reason
needed for wanting to see it taught in school?
Bruce Draney
> Mr. Palmer is unnecessarily diffident about chess. As a child, I
> learned a number of games in the "formal school environment":
> American football, soccer, basketball, and so on. The idea of
> learning games in school is not so mind-boggling. Why not chess?
If you're asking this question seriously and not rhetorically, the
short answer is, as always finances.
Schools often have to justify their programs and their curriculum.
This is why we don't have "official" classes in other worthwhile games
or subject matter, despite their potential benefit.
We do offer extra-curricular activities in chess, in many schools as
we do clubs after school in DECA, FBLA, or other worthwhile pasttimes.
When these are afterschool programs they are informal and often unfunded
(or underfunded). Many times the sponsor works for free as a volunteer
or is only minimally compensated. Make it an official sport or an
official subject in the curriculum, it requires recognition from the
local school board, funding to hire a coach, sponsor or teacher and as
we have seen programs once installed become entrenched and difficult to
ever cut. Many school boards resisted implementing programs that are
fully funded for fear that the programs will benefit few and will be
expensive and they will come under fire from angry tax payers.
>
> Chess is just a game to me, too. It has been just a game to me for
> about 37 years. I played chess with my father, and I have played
> chess with my daughter. Chess has been good to me. Is any other reason
> needed for wanting to see it taught in school?
See above. If chess had the popularity and political clout that
spectator sports do, it might have a chance. If some PHD's, could
provide us some more conclusive research about chess' benefits to young
people's development and thinking this would help too. Just citing Dr.
Ferguson's report is not quite enough I'm afraid, especially in these
times of cutbacks, and shrinking budgets in local school districts.
Here in Nebraska, there are a number of school districts who have
either closed or are operating on a shoestring budget presently. Going
to them in attempting to justify the implementation of a chess program
is hopeless.
I know David MacEnulty's program in the Bronx is probably the most
successful program in the country. David has to work his tale off
however to raise funds to pay for much of it.
Many schools have even begun charging athletes activity fees to
compete even in spectator sports to help offset the costs. Chess must
prove to skeptical school boards and educators that it deserves to be a
part of the curriculum and not just an informal club held after school
and hosted by a volunteer teacher or counselor.
Best Regards,
Bruce
Chesspride
>compete even in spectator sports to help offset the costs. Chess must
>prove to skeptical school boards and educators that it deserves to be a
>part of the curriculum and not just an informal club held after school
>and hosted by a volunteer teacher or counselor.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>
>
>
Ironic, isn't it...that as we think we are getting "richer" in the electronic
age that suddenly we can't afford to do the things we used to do...hmm...a
lesson here?
Yes...of course...it is a struggle to convince administrators and other persons
to leave their stereotypes behind.
But examples like the folks in Canada who are using a mathematics
textbook...that includes a significant number of chess examples...to encourage
goal-directed thinking and problem-solving abilities....are very helpful.
The seminar series that the USCF Chess in Education Committee has developed is
very helpful.
We have reached a critical mass of interested school
administrators...teachers...parents...and players.
Of course...we must always battle the attitude of persons such as J.
Graham...who constantly advise that chess "is just a game" and "has no
educational value." That educators...could hold such views...is really
incredible to me...but it's the reality and so we must patiently build our
programs one school at a time.
Most human activities are games.
Math is a game.
Reading is a game.
Science is a game.
They just happen to be very useful games. And chess....is also a particularly
useful type of game...because it encourages the very type of
critical-thinking...problem-solving...behaviors that we want students to be
able to have.
Chess also has several important plusses:
* It is naturally reinforcing (e.g., it is fun). If given a choice between two
methods of teaching the same thing (critical thinking)....and one method is
self-reinforcing and the other requires substantial outside
reinforcement....choose the one that is naturally reinforcing!!
This is just obvious to a Skinnerian...but perhaps it runs counter to some
well-entrenched moral views.
In the long run...once the desired behavior is in place (i.e., critical
thinking)....one can then move on to less naturally reinforcing behaviors.
But to insist on the less-reinforcing acts first (e.g., eat your vegetables or
starve) at the expense of failure to gain the proper foundation (e.g.,
sufficient calories for survival) is short-sighted.
* Chess encourages students to read! To do well in a serious chess
environment...students must read books...prepare notes...create their own home
preparation....in other words, they must learn how to study.
Amazing...they engage in an activity that AUTOMATICALLY and in a REINFORCING
WAY teaches them critical study habits...plus teaches that actions have
long-range consequences.
Moreover...in chess they get an immediate reward for good home preparation
(i.e., winning)....and immediate corrective feedback if their work is not so
good (i.e., losing).
This has a natural carry-over effect to other subjects...many, many schools
have found a small but positive improvement in student academic scores after a
"serious" chess program has been in place.
* Chess has been shown to have a small but positive effect on student
self-esteem scores.
* Chess has been shown to have a small but positive effect on the rate of
discipline problems in troubled schools (i.e., no players want to lose their
chess privileges).
Remember we are talking about a serious chess program...one designed...not to
create masters...but to create tournament players.
The old "study hall" version of chess club carries none of these benefits.
Therein lies much of the confusion...and much of the resistance.
Eric C. Johnson
Bruce Draney
Good post Eric. I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was only stating
the unfortunate and the obvious. The bottom line seems to be $$$ and
until someone presents a strong statistical case for the inclusion of
chess in the public school curriculum it will continue to be looked upon
as merely an extracurricular activity that is no more worthy than other
extracurricular activities and it will continue to be underfunded and
undersupported.
Does the fact that other than Dr. Ferguson's studies there appear to
be no more U.S. research studies on the benefits of chess in education.
We can (and often do) infer or theorize or attribute a number of
benefits to it, mostly based on anecdotal and warm fuzzy stories, but
until someone demonstrates it in more than one major research study it
will continue to be given about as much weight as table tennis, bridge,
cribbage or any other number of activities that someone might claim have
beneficial aspects.
Perhaps we have some aspiring PHD's who also love chess and would like
to advance the cause of chess in education? Any takers?
Best Regards,
Bruce
Gilbert Palmer
<374AB17C...@transarc.com>...
>Mr. Palmer is unnecessarily diffident about chess. As a
child, I
>learned a number of games in the "formal school environment":
>American football, soccer, basketball, and so on. The idea of
>learning games in school is not so mind-boggling. Why not
chess?
>
>Chess is just a game to me, too. It has been just a game to
me for
>about 37 years. I played chess with my father, and I have
played
>chess with my daughter. Chess has been good to me. Is any
other reason
>needed for wanting to see it taught in school?
Hi Bruce,
We have had a few private E-mails since my original post. I've
also been on contact with others regarding this matter.
I do not have a great deal of conflict with Tim Redman's
proposals, and I DO note that it was only one part of his
manifesto.
The manifesto was outlining ways to promote chess. A variety of
avenues can be considered to attain this goal. I am reliably
informed by activists involved in this area that trying to
engage political support for our game is doomed to failure when
the game is presented simply as an activity and / or sport -
i.e. what it is.
The tack argued by the likes of Mr.Redman (and others) and
yourself is that one way to raise the profile of chess is to
promote the very educationally beneficial aspects which Mr.
Redman alluded to in his posting.
I was concerned that this (activity) in itself could be
damaging
to the image of chess and actually thwart other avenues which
should be explored by those of us who wish to see the game
continue to spread in popularity.
Also one point: Assuming of course that game playing actually
is beneficial to a child's development I am also not aware of
any research which would suggest that Go, Shogi, Backgammon,
Dominoes or Scrabble are in any way inferior to chess as a
learning tool - and if we take it from the educational aspect
surely research should be concentrated on which game was most
beneficial.
I have a slightly different tack:
I am of the opinion that the way forward for chess is to raise
its profile with adults as a fabulous game with an unrivalled
pedigree and history - I do not like seeing chess presented as
some watered down Rubik's cube with which educationalists seek
to garner the attention of the politicos by the back door -
because at the end of the day it is the game of chess that
'you' (pl) are trying to promote - not the good chess is
capable of imparting on potential students.
On reflection I suppose there is room for both avenues and as I
noted above it forms only one part of Mr.Redman's posted
manifesto.
Gilbert Palmer
JGraham
>
> Of course...we must always battle the attitude of persons such as J.
> Graham...who constantly advise that chess "is just a game" and "has no
> educational value." That educators...could hold such views...is really
> incredible to me...but it's the reality and so we must patiently build our
> programs one school at a time.
If you were a teacher, you would be very concerned about how many
young people lack basic skills such as reading, writing, and rithmetic.
You would be amazed at how far most of them are from understanding
anything about work environments. You would be stunned to see how
little students and other members of society understand the nature
of the educational process. You would be unfavorably impressed by
what little backround many young people have, not only with respect
to job situations, but also with respect to functioning in their
communities.
But youre not a teacher or a parent. You live in a vacuum and think
you can afford to not care about any of these things.
Certain we need to reach out to alienated young people any way we
can. But then we need to give them something of value. Teach them
basic skills; Teach them economics; Teach them about the job market;
Teach them job skills; Teach them how to cope with the difficult
situations they encounter in their lives every day. Really we cant
afford to play games with our kid's futures because their future
is our future too.
> Most human activities are games.
Maybe for you they are, Eric.
> Math is a game.
No. It is a discipline born from the economic needs to
distribute land, goods, and services.
> Reading is a game.
No. It isnt. Try reading something other than a chessbook sometime.
Reading is one of our most important forms of communication.
> Science is a game.
No. It isnt. It is a family of disciplines which provide the
foundation for technology.
> They just happen to be very useful games.
Theyre not games at all. But they are useful.
Thats why we teach em.
>And chess....is also a particularly
> useful type of game...because it encourages the very type of
> critical-thinking...problem-solving...behaviors that we want students to be
> able to have.
I would rather have my student be successful at solving problems
in the real world than have them only able to play chess.
> Chess also has several important plusses:
> * It is naturally reinforcing (e.g., it is fun). If given a choice between two
> methods of teaching the same thing (critical thinking)....and one method is
> self-reinforcing and the other requires substantial outside
> reinforcement....choose the one that is naturally reinforcing!!
I agree that reinforcement is important. An we should offer
students reinforcement as they learn things that will help
them in the real world.
> This is just obvious to a Skinnerian...but perhaps it runs counter to some
> well-entrenched moral views.
Kids are not rats running around in a maze. They are our fellow
citizens, and it is our job to teach them what they need in order
to be partners in our society. Not chess.
> In the long run...once the desired behavior is in place (i.e., critical
> thinking)....one can then move on to less naturally reinforcing behaviors.
This is fine if we are talking about rats.
> But to insist on the less-reinforcing acts first (e.g., eat your vegetables or
> starve) at the expense of failure to gain the proper foundation (e.g.,
> sufficient calories for survival) is short-sighted.
I think we have to give them answers to their problems. Give the
opportunities
which will have long-lasting meaning. Each of us could be teaching
a kid to read and write. I am not so judgemental of inviduals so if
someone
does not have the fortitude to do that, let them teach chess instead.
But in the long run, the child will benefit more from learning how to
read
and write.
> * Chess encourages students to read!
So do descent books and articles, webpages, and even internet chat,
when the information is relevent to the child's needs.
> To do well in a serious chess
> environment...students must read books...prepare notes...create their own home
> preparation....in other words, they must learn how to study.
But this can be done with any topic that is of interest to the child.
Reading chessbooks teaches children how to read chess books.
> Amazing...they engage in an activity that AUTOMATICALLY and in a REINFORCING
> WAY teaches them critical study habits...plus teaches that actions have
> long-range consequences.
This is true of any discipline. I dont think it is wise for us to
isolate children from the real world to the extent that the middle
class does (working class kids know about consequences). That is
why we end up with teenagers who have no idea what career they want
or how to act in a workplace.
> Moreover...in chess they get an immediate reward for good home preparation
> (i.e., winning)....and immediate corrective feedback if their work is not so
> good (i.e., losing).
This is true in any learning situation. But real goals mean real
achievement.
> This has a natural carry-over effect to other subjects...many, many schools
> have found a small but positive improvement in student academic scores after a
> "serious" chess program has been in place.
Our whole education system is build too much on the idea of carry-over.
Why dont we just teach the kids what they need to know in the first
place!
> * Chess has been shown to have a small but positive effect on student
> self-esteem scores.
Any discipline will do this, but why not teach them something they can
use
at the same time.
> * Chess has been shown to have a small but positive effect on the rate of
> discipline problems in troubled schools (i.e., no players want to lose their
> chess privileges).
Maybe if the teachers were really giving student the skills and
knowledge they
need, there wouldnt be any discipline problems.
> Remember we are talking about a serious chess program...one designed...not to
> create masters...but to create tournament players.
How is that going to help you? Even if you get your job at the uscf
back,
if these kids dont learn necessary skills, they are not going to live to
pay their $40 dues to the uscf.
> The old "study hall" version of chess club carries none of these benefits.
Chess clubs are recreational facilities. Schools are places of
learning.
> Therein lies much of the confusion...and much of the resistance.
There is no confusion at all. You are absolutely dead wrong. And I
mean that in the moral sense as well as the logical sense. You dont
give a damn about these kids, or you would be their teaching them
something useful. So dont say that you do.
JGraham
Its so much more fun than teaching them how to read and write. But
we only go around once in life, so why not indulge ourselves?
Jerry
JGraham
>
> Mr. Palmer is unnecessarily diffident about chess. As a child, I
> learned a number of games in the "formal school environment":
> American football, soccer, basketball, and so on. The idea of
> learning games in school is not so mind-boggling. Why not chess?
>
> Chess is just a game to me, too. It has been just a game to me for
> about 37 years. I played chess with my father, and I have played
> chess with my daughter. Chess has been good to me. Is any other reason
> needed for wanting to see it taught in school?
It might make sense until you see that kids are not learning basic
skills like reading and writing. Not just inner city kids, but
middle class kids too. Would you rather have your kid learn how to
play chess or how to read and write?
Jerry
R B
improve their attendance, self confidence and overall scholastic grade
points. Not to mention organizational skills and reasoning skills. These
are exactly the type Kids who would benefit!
Regards
Ross
JGraham wrote in message . Would you rather have your kid learn how to
Bruce Draney
> Its so much more fun than teaching them how to read and write. But
> we only go around once in life, so why not indulge ourselves?
>
> Jerry
To be entirely fair here, Jerry I don't think anyone has ever
suggested that children should not be taught math, science, reading,
geography, history, civics and grammar.
Does this mean that other things besides these subjects have NO place
in the schools? What about music? What about art? What about
technology? What about foreign languages or even ancient languages?
What about family and consumer science skills? No one seems to feel
that including worthwhile programs such as these need preclude the
teaching of basic skills. Why would the teaching of some chess preclude
students learning basic skills that are necessary anyway?
In the Bronx, the chess curriculum is a part of the fine arts
curriculum. The program is funded by hard work, grants and fundraising
by the teacher. The program is very successful and seems to be highly
regarded. The children enjoy it and seem to be doing well.
If you're claiming they're not being taught the basics properly right
now, how will chess being included or not included make any difference
one way or the other? I don't think you believe chess would actually
hurt their performance in these other areas are you?
Does this mean chess should be given the same attention and level of
funding as mathematics? I don't really believe most people think it
should nor that it will. On the other hand, it doesn't mean it is a
worthless thing to teach either.
The reality as I stated earlier is that chess will never receive the
attention that some feel it deserves until it can justify it's inclusion
based on scientific research. If it could be demonstrated that
including chess in the curriculum correlated with higher math scores for
example this would be a point in chess' favor.
Best Regards,
Bruce
Chesspride
>Theyre not games at all. But they are useful.
>Thats why we teach em.
>
Mr. Graham scares me...very...VERY much.
Seriously.
Eric C. Johnson
JGraham
>
> >
> >Theyre not games at all. But they are useful.
> >Thats why we teach em.
> >
>
Because I think it is more important for kids to
learn reading and writing than it is for them to
learn chess?
Yes, and you think that it is more important
for them to learn chess than to learn reading
and writing?
Why? Is it because that is the only way
you can compete with them in the job market?
If they cant put a sentence together?
And many of them cant.
Maybe I should post your arguments to an
education newsgroup and see what a community
of teachers has to say. Or a parents
newsgroup.
Jerry
>
> Seriously.
>
> Eric C. Johnson
JGraham
>
> Jerry Graham wrote:
>
> > Its so much more fun than teaching them how to read and write. But
> > we only go around once in life, so why not indulge ourselves?
> >
> > Jerry
>
> suggested that children should not be taught math, science, reading,
> geography, history, civics and grammar.
Yes. But when we dont succeed in do it, we should keep trying. We
shouldnt give up and decide to teach them chess instead.
>
> Does this mean that other things besides these subjects have NO place
> in the schools?
Some schools function and some schools dont. If we really want to
help these children we should take a look at why the schools are not
functioning instead of making ridiculous claims that chess is an
educational activity. If your child goes to a functional school, then
it wont hurt him to learn chess. If your child's school is not
functional,
chess is not going to help. You have to look for real solutions.
>What about music?
Of course I am grateful to my third grade teacher for teaching me
how to read music and play an instrument. Just yesterday I got a
new bass guitar, and I am enjoying it very much. I would have
benefitted even more if my school had given me challenging and
relevent assignments to keep me interested. My teacher was a
very nice lady, with a flair for music and drama, but who could
go for years at a time without reading a book, writing a report,
or solving a mathematical problem. This is not what we need more
of in our schools.
> What about art?
See above.
> What about > technology?
That is different. Technology is a much more basic survival skill.
Unlike chess. I teach it every day.
>What about foreign languages or even ancient languages?
I dont think that they are as important as some of the more basic
skills.
Please bear in mind that I am not talking about a functional well funded
school which can afford to do just about anything. I am talking about
the more typical school which faces problems such as lack of funds,
lack of well educated teachers, and various problems in the community
such
as drugs and unemployment.
> What about family and consumer science skills?
They are very important. Much more important than chess.
> No one seems to feel
> that including worthwhile programs such as these need preclude the
> teaching of basic skills.
No one in the larger school systems has done anything to evaluate
the functionality of their programs in many years. It has taken
new york city a century to get around to reviewing, for example,
whether social promotions are a good idea. And when I say a
century, I mean it literally.
> Why would the teaching of some chess preclude
> students learning basic skills that are necessary anyway?
Sure Im happy to see that many of my friends are employed as
chess teachers, rather than being unemployed. But if we are talking
about the kids well being, lets discuss the real reasons why they
cant read and write. By the way, I work with adults of normal
intelligence who cannot read and write, and its pretty darn sad.
> In the Bronx, the chess curriculum is a part of the fine arts
> curriculum. The program is funded by hard work, grants and fundraising
> by the teacher. The program is very successful and seems to be highly
> regarded. The children enjoy it and seem to be doing well.
Of course they enjoy it. But that is only because their reading and
writing and technology programs are so horrible.
> If you're claiming they're not being taught the basics properly right
> now, how will chess being included or not included make any difference
> one way or the other?
I think the issue is whether we care about the well-being of these kids,
or whether we care about creating jobs for chess bums. Im something
of a chess bum myself, but Im a teacher first. If we care about these
kids,
the answer is not to teach them chess.
>I don't think you believe chess would actually
> hurt their performance in these other areas are you?
Nothing could hurt their performance in other areas. If a kid cant
read or write nothing could be worse. I understand the arguement
that it cant hurt and it might help. But if we are responsible adults
we can do better than that, and we can start to examine what is
really wrong with the system.
> Does this mean chess should be given the same attention and level of
> funding as mathematics? I don't really believe most people think it
> should nor that it will. On the other hand, it doesn't mean it is a
> worthless thing to teach either.
In comparison it is though. If your kid didnt know his math, you
wouldnt
get him a chess teacher -- you would get him a math tutor. Am I right
or
wrong? Why are you suggesting something less for someone else's kid
then?
> The reality as I stated earlier is that chess will never receive the
> attention that some feel it deserves until it can justify it's inclusion
> based on scientific research. If it could be demonstrated that
> including chess in the curriculum correlated with higher math scores for
> example this would be a point in chess' favor.
As far as I know, Ferguson's study has never been published in a
scholarly
journal, nor will it ever be. The control groups were not set up
correctly.
If they had been set up correctly, the results might have been
different.
In any case, we are comparing apples and oranges. Kids need reading and
writing. They dont need chess.
Best Regards,
>
Jerry
JGraham
>
> You miss the point. Inter city kids
Inner City
>who have been involved in chess classes
> improve their attendance, self confidence and overall scholastic grade
> points. Not to mention organizational skills and reasoning skills. These
> are exactly the type Kids who would benefit!
I respect that. But if we really care about these kids, we will have
to start discussing why our schools are not functioning. Yes, kids do
benefit from contact with an adult who spends time with them and teaches
them chess, but we have to ask why these kids are not getting the same
or greater benefits from their traditional teachers.
Regards,
Jerry
R B
JGraham wrote in message <374BA2...@nystar.com>...
R B wrote:
>
> You miss the point. Inter city kids
Phil Innes
>
> You miss the point. Inter city kids who have been involved in chess classes
> improve their attendance, self confidence and overall scholastic grade
> points. Not to mention organizational skills and reasoning skills. These
> are exactly the type Kids who would benefit!
>
> Ross
> JGraham wrote in message . Would you rather have your kid learn how to
> play chess or how to read and write?
>
> Jerry
This is true - chess has also been associated with self-esteem, something
valuable to children, but not an academic subject. Perhaps we are not dealing
with the limits of the child, but with limits to traditional education?
If children feel good about themselves they will learn all subjects with more facility-ibid.
Sorry to repeat an anecdote - but, overheard conversation of two 8-10 year old
girls on National Public Radio - discussing a new Nintendo game which had 3
million players in three months:
"Why do you like it?"
"Because its complicated"
"Because it takes a long time to play"
I think we have to be careful when we claim academic benefits for chess. We
would be on better ground if we claimed benefits for the child - and studies
consistently do not take this into account.
It is something of a scandal that no university department of sociology or
pyschology, or of education, has made this a subject of study.
Phil Innes
Gilbert Palmer
Phil Innes wrote in message <374BC348...@sover.net>...
>>I think we have to be careful when we claim academic benefits
for chess. We would be on better ground if we claimed benefits
for the child - and studies consistently do not take this into
account.<<
Yes, quite, but here the core matter is the benefit to the
child, and the welfare of the child is in my mind of paramount
importance. It is from this angle that I feel chess should be
regarded - not from the point of view of the USCF intending to
promote chess in this way.
>>It is something of a scandal that no university department of
sociology or
pyschology, or of education, has made this a subject of
study.<<
I agree with this as well, I think research is essential,
although the use of the word 'scandal' is strong. I am
informed that a conference may be taking place in just a few
years when this very subject will in fact be discussed.
Gilbert Palmer
Jerry
>
> Why schools are not functioning? Take your pick, according to
> teachers it is the parents
I wouldnt say its the parents. Its the whole community or the whole
nation: Unemployment, drug abuse, and anti-intellectualism are just
some of the problems in the community that hurt education.
>or the government.
Yes. Class sizes are too large. The salaries are not large enough to
consistantly attract intelligent and well educated people.
>According to the
> Government it is the teachers and parents.
Instead of demonizing someone, we could discuss what improvements are
needed in the system.
>According to the parents
> it is the teachers and the government.
See above.
> All say they need more time
> and money, and all say they have no more time or money to give.
Parents do need more time to spend with their children. Teachers
should be paid competitive salaries. Class sizes do need to be
smaller. The average person is already paying more than enough in
taxes. The only way to get more money is to have the rich pay their
fair share. Close the loopholes.
> You
> can spend the millions on consultants who have fared no better in a
> solution -
Most teachers already know what the problems are.
>but you will not find more bang for your bucks and returns
> on your investment that scholastic chess programs.
You would get much more "bang" if you were to update the materials
and approaches used for teaching traditional subjects.
> Just my opinion but the students, teachers and the USCF all stand to
> profit by this investment.
They would benefit more from discussion of what the real problems are.
> The students get to learn, the teachers
> get to teach and the Chess Federation gets a bigger base of future
> support.
It would be better if we could discuss educational reform. If these
kids dont learn basic skills, they wont have enough money to pay $40
uscf dues when they become adults.... but never mind that... scholastic
players rarely remain uscf members anyway.
> I just do not see fiscal income going into the USCF from
> recruits who have passed school and college age. I can not see why
> they waste so much time money and energy on the big grand dreams of
> the USCF until you they have the means to support it.
Agreed.
> Bigger tournaments and higher prizes will not increase the player
> population or more money to support them.
The large tournaments which the pro-Dorsch group is attacking are
funded by people who choose to play in them.
>You have to increase
> popularity. If you want to grow more support then plant more seeds.
> Seems it would not hurt the organization to do some pruning and pest
> removal either.
Yes. But we spend all of our time arguing about who the pests are. I
think that people love chess, and people are playing all the time
without
the uscf. The first thing we have to do to bring these people into the
uscf is make the dues reasonable.
Regards,
Jerry
>
> Regards
> Ross
>
>
>
> JGraham wrote in message <374BA2...@nystar.com>...
> R B wrote:
> >
> > You miss the point. Inter city kids
>
> to start discussing why our schools are not functioning.
> Yes, kids do benefit from contact with an adult who spends
> time with them and teaches them chess, but we have to ask
> why these kids are not getting the same
> or greater benefits from their traditional teachers.
>
> Regards,
> Jerry
--
Bruce Leverett
credit for starting it, I added some gasoline.
I am not an expert on chess in education, but in my earlier message,
only wanted to
counterbalance some apparently discouraging words posted by Gilbert
Palmer. I am trying to keep in mind that chess in school curricula
is not an entirely hypothetical issue. There are schools that have
it, and there are real people who are trying to get chess into real
school curricula. Since I am not in the trenches myself, I don't
know how many opinions I can offer without looking completely
ridiculous. But, I guess most of the contributors to this thread
are in the same boat. As usual on R.G.C.P., it's the same half dozen
guys sitting around the same cracker barrel, regardless of the topic.
Jerry Graham suggests that adding chess to the curriculum can be done
only at the expense of more vital matters, such as teaching children
to read. Well, in my school district (a suburb of Pittsburgh), I
wouldn't have the slightest twinge of conscience about proposing chess
in the curriculum, not on that score anyhow. Even if I were in a
less fortunate school district, well, whose job is it to decide what
they can afford to do anyhow? I propose, the superintendent disposes.
More to the point, what about sports generally? If chess is such a
distraction from teaching students to read, what about "physical
education"? But don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking physical
education; I think it's great, and I think that teaching chess is great
too, for most of the same reasons.
Eric Johnson likes chess in the curriculum because "Chess Makes You
Smart", to quote the bumper sticker. Actually I am skeptical about
this. Chess didn't make me smart, as readers of this newsgroup are
only too well aware. These studies purporting to show that chess
participation correlates with better performance in other academic
areas leave me cold. Baseball didn't improve my grades, so why should
chess? "Chess Makes You Smart" reminds me of that tired cliche' so
familiar to my jock friends, "Sports Build Character". What a couple
of dubious propositions. But let me not knock them too hard, lest
it appear that I have switched sides. Chess should be in the
curriculum ... because it's such a good game!
Rather than think too hard about Bruce Draney's message, let me just
remind everyone that Nebraska won the Pan-Am Intercollegiate in 1976
(tied with Harvard). Their team included two guys named Chess.
I wonder if I can make that look relevant to a discussion of chess
in education :-)
Jerry
>
> R B wrote:
> >
> > improve their attendance, self confidence and overall scholastic grade
> > points. Not to mention organizational skills and reasoning skills. These
> > are exactly the type Kids who would benefit!
<you deleted my complete response to this>
> > Regards
> > Ross
> > JGraham wrote in message . Would you rather have your kid learn how to
> > play chess or how to read and write?
> >
> > Jerry
>
> This is true - chess has also been associated with self-esteem, something
> valuable to children, but not an academic subject. Perhaps we are not dealing
> with the limits of the child, but with limits to traditional education?
Almost every kid except the weakest kid in the school gets to experience
the joy of winning a game. There are many reasons why children are not
getting enough positive reinforcement for progress in traditional
subjects.
There are a number of answers. I think that with reading, we need more
books which are relevent to the lives of inner city children and which
have
practical messages for them.
> If children feel good about themselves they will learn all subjects with more facility-ibid.
We can make them feel good about themselves without having to teach them
a
useless subject. For example, children who cannot read can participate
in
discussions. Of course, it is necessary to get classes down to a size
where
the teacher can work with each child.
> Sorry to repeat an anecdote - but, overheard conversation of two 8-10 year old
> girls on National Public Radio - discussing a new Nintendo game which had 3
> million players in three months:
>
> "Why do you like it?"
>
> "Because its complicated"
> "Because it takes a long time to play"
>
> I think we have to be careful when we claim academic benefits for chess. We
> would be on better ground if we claimed benefits for the child - and studies
> consistently do not take this into account.
Certainly these children benefit from any positive adult attention,
but they need to learn subjects for their futures as well.
> It is something of a scandal that no university department of sociology or
> pyschology, or of education, has made this a subject of study.
Im not sure that they havent. Just not with respect to chess. But
if you study philosophy, you know that experience defies the ability
of technical writing and statistics to describe it. Generally someone
who teaches year after year knows more about the process than some
grad student doing a thesis.
Jerry
> Phil Innes
Jerry
> for chess. We would be on better ground if we claimed benefits
> for the child - and studies consistently do not take this into
> account.<<
>
> child, and the welfare of the child is in my mind of paramount
> importance. It is from this angle that I feel chess should be
> regarded - not from the point of view of the USCF intending to
> promote chess in this way.
>
> sociology or
> pyschology, or of education, has made this a subject of
> study.<<
>
> although the use of the word 'scandal' is strong. I am
> informed that a conference may be taking place in just a few
> years when this very subject will in fact be discussed.
>
> Gilbert Palmer
I think there is still an annual conference on chess and education.
I attended the first one, and was pretty well disgusted by the
blatant jingoism and lack of interest in the educational process.
Jerry
JimEade
>---Are you saying the board should run the store and not the staff? Great we
>can get rid of the staff and save money by letting the unpaid board answer
>the phone. I think the reason the results of operations are not so good is
>because the board micromanages and makes the operations ineffiecient.
>
>StanB
>
I would like to see a single example to substantiate your claim. No ED in
recent history has ever had such a free reign as Mike Cavallo.
The Schultz Board has been so dysfunctional it could not micromanage even if it
wanted to. I think that there are many valid criticisms of this Board, but
micromanagement is not one of them.
James Eade
Remove the Sheesh to respond
JimEade
>create masters...but to create tournament players.
I agree with almost everything Eric Johnson posted, so it seems a bit unfair to
single out one minor point of departure.
I don't agree that the program's are designed to create tournament players. I
beleive that they are designed to promote social good.
The benefits of introducing a serious chess program in schools have been
documented in several studies. Perhaps the most impressive is the one by
Margulies.
I have a five pound stack of testimonials to use in fund raising for the Kolty
Chess for Youth Foundation (why Sam would write that I have no interest in
Scholastic chess is beyond me)
It is my opinion that these programs benefit society. If they fail to produce
a single GM or a single tournament player, it will not matter. I think it
quite likely that they will produce those outcomes, but as a by product of its
primary mission.
Jerry
>
> >
> >---Are you saying the board should run the store and not the staff? Great we
> >can get rid of the staff and save money by letting the unpaid board answer
> >the phone. I think the reason the results of operations are not so good is
> >because the board micromanages and makes the operations ineffiecient.
> >
> >StanB
> >
>
> I would like to see a single example to substantiate your claim. No ED in
> recent history has ever had such a free reign as Mike Cavallo.
Actually Col. Edmondson did whatever he darn pleased, but that was
way before your time. But I agree with Mr. Eadde that the board has
not been micromanaging the office.
>
> The Schultz Board has been so dysfunctional it could not micromanage even if it
> wanted to. I think that there are many valid criticisms of this Board, but
> micromanagement is not one of them.
True.
> James Eadde
> Remove the Sheesh to respond
Jerrry
Double Sheeeeshh
stan
JimEade wrote in message <19990526181358...@ng-fu1.aol.com>...
>>
>>---Are you saying the board should run the store and not the staff? Great
we
>>can get rid of the staff and save money by letting the unpaid board answer
>>the phone. I think the reason the results of operations are not so good
is
>>because the board micromanages and makes the operations ineffiecient.
>>
>>StanB
>>
>
>I would like to see a single example to substantiate your claim. No ED in
>recent history has ever had such a free reign as Mike Cavallo.
>
if it
>wanted to. I think that there are many valid criticisms of this Board, but
>micromanagement is not one of them.
>Remove the Sheesh to respond
And in all fairness, you might be absolutely 100% right. I base my
assumptions on what I read here and what I heard from only one person (who I
have never seen post here) who was on the board. These unscientific
observations of mine make me "think" the board is micromanged. I make no
claim to any proof or examples to substaniate my "think".
StanB
stan
JimEade wrote in message <19990526182100...@ng-fu1.aol.com>...
>Remove the Sheesh to respond
I believe that chess instills critical thinking, planning, self discipline,
and taking responsibility for your actions. Excellent skills to carry
throughout one's life.
When I was on a school board I broached this idea to my fellow board
members, eyes rolled and everyone said yes we should do that some day, but
right now we have more important issues to address. Apathy and chess go
hand in hand.
StanB
Bruce Draney
<Snipped some of post>
> Rather than think too hard about Bruce Draney's message, let me just
> remind everyone that Nebraska won the Pan-Am Intercollegiate in 1976
> (tied with Harvard). Their team included two guys named Chess.
> I wonder if I can make that look relevant to a discussion of chess
> in education :-)
Yes indeed they did. Mike Chess, Rich Chess, Loren Schmidt and Curtis
Carlson defeated Harvard in the final round to win first place out of
123 teams. According to my records this was actually held in December
of 1975 in Columbus Ohio, but may have been reported in the early issues
of the 1976 Chess Life.
Other firsts for Nebraska include among other things:
Fischer's first National tournament in Lincoln in 1955.
John Watson was the first National High School Champion in 1969.
Nebraska hosted U.S. Opens in 1949, 1959, 1969 and 1975. They hosted
U.S. Juniors in 1955 and 1959?? I believe.
Three World Champions played chess in Nebraska in their careers
including Capablanca, Alekhine, and Fischer.
Numerous U.S. Champions played in Nebraska including Fischer,
Reshevsky, Marshall and GM Larry Evans, as well as Art Bisguier.
The story of the University of Nebraska's rise to chess prominence in
the 1970's has little to do with the subject of the thread which is
inclusion of chess in the public school curriculum.
Loren Schmidt was the primary driving force behind efforts to gain the
elusive national title for UNL. Loren is now a professor in eastern
Washington. Rich and Mike Chess still live here in Omaha and their
names continue to amuse people who think it's got to be a joke of some
kind.
Chesspride
>I
>beleive that they are designed to promote social good.
Jim...I used the phrase "tournament players" as shorthand for "a serious chess
program designed to treat chess as a serious activity...one that the players
take seriously...where they might play clocked games...take notation...go over
their games...analyze...and otherwise make a concerted improvement to improve
their performance...as in a tournament environment."
So...I agree with your general observation...and would only underscore the
point that the small positive educational benefits of a school chess program
come ONLY from a serious chess program...not the "chess club as study hall"
stereotype.
USENET posts are often composed on the fly...so I beg your indulgence.
Eric C. Johnson
Chesspride
>Eric Johnson likes chess in the curriculum because "Chess Makes You
>Smart", to quote the bumper sticker. Actually I am skeptical about
>this. Chess didn't make me smart, as readers of this newsgroup are
Bruce...I would agree that the more correct "Chess Helps To Unleash Your
Inherent Smartness" wasn't quite as catchy a phrase...so we settled on "Chess
Makes You Smart."
Remember...I always stressed that the educational benefits of a serious chess
program are small but positive..so as not to oversstate the matter....and I
also mentioned the impact on self-esteem measures and discipline issues...two
side issues that are also important to the entire educational mission.
Kids who think poorly of themselves...who think they are stupid or
incompetent...won't master physics or math or reading as well as kids who think
they are capable of learning.
If chess can help achieve the proper mindset in the classroom...no other
benefit claim is needed...chess doesn't have to "make you smart"...it only
needs to "help you be as smart as you naturally can be."
Eric C. Johnson
Bruce Draney
> Yes indeed they did. Mike Chess, Rich Chess, Loren Schmidt and
Curtis
> Carlson defeated Harvard in the final round to win first place out of
> 123 teams. According to my records this was actually held in December
> of 1975 in Columbus Ohio, but may have been reported in the early issues
> of the 1976 Chess Life.
I wanted to correct this right away. They drew Harvard's team 2-2 in
the last round and tied with Harvard for 1st. I apologize to any of
Harvard's 1975 team out there who may have read this and gotten upset
with me for saying Nebraska defeated them when the match and the event
finished with both teams tied and sharing the National Championship.
Best Regards,
Bruce
Jerry
>
> It appears there is a flame-fest going, and while I cannot take
> credit for starting it, I added some gasoline.
>
> I am not an expert on chess in education, but in my earlier message,
> only wanted to
> counterbalance some apparently discouraging words posted by Gilbert
> Palmer. I am trying to keep in mind that chess in school curricula
> is not an entirely hypothetical issue. There are schools that have
> it, and there are real people who are trying to get chess into real
> school curricula. Since I am not in the trenches myself, I don't
> know how many opinions I can offer without looking completely
> ridiculous. But, I guess most of the contributors to this thread
> are in the same boat. As usual on R.G.C.P., it's the same half dozen
> guys sitting around the same cracker barrel, regardless of the topic.
Many of my friends are chess teachers. I have been a non-chess teacher
for 15 years.
> Jerry Graham suggests that adding chess to the curriculum can be done
> only at the expense of more vital matters, such as teaching children
> to read. Well, in my school district (a suburb of Pittsburgh), I
> wouldn't have the slightest twinge of conscience about proposing chess
> in the curriculum, not on that score anyhow. Even if I were in a
> less fortunate school district, well, whose job is it to decide what
> they can afford to do anyhow? I propose, the superintendent disposes.
Yes. Chess is being introduced in many school districts.
> More to the point, what about sports generally? If chess is such a
> distraction from teaching students to read, what about "physical
> education"? But don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking physical
> education; I think it's great, and I think that teaching chess is great
> too, for most of the same reasons.
Ive had many students who are athletes. Some of them were very good
students and some were very very bad. They tended to be more aggressive
than other students. I think that schools are sending the wrong message
by granting athletic scholarships and by granting athletes stature in
the college community about that of the best academic students.
> Eric Johnson likes chess in the curriculum because "Chess Makes You
> Smart", to quote the bumper sticker.
After a bad loss, I smart all over!
> Actually I am skeptical about
> this. Chess didn't make me smart, as readers of this newsgroup are
> only too well aware. These studies purporting to show that chess
> participation correlates with better performance in other academic
> areas leave me cold. Baseball didn't improve my grades, so why should
> chess? "Chess Makes You Smart" reminds me of that tired cliche' so
> familiar to my jock friends, "Sports Build Character". What a couple
> of dubious propositions. But let me not knock them too hard, lest
> it appear that I have switched sides. Chess should be in the
> curriculum ... because it's such a good game!
I disagree. Yes it creates jobs for chess bums. Yes it can create
cushy jobs for profession teachers. Yes, in a monied school district
the kids know how to read and they are usually able to learn all the
subject they need. But in a poor school district, we have to address
why the traditional curriculum is not working, not participate in
gimics like chess in education.
>
> Rather than think too hard about Bruce Draney's message, let me just
> remind everyone that Nebraska won the Pan-Am Intercollegiate in 1976
> (tied with Harvard). Their team included two guys named Chess.
> I wonder if I can make that look relevant to a discussion of chess
> in education :-)
Jerry
Jerry
>
> JimEade wrote in message <19990526182100...@ng-fu1.aol.com>...
> >>Remember we are talking about a serious chess program...one designed...not
> to
> >>create masters...but to create tournament players.
> >
> >I agree with almost everything Eric Johnson posted, so it seems a bit
> unfair to
> >single out one minor point of departure.
> >
> I
> >beleive that they are designed to promote social good.
> >
> >documented in several studies. Perhaps the most impressive is the one by
> >Margulies.
> >
> >I have a five pound stack of testimonials to use in fund raising for the
> Kolty
> >Chess for Youth Foundation (why Sam would write that I have no interest in
> >Scholastic chess is beyond me)
> >
> >It is my opinion that these programs benefit society. If they fail to
> produce
> >a single GM or a single tournament player, it will not matter. I think it
> >quite likely that they will produce those outcomes, but as a by product of
> its
> >primary mission.
> >James Eade
> >Remove the Sheesh to respond
>
> I believe that chess instills critical thinking, planning, self discipline,
> and taking responsibility for your actions. Excellent skills to carry
> throughout one's life.
>
> When I was on a school board I broached this idea to my fellow board
> members, eyes rolled and everyone said yes we should do that some day, but
> right now we have more important issues to address. Apathy and chess go
> hand in hand.
Yeah, like teaching kids how to read and write! How trivial!!
Jerry
>
> StanB
Phil Innes
> and taking responsibility for your actions. Excellent skills to carry
> throughout one's life.
>
> When I was on a school board I broached this idea to my fellow board
> members, eyes rolled and everyone said yes we should do that some day, but
> right now we have more important issues to address. Apathy and chess go
> hand in hand.
>
When I took up this point from previous conversation about candidate Redman,
mentioning self-esteem, and other non-academic, yet useful values, the thread
mutated - and became associated with this idea of schools.
It is the utmost folly to allow schools to manage a program that they do not
currently implement.
However, if there were to be a program that they could join, acknowledging it
to be of value to children then this is all the endorsement that is necessary.
Better to seek approval at a national level, and from other educators - and
associate the whole shebang with a University conducted study.
Of course, this is not a new idea, and those who wait on politics, wait...
In general I think it is better to pursue any good ideas related to chess,
then national organizations, chessic and academic can come on behind, and
endorse, form partnerships, etc., or not.
Is there any evidence that anything else works?
I should be interested in any pyschologist, sociologist, or educational
departments which are University based *joining* an international study of the same.
Phil Innes.
stan
Jerry wrote in message <374D04...@nystar.com>...
>stan wrote:
>>
>> I believe that chess instills critical thinking, planning, self
discipline,
>> and taking responsibility for your actions. Excellent skills to carry
>> throughout one's life.
>>
>> When I was on a school board I broached this idea to my fellow board
>> members, eyes rolled and everyone said yes we should do that some day,
but
>> right now we have more important issues to address. Apathy and chess go
>> hand in hand.
>
>Yeah, like teaching kids how to read and write! How trivial!!
>
>Jerry
>
Cut me a break Jerry. Reading, writing, and arithmetic were being taught and
taught well. Some of the important things included whether board members
should be reimbursed for their spouses costs at seminars, teacher's
contracts (entry level was 33k a year in 1995), granting sabbaticals at 1/2
pay, writing the sexual harrassment policy (classic case of
micromanagement-shoulda, coulda been delegated) and other noneducation
matters. I was amused that the board took time to consider what could be
done about the lack of interest in the school rifle club. I mean how hard
would it have been to at least see if it was working in the neighboring
Philadelphia school district.
StanB
JimEade
>departments which are University based *joining* an international study of
>the same.
>
>Phil Innes.
>
You might be interested to know that Tim Redman is organizing a Chess in
Education Symposium at UTexas-Dallas in 2001, and that I have commited $5,000
to publish the papers delivered there.
Dallas also has a model Chess-in-the-Schools program. I had an opportunity to
meet some of the Board members of the organization that administers it in
February of last year. I was extremely impressed. It is an independent
organization which enters the school systems and delivers the program, but it
does so in close cooperation with the schools, from what I could gather.
Chesspride
>Education Symposium at UTexas-Dallas in 2001, and that I have commited $5,000
>to publish the papers delivered there.
Jim (and Tim):
I repeat my recommendation that various university psychology departments be
contacted NOW...to encourage graduate students who seek an opportunity to
present research at conferences...to choose chess-related topics NOW so that
the eventual conference book will include REAL STUDIES and not the anecdotal
reports of teachers and coaches.
Eric C. Johnson
Jerry
Graduate students are struggling to get their degrees. The first advice
for any graduate student is: a) Pick a topic that is of interest to
your advisor/s; b) Pick a topic where there is already an abundance
of research.
Lets discuss study design now. Lets take two groups of students.
Give one group a first-rate chess teacher, experienced with inner
city students. Give the other group a first-rate reading teacher
experienced with inner-city students. Test both groups to make
sure their intelligence level, grades, reading scores, and prior
knowledge of chess are comparible. Tell the chess teacher that
the study is about chess and tell the reading teacher that the
study is about reading.
Certainly both groups will benefit. The difference is that the
kids with the reading teacher will learn how to read!
Jerry A. Graham
stan
Jerry wrote in message <374DBB...@nystar.com>...
important?
StanB
Jerry
>
> Jerry wrote in message <374D04...@nystar.com>...
> >stan wrote:
> >>
>
> >> I believe that chess instills critical thinking, planning, self
> discipline,
> >> and taking responsibility for your actions. Excellent skills to carry
> >> throughout one's life.
> >>
> >> When I was on a school board I broached this idea to my fellow board
> >> members, eyes rolled and everyone said yes we should do that some day,
> but
> >> right now we have more important issues to address. Apathy and chess go
> >> hand in hand.
> >
> >Yeah, like teaching kids how to read and write! How trivial!!
> >
> >Jerry
> Cut me a break Jerry. Reading, writing, and arithmetic were being taught and
> taught well.
Maybe they are in your district. The question is whether chess should
be used in districts where children are having trouble with the basics.
> Some of the important things included whether board members
> should be reimbursed for their spouses costs at seminars, teacher's
> contracts (entry level was 33k a year in 1995), granting sabbaticals at 1/2
> pay, writing the sexual harrassment policy (classic case of
> micromanagement-shoulda, coulda been delegated) and other noneducation
> matters. I was amused that the board took time to consider what could be
> done about the lack of interest in the school rifle club. I mean how hard
> would it have been to at least see if it was working in the neighboring
> Philadelphia school district.
Yes. I know that some of these school boards are even worse than the
uscf. My arguements were not in reference to districts where the
instruction in the basics is consistantly successful.
Jerry
>
> StanB
Jerry
The kids who have the reading teacher will learn how to think and
will also learn how to read.
Actually the type of thought used in chess is more similar to
mathmatics.
This is why students can benefit from having good math teachers (and
small class sizes so the math teach can work with them). But it is
no accident that I said a reading teacher because reading has wider
application than math.
Its ridiculous to say that chessplayers have a monopoly on thought.
It is not that hard to show that there is no correlation between success
in chess and success in the real world.
Jerry
>
> > I believe that chess instills critical thinking, planning, self discipline,
> > and taking responsibility for your actions. Excellent skills to carry
> > throughout one's life.
> >
> > When I was on a school board I broached this idea to my fellow board
> > members, eyes rolled and everyone said yes we should do that some day, but
> > right now we have more important issues to address. Apathy and chess go
> > hand in hand.
> >
>
> When I took up this point from previous conversation about candidate Redman,
> mentioning self-esteem, and other non-academic, yet useful values, the thread
> mutated - and became associated with this idea of schools.
>
> It is the utmost folly to allow schools to manage a program that they do not
> currently implement.
>
> However, if there were to be a program that they could join, acknowledging it
> to be of value to children then this is all the endorsement that is necessary.
> Better to seek approval at a national level, and from other educators - and
> associate the whole shebang with a University conducted study.
>
> Of course, this is not a new idea, and those who wait on politics, wait...
>
> In general I think it is better to pursue any good ideas related to chess,
> then national organizations, chessic and academic can come on behind, and
> endorse, form partnerships, etc., or not.
>
> Is there any evidence that anything else works?
Are you asking whether anything else works with respect to education,
or which respect to chess promoting?
Im not saying that teaching chess to the kids isnt better than
teaching them nothing. At least they have some positive contact
with an adult. But if we are really concerned about education,
I think there are better solutions.
Jerry
> I should be interested in any pyschologist, sociologist, or educational
> departments which are University based *joining* an international study of the same.
>
> Phil Innes.
--
stan
Jerry wrote in message <374DC7...@nystar.com>...<snip>
talk? I'll just sit on your lap and move my lips while you talk for me.
Better yet you can stick your hand up my ass and move my lips for me.
Seriously, the key to teaching is motivation. If the student wants to do it
he'll learn much more. Reading about what other people think is passive.
Wanting to do better in chess is active. Some kids like to read, some like
to play games. I could care less how many kids go on to be chess masters,
authors, or mathematicians. The goal is not nearly as important as the
learning that comes in striving for the goal. In this case critical thought,
taking responsibility etc.
StanB
R B
>I think there are better solutions.
>Jerry
What are those better solultions???
If you teach English/reading, Mathmatics, and Science then what would be
the other subjects you would place above chess?
Regards
Ross
Jerry
I am most concerned about situations where reading, writing, and math
are not being taught successfully. But before chess, kids have to learn
practical problem solving, conflict resolution, economics, and many
other
subjects. They need to know some of the realities of the adult world.
Abstract problem solving is indeed useful in mathmatics and computer
programming,
but it is not the same thing as practical problem solving. And if we
want to
get at abstract problem solving, I would rather teach a kid about how a
business
works and then teach a little math, or teach a kid how to write a
computer program,
than to teach chess. Teaching chess may be fun for all concerned. It
is a fine recreational activity, but not an educational one.
Jerry
Jerry
>
> Jerry wrote in message <374DC7...@nystar.com>...
> >stan wrote:
> >>
> >> Jerry wrote in message <374DBB...@nystar.com>...
> >> >
> <snip>
> >> >
> >> Won't the kids that have the chess teacher learn how to think? Isn't that
> >> important?
> >
> >The kids who have the reading teacher will learn how to think and
> >will also learn how to read.
> >
> >Actually the type of thought used in chess is more similar to
> >mathmatics.
> >This is why students can benefit from having good math teachers (and
> >small class sizes so the math teach can work with them). But it is
> >no accident that I said a reading teacher because reading has wider
> >application than math.
> >
> >Its ridiculous to say that chessplayers have a monopoly on thought.
> >It is not that hard to show that there is no correlation between success
> >in chess and success in the real world.
> >
> >Jerry
> >
> Monopoly? Gosh now your'e putting words in my mouth. Why should I even
> talk? I'll just sit on your lap and move my lips while you talk for me.
> Better yet you can stick your hand up my ass and move my lips for me.
Id prefer not to. My point was that you were saying that the
chessteacher
would teach them how to think, suggesting that the traditional teacher
could not do so.
> Seriously, the key to teaching is motivation. If the student wants to do it
> he'll learn much more.
I agree.
>Reading about what other people think is passive.
Yes. I think that reading is only meaningful when it is a tool
to help one deal with their problems.
> Wanting to do better in chess is active. Some kids like to read, some like
> to play games.
Yes. But children have other goals. Maybe children dont give too much
thought to being successful in life, because they dont visualized
themselves
becoming adults. Teachers really need to supply kids with more
information
on the adult world, not supply them with more make believe.
> I could care less how many kids go on to be chess masters,
> authors, or mathematicians. The goal is not nearly as important as the
> learning that comes in striving for the goal. In this case critical thought,
> taking responsibility etc.
Sure. Those are all good things. But schools need to be teaching kids
skills, and a little bit about the realities of the adult world. They
should be teaching about economics and conflict resolution.
People have ulterior motives behind chess and education. There are many
very talented people teaching chess. I would like to see at least some
of
these people complete the requirements for certification and become real
teachers.
Jerry
> StanB
Phil Innes
Ed.) I am interested in a broader study, geographically, but also, if you will
accept the difference, to "what benefits the child," rather than inclusion of
chess into curricula.
Oddly, the more this subject is explored, the more concrete evidence recedes.
Do you (or Bruce Draney) know of any study in the United States that is
available as an audited paper, that could form the basis of additional consideration?
I do not mean my remarks to take away from the conference or its intent -- I
am simply qualifying my interest in it. Phil Innes
PS: May I be your first subscriber to the paper? How much $ for the report,
and for postage in the US, Internationally? Whats your next ISBN? Can you
further summarise contnet of this conference - start new thread, to chess
misc? - can you mow my lawn? (have ride-on). Best Wishes.
JimEade wrote:
>
> >I should be interested in any pyschologist, sociologist, or educational
> >departments which are University based *joining* an international study of
> >the same.
> >
> >Phil Innes.
> >
>
> You might be interested to know that Tim Redman is organizing a Chess in
> Education Symposium at UTexas-Dallas in 2001, and that I have commited $5,000
> to publish the papers delivered there.
>
Hudnall B. Dunlap II
On Tue, 25 May 1999 12:34:03 -0500, Bruce Draney wrote
(in message <374AE0...@esu3.esu3.k12.ne.us>):
>
> Chesspride wrote:
>>
>>> Many schools have even begun charging athletes activity fees to compete
>
> Does the fact that other than Dr. Ferguson's studies there appear to be no
> more U.S. research studies on the benefits of chess in education. We can
> (and often do) infer or theorize or attribute a number of benefits to it,
> mostly based on anecdotal and warm fuzzy stories, but until someone
> demonstrates it in more than one major research study it will continue to be
> given about as much weight as table tennis, bridge, cribbage or any other
> number of activities that someone might claim have beneficial aspects.
>
> Perhaps we have some aspiring PHD's who also love chess and would like to
> advance the cause of chess in education? Any takers?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Bruce
Chess does not belong in the curriculum. By the time you get done with the four
R's, Reading, (W)riting, (A)rithmetic and Rhetoric, there is little enough time
for history, government, science and a second language. Yes there are studies
that show chess helps in education. There are similar studies that show the
same thing for music, art and even midnight basketball.
Chess does not teach good study skill anymore than playing DOOM promotes
computer skills. Trying to go through the state and local school boards to
shove chess down teachers throats does a lot more harm than good. Coming from a
family of educators I know how much damage the latest fad does to the learning
process.
You are ignoring the fact that teachers have to learn thier subject well in
order to teach well. I question that they have the time. The good teachers are
already spending extra hours learning thier field better, be it early childhood
education for the early years or thier main subject such as a language in the
high school years.
I am all for chess as an after school function. It gave me something to do and
talk about at school. There are a lot of students for whom the high school
experience is as miserable as mine was. Chess made it more bearable for me and
I am sure it has helped others. Making it another class just turns it into
another item of drudgery.
Sincerely
Hud
Hudnall B. Dunlap II
On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 20:14:07 -0500, Hudnall B. Dunlap II wrote
(in message <01HW.B3959F0F0...@news.texas.net>):
>
>
>
To All:
I am still getting used to my news reader and that was a post that did not get
sent and I thought I had deleted it. Pleae ignore it.
Sincerely
Hud
>
Phil Innes
>
< snipped Bruce's lead article about chess in curriculum >
This is a very good post by Hud. It is real-politik, and it acknowledges
(perhaps) another implicit factor, that while chess may or may not be good for
kids - and by all means let's study it - it may not be *academically* good for them.
Example - perhaps it does impove self-esteem, or confidence, or exercise
factors not prominent in any curriculum.
Some studies (degroot) have shown that there are two prevalent "intelligences"
associated with chess - linear processing, and abstract spatial awareness -
rather the *integration* of these two.
Schools do not even attempt the second of these, never mind any degree of integration.
But if "education" means "to lead out from" (L. e ducare) then isn't there
some responsibility for educators to do just this, otherwise they are not
educators but trainers, utilizing another technique "cramming into," and since
this state of affairs is a matter of record, it is another reason that
prospective benefits of chess should not be promoted into the"education" system.
Phil Innes