I think that playing chess can help in life to develop strategic thinking. One does not need to be a Master but probably not the beginner. Interesting combinations happen also between players of middle level (below international, without official ELO coefficient).

Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system it is written that ELO of beginner is 800, of middle player 1600, and of professional 2400. So  I am talking about people with 1500-2000.

Chess helps to make strategic plan and to fulfill it step by step. One can also observe how visually stable structure can be destroyed by one wrong step. But only in the case of playing with strong partner, who does not make stupid steps and also can create pressure and combinations.

Yuri,  thanks for your opinion

Hi Luis,

Although playing chess might be a good way to keep your brain in good health (as a muscle), the relation between "Brain Train" and acquired skills is not proved and as so mostly in the realm of urban myths (basically we only know that if you play chess than you'll get better at playing chess, which makes sense).

The particular example you have given (playing chess will develop other skills such as sociability and so on...) is even a more complex association. I should also add that current specialist on the field are still trying to understand if you overdevelop one particular are of the brain, does that imply potential loss in another? (so getting really good at one thing will lead you to be worse in another)

I'm not a specialist in that field of science (although I'm curious about it) and everything I wrote above is basically a quote from the researchers in this great video from PsyFile channel (which I recommend you):

Does Brain Training really work? - (PsyFile 5Youtube)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-nhvqJB5EY

From my personal experience (so just an opinion) I would say that training a particular exercise (such as chess) is not sufficient for an "healthy" development of a growing mind. I think probably a rich experience with several different games and events is more adequate. Adding new experiences to ones life such as meeting new cultures, different ways of life, or different ideas will not only "broaden your horizons" and increase you tolerance, but also make it easy for you to think "out of the box".

Dear Pedro and Luis,

I agree that playing only chess may not develop your brain fully. But there are not many games that give this development. Just before 1980s there were no computer games, but only chess and maybe cards. Playing cards - depends what. I think that preference (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%A9f%C3%A9rence ) can also help to develop strategic skills, because chance here is rather small. Playing "21" (take cards one by one until you get exactly score of 21) is almost fully good luck. Many people including former chess players play poker - and get good results (because calculation of probabilities is important in bet there). Among computer games (which I know little, I want to confess) only "civilization" can help with strategic thinking. Most are just pushing button quickly to kill more enemies (at least most of games played in computer bars).

Now more about what I think about chess and strategy. The game reminds model of conflict in space. There is spatial factor and different types of figures. Value of figures can be assigned (Queen =9, pawn=1). The amount of possibilities is so high that normal mind cannot grasp it all. That is why calculation is limited and one has to rely on intuition and feelings as well (which is similar to those we have in real life). There is no random factor, while in life we often have it. But random factor can influence the brain of your rival, leading to a step that you did not expect - and you have to think and react.

Now about the skills developed in playing chess. It is important to read at least one book to know: a) how to start a game, b) how to finish it with win if you have several standard advantages in material. The middle part of the game is where one cannot compute all and where there are plenty of unexplored possibilities - in this part one can use strategic thinking similar to real life. (It is interesting to mention that while chess is fully rational game from economic science perspective, nobody can play it rationally - simply because of not sufficient abilities of our brain. But, of course, bounded rationally. So for me strategic thinking differs from economic rationality.)

What is bad with beginners? They do not know how to start game and make stupid  steps. One can win if just does not make too stupid steps - even without strategic thinking. When I was young , I spent 2 years in chess club and at some moment played like that, being criticized by our master-tutor.

Chess (gross)masters have other extreme. They know first 10-20 standard steps in the beginning. They learned too many games of masters. And those more skilled in those areas often win. But this "external memory" has little to do with strategic thinking. I mean that only strategic thinking without such knowledge cannot guarantee a win in this class today.

Yuri, you misunderstood. I was not stating that chess is bad as brain training (I'm sure it has it's advantages), I was giving an opinion about how (to me) feels like it's not enough to achieve the characteristics Luis was looking for.

The truth is we still don't really know how the brain works, and what affects it's cognitive ability. For instance you've given the example of games that work by a push of a button in what seems an action without any necessity for reasoning. But actually a lot of educational games work that way.

The human being can learn different skills and traits using a lot of methods (by repetition, by association, by argumentation, and so on...). When building a game specifically designed for education you first need to consider what learning method (or methods) you intend to use and than design the game following those rules. Sometimes the rules are simple but it doesn't mean that they're ineffective.

Do not take it from me. Recent studies show that there are actual physical changes in the brain for video game players leading to increased memory, problem-solving, emotional abilities, and so on... (depending on the characteristics of the game). Here's an article discussing this subject:

http://www.medicaldaily.com/video-games-may-improve-brains-connections-action-gamers-have-more-gray-matter-331026

Please notice that I'm not advocating Video Games. I'm just arguing in favor of a rich approach to learning. Children learn very fast and can be very self sufficient if they feel a task is stimulating. 

I do think that providing children with a rich set of experiences is very beneficial and lets them find out what they like and don't like, what they want to spend more time doing or less. Playing is extremely important as can be seen not only in the human species but all the other ones we can relate somehow (anyone who had a dog or a cat can see that they spend a great deal of time just playing, specially in younger ages). 

Dear Pedro,

I was not focusing on how to educate children; now it is impossible to separate them from video games and new computer based education tools are also available. I just wanted to reflect how I personally see chess in the development of strategic thinking. And as you can see, benefits are more not in a very young age, but already for adults. Given that there are relatively few % of people in the world who have ELO>1500 (see my first post), I would not put chess as a necessary game to develop strategic thinking among children. But probably many of successful generals could play chess good enough.

Just to be clear about how  I see "strategic thinking". It is when some combination in chess resembles you a real situation in your life and helps to solve it. Clearly, there is no one-to-one mapping.

Chess example: you develop well your figures and think how to get future attack. At the same time our rival offers you "a Troyan horse" as a part of combination, and makes his destroying attack earlier. Real life: you are caring about several aspects of your life and prepared to win there again, but keep one weak (for example, believing in "free cheese") - and a strike comes from there, destroying the rest. In this case you need strong enemies. But even without them you can learn that not harmonic development can strike back.

In the end just an example of romantic play, where extra material does not mean a win: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_Game . Those are Masters, but in the 19th century; now this rarely can be seen among masters. But elements of such ideas to less extent are often played at lower level.

Hi Yuri,

Point taken. Also very interesting the articles about the ELO ratings and the Immortal Game of Anderssen vs Kieseritzky. I wasn't aware of either.

Dear Pedro and Yuri:

Pedro: I agree with you about the difficulties that would arise in attempting to improve abstract reasoning capacity only over the base of playing chess. I also consider that many other activities are necessary to have a healthy life (socially, mentally, etc.), and of course that new experiences, such as travelling, visiting other cultures, playing sports, etc. also contribute to develop a broader perspective of life, including social, professional aspects, etc.

As you properly understood from my question, one point on discussion was centered on what I consider better for children. If we simplify between only two hypothetical alternatives, I consider better to them to be incentivized to strategic thinking activities (that also may be ludic or funny) than to be exposed to TV cartoons or certain kind of video games about how fast you "kill enemies" as Yuri points out.

Of course I'm not saying that "0" TV cartoons or video games would be healthy, since a little of everything is better in life than to be stimulated to do only one activity, specially in early stages of life.

I agree that certain kind of educative video games may result profitable and stimulating for children and I appreciate your suggestions about "brain learning".

Yuri: I found very interesting reading about the "Immortal game", in particular the lesson about that two active pieces are better a dozen inactive pieces.

Regards

I would recommend you Kasparov's book: "How life imitates chess. Making the Right Moves, from the Board to the Boardroom". It's remarkable that former world champion Kasparov entitled his book "How life imitates chess" instead ,,How chess imitates life".

Michal: I appreciate your response

Dear Federico, I agree with you that chess cannot substitute all other learning but they can be more helpful for children than most of computer games.

Although I have not read Kasparov's book, I may give my own opinion about links between chess and real life. Let us start from economics. Chess is a rational game but not in economic sense. It is impossible to solve it by checking all future steps, even with powerful computers. Still some gross masters can win computer because they use not only rationality but also intuition. Another issue is about the value. One can count the value of all figures for each player at any moment (queen 9, rook 4.5, light figures 3, pawn 1) and compare them. But this is not always a sign of who will win. Relative location and activity of figures play the role. It is like having unit of land close to industrial cluster or somewhere in selva. So chess can teach children (and adults) not only strategic interaction, but also some other practical issues.

But clearly chess cannot teach us all strategy and all rivalry. For example, chess is much less psychological game than poker,  because there is no randomness here and one cannot cheat. Some computer games like "civilization" teach us not how to destroy the rival but how to perform better. "Monopoly" is another example of useful game. It mimics economic growth under competition.

Dear Sir, The game of chess enriches the most manipulative ways of thinking which can be an added advantage to any human at any point of time to SURVIVE but chess may not be the game to teach strategy of circumstantial difficulties and interferences. Thanks

I used to hear such types of statement from one of my high school mathematics teachers that playing chess helps in developing strong analytical brain. However, I never took is seriously as I find it a boring game because of negligible physical activity. I prefer to a play game in the ground rather than playing any indoor game. However, I have some friends how are really good in playing chess, but I do not find something really interesting among them which may have been because of playing chess.

According to me, playing chess may a brain storming game, but may not be able to develop strong analytical ability in solving some science/engineering problem. Your opinion may differ from mine in this matter as I not a good player of chess.

Regards

MN Alam

I think that playing chess increases our concentration.

The great Benjamin Franklin (pictured) was a big chess fan. His essay on the 'Morals of Chess' is well known. A flavour of his opinions can gained from this quote: "The Game of Chess is not merely an idle amusement. Several very valuable qualities of the mind, useful in the course of human life, are to be acquired or strengthened by it, so as to become habits, ready on all occasions."

https://www.chess.com/blog/SonofPearl/is-playing-chess-good-for-you