Chess Helps Kids Think

 

This is a summary of a presentation at the London Chess Conference (2015) by Amanda Aldercotte.

Playing chess involves an array of cognitive skills – for instance, players must be able to formulate a plan or strategy and inhibit their impulsive responses. However, little research has examined how playing chess may benefit these cognitive abilities.

As part of the MindMATCH chess program, we explored how attending an afterschool chess club might promote cognitive development in middle childhood and recently presented preliminary results at the Chess in Schools and Communities’ chess conference in London, UK.

The afterschool chess program was effective in teaching children the complexities of the game (see graph below).

 

What's more, the chess knowledge that children came away with at the end of the school year was associated with greater gains in cognitive development, and specifically, in their ability to plan and sequence their actions (graph below, section A).

Although all children’s planning skills improved across the school year, those children who showed a better understanding of chess at the end of the program were more likely to see greater improvements in this cognitive domain than their peers (graph above, section B).

This result is encouraging as it highlights playing chess as being beneficial for cognitive development, which may in turn promote children’s academic success and positive adjustment.

For the complete study, please search the web for "Mindmatch Chess." Also, visit the Learning Diagonal website for more information. 

The MindMATCH program is a collaborative research project with Dr. Michelle Ellefson from the University of Cambridge, Dr. Zewelanji Serpell from Virginia Commonwealth University, Dr. Teresa Parr and the chess grandmaster Maurice Ashley, funded by the Department of Education's Institute for Education Sciences.

This multi-year project utilized GM Ashley and Dr. Teresa Parr’s MATCH Chess Curriculum to teach chess to students in two urban school districts. Data analysis is ongoing, so there’s more to come.

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305A110932 to the University of Cambridge. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.