Assuming it’s the study I think it is, it says something like: if we add a few hours of chess instruction to the regular classroom, performance on standardized tests does not improve. I’ll find it, but I've long wanted to defend chess from these accusations and can't help myself. https://twitter.com/emollick/status/1308222378518994946

I have to twist and turn to imagine how the described intervention could even theoretically improve academic performance.

And it's hard for me to see how whatever kids know after this type of instruction could qualify as chess knowledge worthy of the name.

Now, I get that the goal may be to find ways to help everyday students improve their school performance. I get that this is the type of intervention that schools can reasonably do. And the study is thus useful in showing that it won’t work.

I don’t doubt that the study is right.

But when this gets extended to "no benefits to teaching your kid chess”, I get upset for that is an all-together different point.

I certainly don’t teach chess for those reasons and none of the people I learned it from did either.

Now, I am not a professional chess coach or player.

But chess was a big part of my childhood. I learned it in a family where it has been a strong tradition going back at least three generations.

I played it in a country that loves and respects the game.

Chess in America is indeed a different beast and chess in the age of computers is different still, but I nevertheless doubt there are many chess promoters who seriously believe a few hours of chess instruction is the ticket to higher grades.

If there are, please ignore them.

The closest thing to these programs are after school clubs in elementary schools. Kids meet for an hour or two a week + occasional tournament. I’ve certainly met many parents who thought highly of the clubs and their kids’ talents - until the end of their first real tournament.

And let’s not forget these clubs have a huge advantage over studied programs: self-selection.

Chess is a deep game that has consumed lifetimes while these programs barely get past the rules. They are at best an easy way to discover potential that must be nurtured elsewhere.

I don’t think shallow chess knowledge brings any special benefits and deeper knowledge requires serious involvement by the kid and the teacher: exactly what schools struggle with most - regardless of subject.

So after years of nurture, kids will get higher grades? I doubt it.

Let’s step back: what does chess offer?

It provides a complex, demanding domain in which to challenge yourself, think logically and creatively, find the best answer, discover beauty, own consequences.

It is a game of perfect information: the best answer is out there...

...the only question is whether you have the desire, intelligence, and focus to find it.

It is a game that teaches conscientiousness, growth mindset, wonder, agency, beauty, and focus.

Beyond beginner levels a single game can last 6 hours!

6 hours of intense concentration, creation, setbacks, insights, and disappointments. Every move precious.

6 hours of focusing and losing focus and refocusing and losing it again and taking a deep breath and not giving up.

And analyzing afterwards, finding mistakes, learning.

Does this sound like anything? May be science? or programming? or math? or writing? or entrepreneurship? or being a principled person? At least some kinds of these activities some of the time?

You know what it doesn’t sound like? Standardized tests at school.

It’s true that such skills should cross-over to study habits and test-taking.

Unfortunately, they are so far beyond what is needed at western elementary schools that they could just as well cross-over into apathy.

If you could get kids with insufficient motivation or study habits to do well on standardized tests to embrace chess, then I think their scores would improve. But you first need to get them to embrace chess which isn’t much easier than getting them to embrace math, science, etc.

What you’ll have is many sitting through chess as they do through math.

Some who get into chess because they already have the requisite skills and interests. They prob already top out your tests.

And an occasional kid who finds a new passion which improves grades years later.

But even if it's about values and meta-skills, why not teach them through math or science? There are studies that question knowledge transfer.

It’s simple: there are few domains where richness and complexity comparable to chess is accessible to kids at comparably young ages.

Few 4-10 year olds can access math or science or literature at the level of depth and appreciation that is accessible to them with chess.

And programming devolves into repeated trial-and-error which may be realistic and useful, but teaches a nearly opposite mindset to chess.

But if you can’t inspire the kid to want to do it, if you can’t provide instruction focused on development of values and meta-capabilities rather than grades or ratings, if you can’t devote the time needed to put excellence within reach then yes, chess is just another game.

If you don’t particularly care about values and meta-capabilities like conscientiousness, idealism, curiosity, and objectivity then chess is also just another game.

But I am yet to find another activity that better integrates their development into one cohesive, inspiring whole.

Focus on character development emphasizes that chess benefits don’t accrue linearly.

Along with studies like this that overvalue too little instruction, there are frequent perspectives that try to deduce too much from top echelons of chess.

Gains in values and meta-capabilities begin to accrue in earnest quite a bit past absolute beginner level and are significantly complete by about club player level. If I had to put a number on it, somewhere between 800-1600 rating range.

For context, school programs rarely produce 400 level play and perspectives on intelligence and career impact tend to dismiss 2000 level Experts.

Beyond a certain point, chess becomes a specialized domain that requires memorization, intuition, and habits that don't transfer.

I strongly suspect that chess develops important values and capabilities at levels of play accessible to most motivated students and it does so efficiently.

It should therefore improve outcomes in ways consistent with such values and capabilities.

But there are certainly other ways to develop comparable values and capabilities.

And there are certainly many definitions of success that better correlate with different, even conflicting values.

Chess isn't the most effective path to attain high grades, status, or wealth.

btw, personal psychology and meta-capabilities do improve at high levels and those gains should transfer. But such improvements are specialized for situations of extreme competence and the only such situations typical Experts+ players will encounter will be at the chess board.

Found the study: https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2017-jerrim.pdf As expected: 30 hours of instruction at school with effect measured by math, science, and reading scores taken a year later.

Kudos for dispelling unfounded myths, but proves nothing about value of actually learning chess.