USING CHESS AS A TOOL FOR PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION

______

A Thesis

Presented to the

Faculty of

San Diego State University

______

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

in

Sociology

______

by

Haroutun Bursalyan

Summer 2016

iii

Copyright © 2016 by Haroutun Bursalyan All Rights Reserved

iv

DEDICATION

To my wife, Micki.

v

We learn by chess the habit of not being discouraged by present bad appearances in the state of our affairs, the habit of hoping for a favorable change, and that of persevering in the search of resources. The game is so full of events, there is such a variety of turns in it, the fortune of it is so subject to sudden vicissitudes, and one so frequently, after long contemplation, discovers the means of extricating one's self from a supposed insurmountable difficulty.... - Benjamin Franklin The Morals of Chess (1799)

vi

ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS

Using Chess as a Tool for Progressive Education by Haroutun Bursalyan Master of Arts in Sociology San Diego State University, 2016

This thesis will look at the flaws in the current public education model, and use John Dewey’s progressive education reform theories and the theory of gamification as the framework to explain how and why chess can be a preferable alternative to teach these subjects. Using chess as a tool to teach the overt curriculum can help improve certain cognitive skills, as well as having the potential to propel philosophical ideas and stimulate alternative ways of thought. The goal is to help, however minimally, transform children’s experiences within the schooling institution from one of boredom and detachment to one of curiosity and excitement.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ABSTRACT ...... vi LIST OF FIGURES ...... viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Goal of Thesis ...... 2 Structure of Thesis ...... 5 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: JOHN DEWEY, GAMIFICATION, AND THE PRINCIPLES OF PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION ...... 6 3 THE PREPARATION ...... 23 Setting Up and Getting Started ...... 24 Supplementary Benefits of Chess ...... 30 4 INTERDISCIPLINARY ACADEMICS THROUGH CHESS ...... 35 The End Game – Mathematics: 3 ≠ 3 ...... 36 The Middle Game – Art and Creativity: Unlimited Possibilities ...... 42 The Opening – History, Geography and Religion: From Elephants to Bishops ...... 47 5 LARGER IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION ...... 51 REFERENCES ...... 57 APPENDIX A RULES OF CHESS ...... 60 B CHESS GLOSSARY: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS ...... 66 C UNITED STATES PUBLIC EDUCATION TIMELINE...... 67

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE

Figure 1. White to move and check the black king...... 29 Figure 2. Which side has the material advantage? ...... 37 Figure 3. Which side has the advantage? ...... 39 Figure 4. 3 ≠ 3 (white to move)...... 40 Figure 5. Rook > Queen...... 42 Figure 6. Edward Lasker vs George Alan Thomas, 1912...... 44 Figure 7. Edward Lasker vs George Alan Thomas, 1912 (continued)...... 45 Figure 8. White to move and win...... 46

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you to all of the professors and staff at San Diego State who helped and taught me so much over the past few years. And I express special gratitude to Dr. Choi, who reached out to me the first week of this program and was by my side until the very end. Thank you for all your support, dedication and guidance. It was a pleasure.

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

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. – Benjamin Franklin The Morals of Chess (1799)

Think back and try to remember the morning of your first day of kindergarten. Chances are, you were excited about your new adventure. You jumped out of bed, brushed your hair, dressed up in your favorite outfit, slipped on your brand new themed backpack, and walked out of the house with your parent(s) ready to take on the world. You were no longer the same kid you were just a few days prior, who had to go to daycare or stay home with the babysitter and wait until your parents got home from work. No, you were growing up. And part of that growing up was more than just your age; it was what separated you from your parents: knowledge. You were going to school so you could learn all the secrets of the world, just like your parents, who knew everything about everything. After all, what could there be not to like about learning? You had been learning your entire life and there was no better feeling than when you overcame an obstacle. You learned how to walk when you were one, then run and jump and talk. You learned about the different kinds of weather and went outside to look for all the interesting bugs you could find. You were curious about the world around you and you probably even irritated your parents by asking them too many questions when they were trying to rest after a long day. But now that you would be going to school, you could ask all the questions you wanted because your teacher would have all the answers. But then, something changed. First grade was still exciting because you were no longer in kindergarten, and second grade was okay because you felt like one of the older kids. But by third or fourth grade, waking up for school became a burden. Social studies was

2 boring, math was hard, and homework was a waste of time. In just a few years, you had learned to despise school. So what changed? Certainly not your love for learning. You still enjoyed learning all sorts of things. You wanted to learn how to ride a bike, or operate the newest technological gadgets, you learned how to play all sorts of new video games and board games, and you learned how to dribble a basketball. The list goes on. But something did change in those first few years. There was a disconnect between schooling and learning, and that friction only grew coarser with every passing year. Some might argue that the problem with school is that we don’t get to pick what we want to learn, and since the subject matter is forced onto us, we become disengaged with the material. But the problem is not that simple. If that was the only issue, then college classes should be the most exciting time of our lives (and I emphasize “classes” because many students enjoy everything about college except the classes). So even when we get to pick our own major and our own classes, which should be something we are interested in and want to learn, the outcome of the experience doesn’t change. We still find displeasure in going to class, we text during lecture, we don’t complete the assigned readings, and we try to find the fastest route to our target grade, while investing the least amount of time into studying. In addition to this, we must also recognize that some college students don’t even choose their majors based on their interest in the subject, but based on economic factors that steer them into a career field that will give them the best opportunity to be financially secure. This too is a problem, one which stems from larger cultural, economic, and political issues that we face in our society. During my years as an undergraduate, I had difficulty choosing a major because I wanted to focus on something I both enjoyed as well as something that could provide me sustainable income in the future. I finally decided to go with my heart and majored in art (with an emphasis on photography) because it was something I was passionate about. Even then, I along with a host of my fellow classmates, still found displeasure in having to go to class and listen to a lecture. In short, we don’t want to learn in school, even if it’s in a class we claim to be interested in.

GOAL OF THESIS The core driving force behind this endeavor is to show how chess can be used as a tool to achieve two main goals. The first, which can be referred to as the overt objectives, is

3 to show how chess can be used in the classroom to teach some of the core curriculum subjects, such as history, math, and art. Since the game of chess dates back almost 2,000 years, educators can teach entire history lessons by incorporating chess’ evolution throughout this timeline. I will also demonstrate the way in which the values of the chess pieces can be used to teach children basic mathematics. And finally, I will show how analyzing and creating complex positions on a chess board can be another tool for teachers who assign creative art projects. My goal is not to teach chess for the sake of teaching chess, but to show that chess can be used to teach actual school curriculum subjects like math, history, art and so on. The second goal is to go beyond the direct subject matter and make a case for how chess can be used metaphorically to teach alternative ways of thought. I will address some of the traditional claims of the benefits of chess, such as improving memory and concentration, practice in planning/foresight, decision making, reflecting, instilling a sense of responsibility, as well as problem solving and critical thinking skills. But I will also attempt to go beyond the scope of these traditional claims in order to show the larger implications that these lessons can provide. We will look at specific situations on a chess board and link them with real-life scenarios, and discuss how one’s perspective on the chess board is not so different from one’s perspective in everyday life-situations. These larger implications will show how chess can help cultivate a different way of thought, one that is dialogical rather than monological, and to show that just like chess, life consists of exploring different outcomes and searching for multiple solutions. My proposal will be founded on two main theoretical frameworks. The idea for this project was largely inspired by the theories of one of the most progressive educative thinkers of the 20th century, John Dewey. We will analyze in depth, the writings of John Dewey, and apply his concepts to show how chess can be incorporated in the classroom within our current education system. And secondly, all of this will be combined with the theory of gamification. While gamification has usually been associated in the business and marketing fields, I will attempt to analyze it through a sociological lens. Through this interpretation, I will illustrate how gamification can greatly improve the overall experience students have of schooling by blurring the lines between work and play.

4

And lastly, I want to address one more question some of my readers might already be asking. So, what? Why is it important to introduce math or history through chess? There already exist curriculums for these subjects, and they have been working just fine for the last century. My response is that the problem lies in the fact that these traditional lessons have been in place for far too many years. The current education model is the same one that was introduced over 120 years ago, and it no longer adequately meets the needs of today’s system (Kaplan, 2013). As stated previously, students have become completely disconnected from school because it is not a place that is relatable for them (Kaplan, 2013). It is simply outdated and out of touch with today’s students. Imagine if we still used the same transportation model that was used in 1910. Our education system got stuck in time, while the rest of the world has continued to evolve. I want to be clear that, by no means am I suggesting that the introduction of chess into the classroom will solve this problem. Maybe it will not even make a dent, I don’t know. But, it will be a small step in the right direction. A few steps have already been taken. Armenia first introduced mandatory chess classes (and Spain is well on its way) for all students between second and third grade. But these students are still learning it as simply a game. The case has been made for other countries (United Kingdom, United States) to follow suit, but I believe that only teaching chess is not enough. While Armenia and Spain have taken large steps, teaching chess alone is not enough. But if used correctly and purposefully, it can have a much stronger impact on the student. The traditional understanding of chess is that it’s just like any other board game. Something that is occasionally played as a hobby during times of leisure, and which can be substituted with any other game like checkers or backgammon. At best, there are some potential benefits in helping improve memory, concentration, problem solving and critical thinking skills. But the overall consensus is that chess, in and of itself, does not have any practical value. Unless a player is one of the top 100 in the world, it is almost impossible for that person to make a living just by playing chess. Some stronger chess players can earn decent income by tutoring, but even that is becoming more difficult with the vast resources available free of charge on the internet. And even if someone is looking for a private coach, he or she is no longer restricted to someone in the local area, but can find any of the top players around the world who are now giving lessons through online resources. Nevertheless,

5 my goal is to show how chess can have practical as well as conceptual value for students in the classroom.

STRUCTURE OF THESIS I have tried to present my ideas in this project in the most logical and easy to understand manner. With this in mind, I will briefly explain the blueprint for the remainder of this thesis. Chapter 2 will cover the theoretical framework on which my proposal is based. I will start with a brief history on the traditional public education system in the United States. This will be followed by the theories of John Dewey and his proposed reforms to make education more progressive. I will also discuss the theory of gamification and explain how it can also be applied to educational practices. Chapter 3 will be a brief method of explaining the introduction of chess to the students. This chapter will focus on ways to get students excited about learning chess, and then teaching them the rules. In addition, I will give a brief summary of the research that has been done on the cognitive benefits of chess. Chapter 4 will be an in-depth explanation for using chess in the classroom to teach math, art/creativity, and history (as well as geography and English). The thesis will conclude with Chapter 5 which will focus on the larger, more philosophical analysis to show how these lessons have the potential to affect, and possibly alter one’s way of thought. In other words, I will attempt to show the larger implications of these lessons beyond the study of the subject-matter and the potential cognitive benefits of chess. In addition, I will also suggest possible projects that can be done in the future, which may shed more light on (supporting or rejecting) the ideas that have been proposed in this thesis.

6

CHAPTER 2

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: JOHN DEWEY, GAMIFICATION, AND THE PRINCIPLES OF PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION

It is the aim of the modern school, not to treat every position according to one general law, but according to the principle inherent in the position. – Richard Réti

The theoretical framework for this thesis will be founded on two main themes. The first will address the issues facing the traditional public education system in the United States. I will discuss the history of our current education model, as it is crucial to understand how and why we arrived at the current state. This chapter will provide an in-depth analysis of the theories of John Dewey, who was one of, if not the most, influential progressive education reformers of the 20th century. An analysis of his writings will cover his proposed ideas to improve the traditional model, which will then be followed by showing how chess can be applied to Dewey’s theories. Second, I will present the case that the theory of gamification can be applied to education. This will be done by transforming schooling, something that is seen as boring and bland, and using chess to turn it into something fun and exciting. In the early 1800’s, the idea of mass public education becoming the norm was starting to sound more plausible, and was believed to be “the great equalizer” by giving everyone an equal opportunity at success. Schools would no longer be reserved only for the children of the elite, but rather, would be accessible to poor and immigrant children as well (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). Between 1890-1920, John Dewey and other progressive thinkers presented and argued for an alternative system to replace the traditional school model in order to better

7 provide the needs of the public. Yet 200 years later, we still see the traditional model as the dominant practice of public education, with sprinkles of progressive ideas scattered about. School (2016): For a word that comes from the Greek meaning “leisure,” our relationship with it is anything but recreational. Insomuch so that the meaning has appropriately devolved to “a place for lectures” (www.etymonline.com). The former description is more appealing, yet the change is a clear indication of what our education system has become; a place most students feel coerced to attend and cannot wait to leave. Of course, it was not always this way. From the Greeks until the industrial revolution, school was indeed intended to be leisurely, mainly because it was only accessible to the wealthy classes, who had no need to work or serve others. Instead, they could spend their free time studying foreign languages, the arts, and law. Physical labor was looked down upon because it required having to serve the needs of another (Dewey & Dewey, 1915). Before any discussion regarding the way in which the current education model is no longer sufficient for the 21st century, it is imperative to consider some of the historical events which led us to this point to begin with. With the rise of technology in the 19th century also came along a new economic system of production. The ways of the medieval system of serfdom already long gone, the apprenticeship system was threatened when more and more factories began popping up in cities across the United States. The factory system was a more efficient process of producing goods by dividing labor into smaller tasks. With the rise of factories, workers (artisans and farmers) either lost access to the tools and raw materials needed for production, or simply could not keep up and compete with the same rate of production as the factories. Rural workers migrated to the cities in order to earn wages to support themselves. During the same period, there was a mass migration of European immigrants settling in New England. With the concentration of these various cultures coming together in one city, it created a new population of heterogeneous groups. This was the perfect storm to create a situation where public education could have a twofold purpose. First, it would be a useful tool to teach these potential workers the skills needed to perform in the labor force. Secondly, and more covertly, education was to be used as a way to socialize the growing immigrant population (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). In 1874, two American school superintendents outlined some of the goals of the education system, which were expressed to be an attempt to put “more stress upon discipline and to make far more prominent the moral

8 phase of education. It [was] obliged to train the pupil into habits of prompt obedience to his teachers and the practice of self-control” (Bremner, 1971, p. 1436). In other words, schooling would be used as a vehicle to transform the culturally uncivilized into obedient members of American society. This method becomes problematic when it develops into a coercive tactic to create a class of people who internalize their subordinacy through hierarchical, power relationships (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). For most students who attend public schooling (especially in poor or working class areas), creativity and spontaneity are presented as undesirable and even problematic traits. However, when one looks at the schools in higher socioeconomic districts and private schools, these traits were seen more favorably as the traits of those who have the potential to become future leaders (Kozol, 1991). Bowles and Gintis (1976) argue that on the surface, the current public school model presents merely an illusion of “equal opportunity.” If one looks deeper into this system, it is a direct reflection of the unequal social relationships found in all major institutions of our society. For example, our economic system is also one based on the misconception of equality. The dominant ideology is one of meritocracy - the belief that individual characteristics and abilities determine one’s status in the natural hierarchy of society. Education, much like our economic system, claims that there is a level playing field for all, and it is up the individual to decide how high he or she can climb up the ladder. We can see this in the phrase, “The American Dream,” as it suggests that anyone willing to work hard enough, can one day become successful. On the flip side, the implication is that if someone is poor, or a failure, it is because that person did not work hard enough and therefore is naturally inferior (Johnson, 2008). There exists an illusion of freedom and equality in our current social relationships. The rise of the factory system and the mass European migration during the 1840’s shaped an unequal power relationship during the wage-negotiation process. There was a large population of people who were migrating to the cities in search of a better life. However, when they got there, they realized they had nothing to offer except their power to labor. They did not own any land or possess anything of value to exchange for their subsistence. The only thing they had to offer was their time and ability to labor. The capitalist class had all the leverage in determining wages by creating competition among the workers, who had no choice but to accept whatever wage was being offered. In addition to this, there were more

9 workers than jobs available. By creating this scarcity of limited jobs, workers were actually negotiating down their own value in order to be hired (getting a small wage is better than no wage). In essence, workers were negotiating against their own class interest by offering to work for less than their neighbors. This automatically creates an unequal power relationship between the classes, resulting in complete control of power by the capitalist class (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). To be sure, education does not exist in a vacuum. Our society is made up of various institutions that affect the everyday lives of individuals. Education, religion, politics, economics, and the family all play major roles in our day-to-day lives and influence our experience with the world. None of these institutions exist separately from the others. They are all interconnected in a complex web of communication through policy, practice, and ideology. This is evident when one finds that the entire educational model was created to reflect the economic needs of the time. As a consequence, the social relationships found in the economic system were transferred to the institution of education. The social relationships, both in education and in economics, were based on one of dominance by the minority over the majority (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). At the top of the educational hierarchy are the administrators, who have the power to hire and fire teachers, as well as create and impose the curriculum on the teachers. The teachers then must accept their position, and enforce the pre- determined curriculum onto those at the bottom of the ladder, the students. Identical relationships are demonstrated in the workplace as those who have access to the means of production are able to impose their will on the masses of workers who make up the workforce. Unlike the manufacturing economic system of the industrial revolution, our current economic system is one that is more service-based. However, we can still see the same bureaucratic relationships occurring in the white-collar job sector as well. Upper management (or school administration) makes the most important decisions on how the company (or school) should move forward. They then give orders to middle management (teachers) who must then make sure these policies are carried out by the workers (students). We can clearly see how these similar relationships are normalized in education. So while everyone has an equal opportunity to attend school and get an education, everyone is also exposed to the same relationships that they will encounter post-graduation. This is how

10 power and authority become legitimized through the socialization process of schooling (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). When students eventually graduate and enter the workforce, they have already been conditioned to accept their inferior position in the hierarchy of society. All of the qualities that are valued in a worker, are learned through schooling. Getting to school on time, completing assignments, having a strictly regimented structure, taking attendance (clocking in), taking lunch breaks, and counting down the time until dismissal are all experiences that take place on school grounds. By the time one enters the workforce, these experiences have already become normalized and accepted without much question or objection. It then becomes an easy, and even worse, a legitimate transition into one’s role as an adult. This is where ideology takes over and legitimates authoritarian relationships. By internalizing our status, we have already learned that our submissive position is justified (Willis, 1977). Those at the bottom, both students and workers, have no choice but to endure these relationships obediently. Workers must endure this power relationship because their only other choice is to starve, and students must endure it because of the compulsory mandate on schooling (Willis, 1977). Any form of resistance will result in immediate expulsion and termination. Secondly, the only motivating factor in both cases, is not the value in the work itself, but rather the payoff that comes as a result of doing the work. Students see no value in the learning process, but only as a means to earn a higher grade. Workers see no value in the skill or the service they are providing, but rather the paycheck they will receive as a result. Students (and workers) are thus alienated not only from the world around them, but also from the activities in which they are engaging (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). In order to be a successful student or worker, one must internalize these unequal power relationships as a normal part of everyday life. Those who reject this power structure are seen as rebels and deviants who do not possess the qualities of a “successful person.” As a result, submission, regimentation, and obedience are valued as traits to be admired and rewarded. To better understand the way in which the larger issues mentioned above have come to be, we must focus more closely on the day-to-day experiences of the children who attend these public school. For that, we turn to the writings of John Dewey, who believed that education was the most effective instrument for social progress and was one of the leading

11 advocates of education reform. John Dewey’s take on the foundations of public education is similar to those of Bowles and Gintis. In Schools of To-morrow he wrote the following: [S]chools were for people who did not earn their own livings, for people who wished to be accomplished, polished and interesting socially, so the material was abstract, purposely separated from the concrete and the useful. Ideals of culture and education were and still are to a surprising extent based entirely upon the interests and demands of an aristocratic and leisure class. Having such an ideal of culture it was natural to the pioneers to copy the curriculum of the schools made for this ideal, even when the purpose of their schools was to give an equal industrial and social chance to all. From the very beginning of the public schools in this country the material of the curriculum reflected social conditions which were rapidly passing away: ideals of education that a feudal society, dependent upon its aristocracy, had developed. (Dewey & Dewey, 1915, p. 168-169) His writings examine the impersonal, hierarchical, and bureaucratic procedures of the traditional model of education and proposed alternatives for a more progressive and democratic model. While Dewey wrote in the early to mid 20th century, his ideas are still relevant and applicable today. In My Pedagogic Creed, John Dewey and Small (1897) highlight the social problems with normative education as being authoritative rather than democratic. He argues that before any healthy communication and learning can take place, the relationship between teachers and students must be similar to that of a community, where all subjects can share ideas, and where teachers do not become the central component of the classroom. This monological and hierarchical structure reinforces the belief that the teacher possesses all of the necessary information, and is there to input that knowledge into the minds of the students. The banking method of education is one that is still being practiced today where, on the day of the test, students are expected to simply regurgitate the information they have “learned.” As a result, education has no value in and of itself, but rather is only a means, or worse – an obstacle – to be overcome on the path to economic success. Instead, for a more dialogical approach, lessons should be outlined in a manner that is more community-like. To do this, Dewey and Dewey (1915) argue that the role of the teacher must be that of a helper and observer; one who facilitates rather than dictates. Returning to the industrial revolution, Dewey and Small (1897) remind us that the speed at which technology is moving makes it impossible to determine, with certainty, what the future will hold. It is difficult to know whether or not the curriculum being taught today will even be relevant by the time students enter the workforce twenty years down the line.

12

When I was in elementary school in the early 1990’s, the world wide web was just barely beginning to peak its head into the homes of my peers. And it wasn’t until I was in middle school that our family finally had a dial-up connection to access the internet. How could my elementary school teachers at the time have possibly known the speed at which the internet would advance and the accessibility it would have only fifteen years later? Of course they had no way of knowing. So, they continued to teach like they’ve always done, which is through memorization and the banking method. And yet, nothing has changed. Yes, today’s students have computers and iPads in the classroom, but the model is still the same as it was fifty years ago. Students are required to memorize facts, whether they be spelling words, dates, or mathematic formulas, and submit them on the day of the test. But how many of us, as adults, remember those dates and formulas? Sure, we might remember some, but for the most part, we google any information we need immediately on our smartphones. The need to memorize information and facts and recall them right away is less important today. With a vast amount of information available to us, it is impossible to teach everything. The focus of teaching needs to shift from one of transferring of information from teacher to student, to that of motivating and guiding. Anyone can search and find information, but what’s important is how to be critical of and analyze the information that is available. Dewey and Small (1897) argued that the goal of education should not be focused on what students know in the present, but to give them the right tools so they will be able to examine, interpret, and find solutions for the issues that they may face in adulthood. Therefore, it is more important to teach children how to think, rather than what to think. The student should not be preoccupied with memorization of information, but rather to make connections with and discover new ideas from that information. By creating a formulaic curriculum where the end-goal for the child has already been dictated beforehand, we are setting up students for failure if they do not fit within that predetermined mold. Thus, there is no room for exploration of anything outside of the given guidelines. Gamification is a general term used for making certain tasks or jobs more fun by adding game-like aspects and motivating the user (sometimes through a reward) in the process (Marczewski, 2013). For example, during the mid 1990’s, computers and the world wide web were becoming more common in the home. Microsoft embedded games into their system to help its users get acquainted with using the mouse. Solitaire was to help users learn

13 how to left-click, free cell taught users how to click and drag, and minesweeper allowed the consumer familiarize himself or herself with the right-click function (Erickson, 2016). While these games were entertaining, there was a utilitarian component to their inclusion in Microsoft’s operating system. More recently, gamification has been used in the education field as well. The organization Quest to Learn has been using video games to make traditional lessons more relevant and fun for students. They work with middle school students in New York in an attempt to teach various interdisciplinary subjects based around the communities and the characters in the video games (Corbett, 2010). Game-Based Learning has been getting more attention in recent years, as platforms like schoooools.com, based out of Portugal, have partnered with elementary schools to offer digital tools for their students (Simões, Redondo, & Vilas, 2013). Where this thesis differs from these programs is that chess will offer a more personal setting where students can interact more closely with their teachers rather than interacting with digital media. As Dewey says, children learn with their senses by being able to touch and feel the world around them. In a highly digital driven age, there is something valuable in being able to sit across from another person and physically move three dimensional pieces. While the term “gamification” has been around for less than two decades, the concepts of gamification are nothing new. The reward can be an external bonus (e.g. a trophy or money) or it can simply be the pleasure experienced from the game-like aspect of the task. For the purposes of this project, we will be focusing on the latter, where the goal is to use chess as a fun way to introduce subject matters that are typically presented in a dry manner, and which many students find irrelevant or foreign. Learning should be a reward in itself, and therefore any additional incentive or reward is unnecessary to incentivize learning. The question now becomes, “how do we as educators, create an environment that stimulates a yearning for learning rather than cynicism?” As I briefly touched on in the introduction, children (and even adults) do not have a negative relationship with learning. It is when that learning takes place in an environment divorced of feeling and curiosity, that it becomes problematic. For this, John Dewey and Small (1897) proposed that “the school life should grow gradually out of the home life; that it should take up and continue the activities with which the child is already familiar in the home” (pp. 7-8). This is where my proposal of using chess gamification as a tool to teach academics becomes important. Children are

14 already familiar with games and play, and will see chess as just another fun game they will be playing. But more importantly, chess will be a medium to stimulate the child’s interest to provide relevant context in which the child can relate. In the modern global economy, where the world is much smaller than it used to be and where events occurring thousands of miles away impact our daily lives, the challenge to connect global issues directly to the child’s experience becomes more difficult. Attempting to teach material that does not immediately apply to their daily lives makes it difficult for them to interact with the subject matter. With chess, the child’s social activities are used as a starting-off point rather than trying to force or convince them that what they will be learning is valuable. According to Dewey, education must not be simply a goal to be achieved, as if it is a race to the finish line. There is no final destination to be reached, but rather, education must be a place where a child’s normal experiences are recreated. The goal of education should be no different than the process through which children learn because ultimately, that experience is what they will remember and take with them to the next phase (Dewey & Small, 1897). Dewey also argues that what is unique about humans is our ability to create our own meaning and direction through action. We are not merely passive receptors who download information and then regurgitate that information when questioned. And while it is true that we receive information, it is only when we express our knowledge through action that it becomes significant. And if students are being told to sit still and accept the information that is being forced onto them, it becomes nearly impossible for them to do anything but reject that information, no matter how important educators think it may be. The friction that arises through this method inhibits any intellectual interest for the student. Or as Dewey and Small (1897) put it so well, “to stimulate or arouse the emotions apart from their corresponding activities, is to introduce an unhealthy and morbid state of mind” (pp. 15-16). Currently, the implementation of the Common Core State Standards Initiative supports Dewey’s claims. Teachers are under intense pressure from administration to meet their deadlines and prepare students for these standardized tests that they have no time to “waste” on allowing children to learn in a more natural manner. In Dewey and Dewey’s (1915) words, “Our tragic error is that we are so anxious for the results of growth that we neglect the process of growing” (p. 7). As adults, many view play time as time wasted. Children are often bribed with play time (both in school and at home) in exchange for

15 completing their tasks and following directions. What we fail to recognize however, is that playing is an essential part of growth. Therefore, rather than separating playing from learning, gamification can help educators do the exact opposite to break the barriers we have created. Even as adults, we enjoy playing, but then feel guilty afterwards for doing so when we could have been doing something more “productive” instead. This is because we have trained ourselves for twenty, thirty, or forty years that we should stop wasting time and spend our time working towards more meaningful goals (Saint-Exupéry, 1943/2000). Then we are surprised when a child cannot sit still and read a book or listen to a lecture. Again, as adults, we try to convince children to trust us because we know better than they do, and that the lessons we are trying to instill in them will pay off in the future, when in reality there is no guarantee that they will. Dewey and Dewey (1915) write that our first teachers were our feet, hands, and eyes. We learned through our senses by experimenting with our environment and testing our limits. But as soon as we enter school, we have to substitute those senses with books. I want to be clear that this is not to suggest that books are not important; of course they are. But unless a child is immediately curious about the subject matter and understands the relevance, no amount of pleading or persuading is going to convince him or her that there is value in that book. Nevertheless, if the child chooses not to read, there will be consequences in varying forms of punishment. We then tag them as being “disruptive” and “misbehaving” (Dewey & Dewey, 1915). And so rather than improving the child’s experience with learning, the exact opposite occurs. Therefore, it is important to understand the students’ interests when building a curriculum; one that leaves room for change and exploration, as the child’s interests also change over time. The current model has a fixed curriculum, which is then imposed onto the students without any regard for their interests. The standardized system not only allows, but encourages a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all approach to all students across the nation who are forced to learn under the same circumstances even though they come from different backgrounds, cultures, and interests. That is why introducing education through a game like chess can help generate an initial interest that the child is comfortable with and open to exploring. John Dewey, along with his daughter, Evelyn Dewey (1915) suggested and practiced something similar with children being able to go into the woods and walk around in the forest. With them, they would have books about all of the plants and insects in the forest, so that when they came across

16 something that they found interesting, they were eager to open the book and learn more about it. Another example where this idea was put into practice was Public School 45 in Indianapolis, where students learned arithmetic by doing their own calculations of materials needed to build a playground in their school. English and vocabulary lessons were also incorporated into this project by having the children write and practice the materials being used. This is just one example of many where children “learn by doing” something that has value and is relevant to their daily lives. This way, children were stimulated to learn rather than being forced to learn (Dewey & Dewey, 1915). Conversely, in the normative model, students are given a list of terms (some of which they’ve never even seen) without any relevance or context to their everyday lives, and then told to memorize their spelling and definitions. My proposal of using chess as another medium through which to teach academics is a similar practice of using something that children can connect with, around which we can create an interdisciplinary curriculum. Some readers might be wondering how it would possible to have a classroom of children playing chess without making sure everyone is quiet and sitting still. When I suggest that students must not only have mental freedom, but also physical freedom, that does not mean that they are allowed to create chaos or that there is any lack of control. If planned correctly, Dewey argues, following rules and having freedom can exist simultaneously. Teachers, since they too become part of the classroom community (rather than classroom dictator), also must have freedom to explore and change course when needed. Dewey discusses the philosophical aspects of gameplay as forming a community. When children play sports or games, they understand and accept the rules by which the game is played. Similarly, the learning that happens in the classroom can be interpreted as the game, and if the rules of that classroom state that everyone must be respectful, then it will be so. But there is a fine line between rules being imposed from an external source, and rules being followed by a community (Dewey, 1938). In the excerpt below, Dewey (1938) makes the distinction between rules that are motivated by personal power and rules that are motivated by the interest of the group. [C]ontrol of individual actions is effected by the whole situation in which individuals are involved, in which they share and of which they are cooperative or interacting parts. For even in a competitive game there is a certain kind of participation, of sharing in a common experience. Stated the other way around,

17

those who take part do not feel that they are bossed by an individual person or are being subjected to the will of some outside superior person…In all such cases it is not the will or desire of any one person which establishes order but the moving spirit of the whole group. The control is social, but individuals are parts of a community, not outside of it. (p. 58) The same approach can be applied to students playing chess in the classroom. One of the rules of chess (especially in a formal tournament setting), is that the players involved must not talk or be disruptive during gameplay. The reason is to not distract your opponent while he or she is thinking, and that one should expect the same in return from his or her peers. If the teacher uses this philosophy to incorporate quietude within the rules of the game, students will not feel like they are being coerced to silence. Giving instruction and guidance is not a suppressant of freedom. Instead, it will be just another aspect of the playing experience, just like the diagonal movement of the bishop. I don’t wish to downplay the significance of silence. It is an essential component in the process of deliberation and reflection. Having physical freedom also includes having the ability to resist certain urges. Dewey (1938) writes that while children might have impulses to talk and walk around, being truly free means that they also have the freedom to choose to not act on those impulses. Playing chess can be a great practice in this skill. A student might see the opportunity to capture an unprotected queen and have the urge to immediately reach for his or her pieces. But capturing the queen might lead to being checkmated on the next move; a hefty price to pay for a “free” queen. Instead, the student will learn to hold-off on that urge and examine the position more closely. While it might be tempting to capture the queen, perhaps there is a better move available, one that will increase the likelihood for a better result at the conclusion of the game. Discipline and obedience have taken priority in traditional schools, where students are expected to sit quietly and listen to the teacher teach. This is not to say that being disruptive is okay. But what is the point of children sitting quietly if they are not listening or engaged in what the teacher has to say? In order for children to be engaged with, and take pleasure in learning, they must be active in the process. Learning does not happen when students are expected to memorize and repeat information, but only when they can consciously interact with the material. How can we expect to teach children to become critical thinkers when the

18 very basis of our education system is one founded on repressing child-like tendencies? Dewey and Dewey (1915) write: Education which treats all children as if their impulses were those of the average of an adult society (whose weaknesses and failures are moreover constantly deplored) is sure to go on reproducing that same average society without even finding out whether and how it might be better…Meantime much is lost by a mere external suppression of the bad which equally prevents the expression of the better. (pp. 138-139) Asking students to find the “right answer” and evaluating their progress based on whether or not they pass or fail is in itself limiting other possibilities. Possible answers that may never go examined are immediately ruled out as unacceptable. Sir Ken Robinson spoke at a TED talk event about the decline of divergent thinking as children grow older. He defines “divergent thinking” as having the capacity to “see lots of possible answers to a question…lots of possible ways of interpreting a question [and] to see multiple answer, not one” (Robinson, 2010). The results of the longitudinal study, which was published in Breakpoint and Beyond (Ainsworth-Land & Jarman, 1992) showed that 98% of the 1,600 kindergarten students scored in the creative genius category of the scale. When they were tested again five years later, that number dropped to 32%, and then to 10% five years after that. And finally, only 2% of adults scored in the genius category when given the same test (Ainsworth-Land & Jarman, 1992). Sir Ken Robinson (2010) argues that this decline over time is due to schooling, as adults become more rigid thinkers as they become more “educated.” Painter Pablo Picasso also shared a similar idea when he said “Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up” (Jalongo, 2003, p. 219). This idea will be further explored in Chapter 4, which will show how chess can help students seek multiples answers and solutions. Dewey and Dewey (1915) say that we have clung to the normative model of education, while forgetting that it was created for a different time and under different conditions. Yet we continue to partake in the ritual, simply because it is familiar. Much like the division of labor in the factory, there are division of disciplines in the schools. On the assembly line, each worker was only required to do one small task, and was not required to have any knowledge of the product he or she was manufacturing. Similarly, students are required to study one subject at a time, without having to link one with the other. A normal

19 day in a classroom is scheduled with different subjects at different times. Students might study history for an hour, then switch over to math, then to science and so on. They are trained to shut off thinking about one thing so they can prepare to study something else. This structure of separating subjects makes it difficult for students to make connections between the different disciplines, which is a critical skill to develop in order to examine the social, economic, and political world thoroughly. Studying the different subjects using one common theme like chess, can help students make interdisciplinary connections easier. Chess will give them the necessary context to apply their newly learned subjects, and prepare them for a world that is integrated with various issues. The philosophical improvements of a progressive education model are tremendous. Part of being able to think critically and divergently is having the courage to reject your own ideas. Simply rejecting the traditional model is not enough. In order to identify problems through different lenses one must adopt new philosophies when seeking possible solutions. Chess is a fantastic metaphor for seeking new solutions. A chess player must constantly find new strategies and learn to change course multiple times throughout a game. When an opponent makes a move that derails your objective, it is crucial to seek a different path with which you can achieve your desired result. A child’s world is made up of feelings such as affection and sympathy for those whom he or she has formed personal relationships. In school, the student is taken out of that familiar world and put into an environment where abstract facts and laws become the central focus (Dewey, 1902). A violent shift occurs as the student, who knows only the personal and the subjective, is now being asked to be formal and objective. As soon as they enter the schooling system, students are confronted and challenged with binary situations. Before school, life was spontaneous and fluid, now it is regimented and controlled. At home, they used to be the center of attention, in school, they must learn to share and be considerate of others. To be clear, this is not to suggest that having structure and being considerate are negative practices. In fact, they are valuable and necessary concepts to learn. But the issue is that there is a clear distinction between the child’s home life and his or her school life. This friction leads to negative experiences that then become associated with school. In order to make the transition from home life to school life more harmonious, Dewey (1899) suggested that the barriers between home and school should be eliminated as much as possible. This

20 includes both the physical as well as the psychological barriers. Blurring the lines between home and school does not necessarily mean that the child should be engaged in the same activities in the school as he or she engages in the home. But more so in regards with the motivation and the attitude with which the child views home life. He or she should not see school as being a foreign or different place one goes specifically to learn. This can be done by organizing more field trips for the students, or by allowing parents to come in to the classroom and spend time with the students, and using the school for other community events that the children and their families can attend. By creating an environment where the school becomes an extension of home life, rather than a distinction from it, the transition will be met with less confusion and resistance from the child. After everything that has been said about structuring a curriculum that begins with the student’s “experience” in mind, it would be naïve to think that this alone would be sufficient in creating a valuable educational institution. In The Child and the Curriculum, John Dewey (1902) argues for the importance of having a curriculum in place that will benefit the growth and development of the student in the long run, rather than just satisfying the need for pleasant experiences. Simply creating a positive experience is not enough and does not guarantee a fulfilling education. When experience and curriculum are not consistent, frictions arise. But when aligned, great things are possible. Dewey uses the exploration of new lands as a metaphor for creating a curriculum. He argues that simply discovering a new land and exploring it, while it might be a great experience, is not enough. It is not sufficient to say that the experience is the goal or the end result. One must then create a map of the new land so that others can build on that knowledge long after the explorer is gone. And of course, creating a map (the end result) would not be possible without the experience of exploration. Therefore, the goal of education should not be to only pass along the past knowledge, but to add something new to it (Dewey, 1902). According to Dewey (1902), when information (i.e. curriculum) is presented without any connection or experience to the student, then that information becomes foreign and merely symbolic. There is a lack of any motivation on the students’ part because they have no relationship with the material they are learning. Perhaps the only motivation they have to learn comes not from pleasure, but from avoiding the displeasure of receiving low grades or being punished by their teachers and parents. Finally, and perhaps worst of all, the

21 curriculum being learned is presented to them as a finished product. When this happens, it leaves no room to explore or discover anything outside of the curriculum (Dewey, 1902). In The School & Society, John Dewey (1899) discusses the motives of education and the role of education in a larger, social context. Perhaps even more true today than in 1899, the education system serves the interest of the individual. First the parent, beginning in elementary education, and then the student through college and university education, aim to receive a “good” education in the hope that it will benefit the student in economic success. There are two problems when education is presented and used for this purpose. The first is that it is seen only as a means to an end; an obstacle which must be overcome in order to reap its rewards (in monetary gain, not knowledge) at a future date. Thus, there is no value in the education itself but only in what can be gained from it later. The knowledge and skills learned in school are only seen as assets to help get a better job, rather than a way to view the world. And secondly, education serves the well-being of the individual, without any consideration for the community around him or her. The parent is only concerned with the progress of his or her child, not that of their community. So, if the school is not in a prosperous area, then the parents will try to leave their community and move to a different district that will meet their standards. This approach to education is anti-democratic and anti- community (Dewey, 1899). Any form of progress through human history has been meant for the benefit of society, not the individual. The locomotive, the telephone, the airplane and the internet have served to help communities. Some might argue that individuals invented these technologies, and that without their inventions, we wouldn’t have these progresses. But it is important to remember that one individual did not invent anything by himself or herself. Groups of people worked in collaboration with each other and built on the knowledge, slowly and piece by piece, of those before them. Today’s students are discouraged from and even punished for helping their peers as they are taught that they are in competition with each other. And why would any sane individual want to help someone he or she is competing with? Sociologist C. Wright Mills (1959) wrote extensively on the ways in which a researcher must approach his or her studies. The grand theorists, he argued, tend to write long, complex expositions in an attempt to explain all of the problems faced by society.

22

These theories, while being packed with excessive jargon (which, at times make it difficult to even comprehend) result in a type of one-size-fits-all illustration of the issues. The theories focus too much on the big picture, and fail to address the immediate concerns facing a population. In short, they are simply didactic, single model propositions to describe all problems at once, without actually describing how the concepts apply in reality. On the other end of the spectrum, are the abstract empiricists who, in an attempt to be recognized as “natural scientists”, gather large sets of data, but fail to present how the data can be applied to society. Quantitative data on its own is ineffective in creating change unless it is accompanied with historical and cultural background to support it (Mills, 1959). Mills (1959) states that: any systematic attempt to understand involves some kind of alternation between (empirical) intake and (theoretical) assimilation, that concepts and ideas ought to guide factual investigation, and that detailed investigations ought to be used to check up on and re-shape ideas. (p. 74) Similarly, Dewey (1899) says that education should not focus on teaching only grand ideas (which, on their own can be abstract) or only vocational skills. A fulfilling education will address both the theoretical as well as the practical components needed to have a meaningful learning experience (Dewey, 1899). John Dewey followed this advice as he not only wrote about his progressive theories, but in 1896 he helped found the Laboratory School at the University of Chicago, where he put his ideas into practice. Rather than starting with a fixed curriculum, he allowed the teachers to begin with a set of questions/problems that would need to be addressed. These issues consisted of integrating school life with home life, the ability to teach substantively valuable knowledge to young children, and transforming symbolic ideas into everyday experiences (Dewey, 1899). John Dewey and his teachers used a variety of methods to create an interdisciplinary curriculum, which tied together history, geography, science, and other subjects to relevant activities in which the children engaged.

23

CHAPTER 3

THE PREPARATION

The beauty of a move lies not in its appearance but in the thought behind it. – Aaron Nimzowitsch

Chess is a complex game but it is not a complicated game. Many serious players spend years trying (and sometimes failing) to master it. However, the rules are so simple that children as young as five years old can often start playing after only thirty minutes of instruction. Before teachers can begin to teach academic subjects through chess, they must first teach students how to play chess. Even though chess is a game, not all students will be naturally inclined to learn chess, especially if the teacher stands up in front of the class and gives a dry lesson on piece movement. This can transform the experience from a fun game to just another boring lesson and students may begin to reject it before the lesson has even started. This is where the theoretical foundations of John Dewey and gamification immediately come into play. The following will be intended for students at the elementary level (grades k-5) and can be adjusted based on more specific needs if necessary. The classes begin with no instruction whatsoever. Chess sets will be passed out to the students, at which point they can break up into pairs or small groups of 3-4 students. Students from all different experiences will have the chance to touch and play with the pieces however they wish (this does not mean they are free to throw around the pieces). Some students may want to play checkers while others build towers with the pieces, and others will simply just want to watch. There will also be those students who have some background in chess, and they will begin to share their knowledge with their peers. The goal here is to allow the children to do what they naturally like to do; be curious explorers. Once the children’s excitement and curiosity has been established, the teacher can then use that energy to transition into a time for instruction. Note that at this point, the teacher has not had to do anything to get the kids interested in

24 chess. The children have done that all on their own, and once they have created their own buzz about chess, the teacher can call for their attention to begin the first lesson.1

SETTING UP AND GETTING STARTED As the students gather around, the teacher can use a demo board for instruction. It is a large chess board (27” x 32”) with 2-dimensional chess pieces that can be hung on the wall for demonstrating lessons. Introducing the pieces to young students is crucial in getting them interested in chess. It is important to give each of the pieces their own personality so that they almost come to life. Rather than being inanimate, foreign objects, they can become characters with which the students connect. The layout of this chapter will be slightly different from the previous and the subsequent chapters, mainly because it reflects a real lesson that I have done many times in the past. I will present the entire lesson as if I was presenting it to a group of students, and will break occasionally to add comments and notes when needed. It is also important to note, that while it might seem like a long monologue here, that is strictly due to the constraints of the written medium. During the actual lesson, I (or any instructor) do not speak as if giving a lecture. Instead, there are many moments to stop and ask questions, pass around the pieces, make sound effects, and receive input from the students. The purpose of this is to keep the children involved and participating in the experience along with the teacher, rather than merely being passive recipients of information. I normally begin my lessons by asking the students if any of them know how long the game of chess has been around. I immediately get all sorts of answers ranging from five years to five billion years. ME: Yes, chess has been around for about 1,500 years, and people still play it to this day. That’s because there is always something new to discover in chess. It never gets old and it never gets boring. Now I want you to tell me some games

1 For the following section, I want to give credit to my employer, Academic Chess and the many instructors whom I have worked with. For the last nine years, I have been working with Academic Chess, which is an after school enrichment program that works with elementary schools teaching kids how to play chess. Much of the techniques I will be mentioning in this section I learned from my time working as an instructor and have learned from the many talented instructors I have worked with over that time.

25

you’ve played, and how long you played them before you started getting bored. At this point I usually get responses for games like Uno, 4-in-a-row, and various video games. Kids will share their experience with these games, and mention why they enjoy it, or reasons why they stopped playing after some time. ME: Well, people have been playing chess for over one thousand years and they are still not bored of it. I am aware that it has been different people playing it over this timeline, since it is not possible for any one person to play chess for so many years. As you will see during the remainder of this chapter, not all of the information is completely factual. The goal here is to keep the students engaged and interested. The historical accuracies will be covered in the next chapter. ME: About 1,500 years ago, there was a king who lived in a castle. His birthday was coming up and his wife, the queen, bought him a very special gift. She gave him a shiny gold necklace for his birthday. Now the king had never seen gold before, and he immediately put it on and walked to the mirror. He fell in love with it right away. In fact, he loved it so much, guess what he asked for his birthday the next year? That’s right, another gold necklace. And the year after that, he wanted another one, until eventually there was no more room left on his neck. So, he did what any reasonable king would do…he asked for gold shoes! Every year he wanted more and more gold, until eventually everything he had was made of gold. His pants, his shirt, his crown, even his underwear, was made of gold. Then one day, all the gold in the kingdom ran out and there was no more new gold for the king. So the king decided to go to the neighboring kingdom and ask them for gold. And what do you think the other king said? Of course he said “no.” So our king decided to sneak into the city late at night and steal the gold from the other kingdom. And eventually when the other king found out about this, he was very angry. And then a big war broke out between the two kingdoms. Then one day, a great wise man knocked on the door of the king’s castle. Who knows what a wise man is? Yes, like a wizard! A man who knows a lot of stuff about a lot of things. The wise man said, “king, you are such a nice king. Why are you going out and stealing and starting wars? Nice kings are not supposed to do things like that.” And the king said, “I can’t help myself! I just love gold so much and I get bored sitting in the castle with nothing to do all day.” So the wise man said, “fine, what if I find something for you to do and maybe if you’re not so bored, you won’t go out and do these horrible things like stealing and starting wars.” So the king gave the wise man three days to find something for him to do. Three days later, the wise man came back to the king’s castle, and said, “king, I found your solution!” and showed him this chess board.

26

Then I show them my demo board and give it a strong smack with my hand for dramatic effect. At this point, the students are completely tuned in to the lesson. They don’t know if this story is true or not, but that is irrelevant. Sometimes they will even ask if my demo board is the same board that the wise man showed the king. In the next section, I make my transition into teaching them piece movement, but it is done seamlessly and the students don’t know when the story ends and the lesson begins. ME: And the king says, “what? What do you expect me to do with this?” And the wise man says, “well, since you like to have wars so much, you can have your own war right here on this board. And the best part is, no one gets hurt. This here is the king. This is you. And this is your wife. And this is your army. And do you know who these little guys are? They are the pawns.” For the remainder of the lesson, I am speaking as if I am the wise man giving instructions to the king. ME: Do these pawns look very tall? No, they are tiny, like two feet tall, with little tiny legs and little tiny feet. And with short little legs, do you think they can run very fast? No, they go very slowly. In fact, they can only go one square at a time and can only move in one direction; forward. Unless they are sitting on the couch. Now when they’re sitting down like this (from their starting positions on the 2nd and 7th ranks), it’s like they’re sitting on the couch all in a big line. And when they’re on the couch watching T.V., they get to drink a lot of milk and they get a lot of energy. So when they jump off the couch, they become superheroes and have the option to move two squares. I call this “pawn power.” Now when two pawns are directly facing each other like this, they do what I call a “staring contest.” This means that they can only stare at each other but cannot attack each other. Because when pawns attack, they can only attack diagonally, like this. Now, even though the pawns are the slowest piece, they are also the bravest of all the pieces. This means that they never run backwards or run away from a fight. And when they get to the end of the board, they can choose to change into any piece they want (except for a king). Next, we have the rook. Unlike the pawns, the rooks are very fast, but very shy. That’s why they always stand in the corner because they don’t want to be seen. But when they are alone, the rooks do have a secret that nobody else knows. They love to dance! And when no one is watching, they get together and do the rook dance. I will show you the rook dance one time, and then we can all get up and try to do it together. The rook dance is simple. I stand with my elbows tucked to my sides and have my hands and fingers pointing up. As I say, “up, down, side to side,” I move my forearm and fingers in those respective directions. As we do this a couple times, I keep going faster each time. All of these techniques are used to help the children remember the piece movements by

27 associating them with something else that they are not likely to forget. It’s very difficult for children to forget how the rook moves when they can’t get the dance out of their head. Once the dance is over, I show them how the rook moves and captures pieces, and have the students come up and do it themselves. ME: Next, we have the bishops. The bishops used to be the king and queen’s favorite pieces. That’s why they always get to stand next to the king and queen. Until one day, the king and queen went on vacation to Hawaii. (Here, I give the king and queen to one of the kids to hold as the child temporarily turns into Hawaii). While the king and queen were gone, the bishops decided it would be fun to pretend to be the king and queen. So they slid over to the king and queen’s squares and spent all week there. They slept in their bed, they ate the king’s food, and had a great vacation of their own. Until a week later the real king and queen returned from Hawaii. And the bishops, very quickly returned to their squares. Well, the rooks had seen what the bishops had done, and they told the pawns, and all the pawns told each other until eventually word got back to the king and queen. Do you think the king and queen were very happy when they heard this news? No, so they each turned to the bishop next to them, and karate chopped the bishop’s helmets. And now, if you look at the bishop’s head, you can see a straight line that runs through it. Is this line straight up and down? Is it side to side? It’s diagonal. That was to remind the bishops that from that point on, they can only move diagonally. So if you ever forget how the bishop moves, just look at his head and look for the karate chop. But the bishops are still very fast, like ninjas! And, the bishop will never change the color of its square. If it starts on a white square, it will always stay on a white square and same is true for the other bishop that starts on a black square. The last point is quite important to mention as I’ve noticed some of the kindergarten and first grade students have trouble moving in diagonals. It is helpful to remind them that the bishops can never be on the same color except in one special circumstance. I ask if anyone can tell me when it is possible for this to happen. The answer is if a pawn reaches the end of the board and promotes to a bishop, then it is possible to have two bishops on the same color. It is important to go back and touch on the previous pieces as a reminder as much as possible. The next piece I cover is the knight since it seems to be the most challenging since it is the only piece that doesn’t move in a straight line. ME: Our next piece is the knight. The knight is one of my favorite pieces. But before we talk about the knight, can someone tell me why we call it a knight? It clearly looks like a horse, so what is a knight? The knight is the soldier who rides the horse. So, while we are playing, you all become the knights. Because

28

even though we don’t see the knight on the horse, since you are the ones moving it around the board, it’s like you are the knight riding on it. The knight moves in the shape of the letter “L.” Everyone hold up the letter “L” with your fingers. The “L” can be right side up, upside down, sideways, backwards, upside-down-backwards-sideways – it doesn’t matter. But the “L” can’t be too big or too small. So everyone follow me as I move the knight “one-two and over one”. I then continue to count with them and show them the different directions that the knight moves. As for capturing, I set up the knight in the middle of the board surrounded by pawns. When I move the knight, I ask the kids how many of the pawns it can capture. When we finally agree on the answer, I ask them how they know which one it is. And finally we decide that it is the one that the knight lands on. A useful demonstration of this happens when I pick up one of the pawns and put it on the floor in front of me. I pick one of the students and tell everyone to imagine that the pawn is that student and to imagine that I am the knight. I then jump over the pawn, and ask if that would hurt the student. Everyone agrees that it wouldn’t (except he or she might think I’m slightly crazy). Then I jump up and land right on the pawn. The kids get a good laugh as I ask them if that would have hurt our volunteer. Of course, they agree that it would. I assure them that I would never jump on any of them, but that if I were a knight, that is the only way I could capture one of my pieces. The queen and the king go much quicker. I tell them that the queen is the most powerful piece, and she is able to move like a bishop and a rook combined. She can move vertically, horizontally, or diagonally, but she does not have a steering wheel. That means she can only move in a straight line every turn, and must wait until the player’s next turn to move the queen in a different direction. The king is much the same, but I ask the students if they remember what the king loves most in the world (some of the kids still think he loves the queen more). But with so much gold on him, I ask the students if they think the king can move very fast. They all agree that he can’t and therefore can only move one square at a time. But since he is the ruler of the land, and it is his kingdom, he can move in any direction he wishes. At this point, I don’t go over check and checkmate with the students. The information above is plenty to remember for the first lesson. It takes about thirty minutes, and usually by the end of it, most of the students have a decent grasp on the material. My goal is to just

29 encourage them to move all of the pieces. It is insignificant if they make good moves or poor moves, as long as they are engaged and having fun. During the second lesson, I will go over check and checkmate to show them how the game is won. I will not get into the details of the entire lesson, but I will share one more technique on how to teach checkmate. Perhaps the most difficult part of chess is the checkmate of the king. Students have a tendency to want to capture the king like they would with any of the other pieces. Therefore, I have to put a lot of emphasis that the king can only be “trapped” and never captured. I begin by telling them that all of the pieces have light sabers in the direction that they attack. Pawns have little tiny light sabers that extend one square diagonally, the rooks have long light sabers that extend vertically and horizontally, and so on. I show these light sabers by using stars that come with the demo board set, and I place it on the board to illustrate these attacks. Then I set up the following position in Figure 1 on the demo board (all chess board figures were created at www.lichess.org):

Figure 1. White to move and check the black king.

I ask the students to find the only move for white that will attack the king with a laser beam. That move is Qh5+. Once the laser beam from the light saber hits the king, it reflects

30 off the gold armor of the king, and let’s everyone know that the king is in danger (also known as “check”). Any time the king is in check, he must get out of check on the next turn. There are only three ways to get out of check, and I refer to them as the ABC’s of chess. “A” stands for “attack the attacker.” In the example above, the knight on f6 can attack the queen, thus saving the king from check. Then I remove the knight from the board and ask the students if any of the other pieces can attack. They can’t, so we move on to “B” – “block like a bodyguard,” meaning a piece must stand on the laser beam and block it from reaching the king. In this case, the pawn on g7 can move to g6 and block the queen’s attack. Then I remove the pawn on g6 and move on to letter “C” – “run like a chicken.” This means the king must move to a square that is safe from any laser beams. In this example, he can move to d7. And finally, I put the king back to e8 and the d5 pawn back to d7 and ask the students to find a way out of check in the position. After some searching (and false attempts), we see that there is no way to get the king out of check using the ABC method. And if the king is in check and we cannot A - attack the attacker, B - block like a body, or C - run like a chicken, then we are D – done, and our king has been checkmated. Castling and en passant will be the next two lessons, after which the students will know all the rules of chess. I do not think it is necessary to go over all of the lessons here, but I just wanted to illustrate a couple methods of teaching chess in a way where “learning the rules” is not seen as an obstacle to endure. The rest of the lessons have much the same approach, and as the students become more familiar with the rules, we can then move on to what we have been building for this entire time: teaching the curriculum through chess.

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS OF CHESS The following section is meant to provide additional information regarding the cognitive benefits of chess. Much of this thesis focuses on chess’ application to the academic curriculum and the life-metaphor that chess provides. But it is important to also take a brief moment to review the studies on the cognitive benefits of chess. There has been much research done on the benefits of chess (especially in children) and its role in increasing intelligence (Frank, 2011; Kennedy, 1998; Sigirtmac, 2012). Past studies have laid the groundwork that chess aids children in development of mathematics, cognitive thinking, visual learning, responsibility, planning, focus, and endurance (Adams, 2012; Sigirtmac,

31

2012). Though most of the research shows that chess does indeed lead to increased intelligence, there have been some studies which say otherwise. Bilalić, McLeod, and Gobet (2007) found that having a high chess skill does not correlate with a higher intelligence, but on the contrary, there is a negative correlation between the two variables. Thompson’s (2003) study was inconclusive in determining whether playing chess leads to higher scholastic achievement. Despite some studies that do not support the consensus, most studies show that chess does appear to have a positive correlation with learning, development, and intelligence. One must approach life decisions with foresight, circumspection, and caution in order to make the best possible determination on the action to be taken. In his study on the sociology of chess, Raphael (2011) uses the famous essay by Benjamin Franklin, “The Morals of Chess,” to demonstrate how honorable and ethical concepts in chess should be replicated in everyday life. DiCicco-Bloom and Gibson (2010) discusses some of the qualities in chess, among other games, which can also be applied in real life. Just as in life, one is not permitted to take back a move in chess. Therefore, the chess player must learn to deal with the situation he or she has created; just as in life, one must face the consequences of the actions he or she has taken. Chess, unlike most other games and sports, is void of any luck or external factors which may influence the outcome of a given position (Bilalić et al., 2007). In chess, there are no dice, cards, referees, or lucky bounces. The individual is forced to take responsibility for everything that happens on the chessboard. To be clear, this is not to suggest that external social forces (or luck) do not impact the individual in real-life situations. Nor am I arguing that the importance of responsibility is interchangeable with advocating for rugged individualism. As mentioned in Chapter 2 (and will later discuss in Chapter 5), social institutions have a great impact on the lives of individuals. Learning responsibility through the context of chess can help students understand their power of agency. When faced with a difficult situation on the board, they have the power to act and fix the problem rather than accept it as their fate. It is believed that children who practice and improve their level of concentration through chess will have a higher likelihood to increase concentration in school studies. Some chess tournament games can last up to six hours, which requires mental endurance to sit through and focus on a game with the highest level of concentration possible (Puddephatt, 2008). Similarly, focus and concentration are valuable assets in school, when one has to

32 spend hours preparing for an exam or conducting research for a project. But where concentration in chess differs from the traditional studies in schools is in its motivation. With many school studies, concentration is motivated through force rather than through stimulation (Dewey, 1938). Through gamification, students are motivated to focus because they see value in their activity rather than merely a task they must overcome. In an educational environment where much of the focus is on memorization and test- taking results, chess can be used as a tool to improve these skills which determine academic success. The effectiveness of the educational system in the United States is now largely determined by standardized testing that focuses on how well a child can remember facts and then reiterate them in a test (Smolin & Clayton, 2009). In a study in 1965, De Groot (1978) discovered that grandmasters (professional chess players) have a better memory than novice chess players when it comes to memorizing positions on a chessboard. He did this by showing chess a position to the subjects for 5 seconds at a time, then asked them to reconstruct the same position on an empty chessboard in front of them. De Groot found that grandmasters were able to reconstruct the positions more successfully than the novice players. Eight years later, Chase and Simon (1971) published their own study challenging De Groot’s theory that higher ranked chess players have superior memory. They found that when the pieces on the chessboard were arranged arbitrarily (positions that were not possible during actual game-play), that the grandmasters did not perform any better than the novice players in the reconstruction test. The research by Chase and Simon shows that playing chess does not necessarily result in improved memory, but that one’s ability to memorize can improve through practice. Rather, it suggests that the ability to recognize and recollect familiar patterns is the skill that is more developed. Chess can also be a useful tool in developing mathematical skills. Alan Turing, the famous 20th Century mathematician played chess to help him “work through ideas and problems, explore logic and mathematics, and experiment with mechanical instructions” (Shenk, 2007, p. 209). A study by James Smith and Cage (2000) supports the theory that chess improves children’s proficiency in mathematics. He found that southern, rural, black secondary students who received 120 hours of chess lessons scored higher in mathematics than students who did not receive chess lessons. Based on these sources, one would expect that children who play chess will continue to have a higher success rate in mathematics in the

33 high school and college levels when compared to their peers who did not play chess as children.

Aside from proficiency in mathematics, in order for one to have success in high school and college he or she must have a reasonable ability to think creatively, critically, and cognitively. Kazemi, Yektayar, and Abad (2012) studied a group of 180 randomly selected students, half of whom received chess lessons for 6 months, while the other half did not. The group that received chess lessons performed better on cognitive and mathematical problems after the 6 months. The research, for the most part, supports the theory that playing chess helps children develop skills that will be beneficial in academics. Chess hones skills in memory, analysis, planning, concentration, and critical thinking. According to Bowles and Gintis (1976), the current model of education attempts to teach students traits such as concentration and problem solving in order to prepare them for the workforce in the future. They are not arguing that these skills are inherently negative, but their criticism lies in the manner in which these lessons are implemented. The ability to focus on a problem and devise a plan of action is a useful skill. Using gamification and John Dewey’s principles, students can learn these valuable skills through stimulation rather than coercion. They can practice their agency by creating goals on the chessboard, and then attempting to formulate a strategy to achieve those goals. During the course of a game, these plans may be obstructed, and the student must then think of new ideas to put into action. Students can also practice foresight as they learn to predict their opponents moves in reply to theirs. Chess can show that an immediate gain (i.e. capturing a queen) might not be the best course of action if it will lead to defeat in the long run. Once the game is complete, students will also have a chance for reflection. If they are recording their games using chess notation (or can remember the positions), they can go back and analyze their own games. This can be done with the instructor or their classmates, as they can discuss the reasoning for their moves and explore alternative moves they could have made instead. Paulo Freire (1970) advocated for an education focused more on problem-posing rather than just problem solving. The difference being that problem solving asks students to identify the issue and attempt to fix it whereas problem posing asks why the issue is occurring to begin with. Rather than simply solving the problem, students ask what can be done to prevent the problem from arising

34 altogether. In this way, chess-game analysis can also help students become better problem posers because they can review multiple games and find common problematic positions in which they find themselves. Rather than only asking students to find the best moves to get them out of the difficult positions, educators can help them try to understand why they keep ending up in unfavorable positions and what they can do earlier in the game to prevent those positions in the first place.

35

CHAPTER 4

INTERDISCIPLINARY ACADEMICS THROUGH CHESS

Play the opening like a book, the middle game like a magician, and the endgame like a machine. – Rudolf Spielmann

Just like a story, there are three parts to a chess game. First there is the opening, where each side attempts to set up its pieces in a strategically advantageous position. This is done by activating (moving) one’s pieces to strong squares and by ensuring the safety of the king (preferably by castling). The link between the opening and the subject of history is that the different opening strategies are not only studied, but built upon the theories of past players. Grandmasters spend years studying various opening theories and because of the countless possible variations, will not be able to memorize all of them. But the practice of studying past openings is crucial in order to have a better understanding of what is to follow in the game, much the same way the study of history is critical in understanding our current condition and the actions necessary to create a better future. Once the opening stage is complete (usually after about 10 or 15 moves), the game shifts over to what is known as the middle game. The middle game is where most of the attacks or battles take place. Each side attempts to find tactics that will either result in a material or positional advantage. Much of the middle game consists of specific tactical and strategic elements, and is where most of the creative moves are found. And finally, there is the end game, where most of the pieces have left the board, and each player hopes to use the advantage gained in the middle game to lead its pieces to victory. For an expert chess player, much of the endgame almost becomes formulaic. With fewer pieces on the board, reoccurring patterns and positions become more common and therefore easier to implement. This is why in many top-level chess games, a

36 checkmate is rarely reached, since most of the players can calculate the outcome well before it is reached. At this point, you might be wondering why the first section of this chapter begins with the endgame as opposed to the opening. I believe that in chess, and in many aspects of life, it is sometimes better to begin from the end and work backwards. After all, is it not more sensible to have a clear idea of the end goal before beginning the journey? Metaphorically and practically, this is not to say that the journey will be predetermined or fixed, because as in chess or in life, the possibilities are endless and it will be foolish to think that there will ever be a full-proof agenda. But creating the blueprint for the roadmap will be easier if we have a clear idea of where we are headed.

THE END GAME – MATHEMATICS: 3 ≠ 3 It is because combinations are possible that Chess is more than a lifeless mathematical exercise. They are the poetry of the game; they are to Chess what melody is to music. – Reuben Fine Calculations are as much a part of chess as running is in football. Sure, you might still be able to play, but you won’t get very far. Before the first move is even made and until a checkmate is delivered, a chess player does not stop calculating various problems on the board. Once the students have grasped the rules of chess and using John Dewey’s principles as well as the theory of gamification as our foundation, we can begin to use chess to teach simple mathematics. One of the basic components of chess is that, unlike checkers, each piece is given a specific value for its strength. These values are not universal, as there are various valuations, but for the purpose of this paper we will use the standard valuations, which is the most commonly accepted. They are as follows: Pawn = 1 point Knight = 3 points Bishop = 3 points Rook = 5 points Queen = 9 points Since the king can only be checkmated and never captured, it has no value in points (or it can be infinity, depending on how you look at it). Also, these valuations are not absolute, but only general principles used to help determine the strengths and weaknesses of each side

37 based on where they are located on the board. For now, we can use these standard valuations to teach basic subtraction and addition to young elementary students. For example, we can ask them to look at the position in Figure 2 and determine which side has the material advantage.

Figure 2. Which side has the material advantage?

At first glance, a beginner student might assume that the position is equal by simply counting the number of pieces for each side. In that case, the student would be correct since both sides have 13 pieces on the board. But with the introduction of the values, students can then practice addition (or subtraction) by counting the points on each side to determine whether white or black has more material strength. In that case, black has a clear advantage in material strength (34 points versus 32). Some readers might be critical that this is too simple, and that using so much class time to teach chess just to do simple addition is a waste of time. To those critics, I have three responses. First, this will not be the only academic lesson based on chess. This is just one example of many which I will be discussing throughout this paper. Second, teaching students addition and subtraction through this method allows them to learn through a medium which gives them context that is relevant to their experience. Once they understand the rules of

38 chess, then the introduction of mathematics no longer becomes an introduction of abstract symbols which they must then interpret. Instead, it becomes an extension of the rules of chess, which are necessary to play the game. Of course, we can simply give students a list of problems and ask them to add arbitrary numbers and they will get the same result as far as the answer. But here, we are attempting to use John Dewey’s principles to create an environment where learning is more than just understanding the facts and repeating them. The students will be learning math not just through theoretical terms, but in a way that applies directly to their activity. Thus, math will not be just another boring subject that is unrelated to and detached from their experiences, but it will be another aspect of the game they are playing. Third, and perhaps most importantly, we can take these simple math problems to a completely different level. In our attempt to encourage critical thought for new ways of looking at the world, we can introduce to students to what I will call “anti-math.” The traditional approach to mathematics is that it is absolute and objective. Physicists, astronomers, and most any other professionals in the sciences use math to prove certain theoretical hypotheses. As a culture, we have accepted math as something that is concrete, unbiased, and factual. While philosophical ideas are always open to criticism, the validity of mathematical formulas are rarely questioned (Murphy, 1989). If we are to teach children to question what they are told, and to be healthy skeptics, then we must also encourage and allow them to practice questioning even the most conventional ideas that are presented as “common sense.” Chess can be used to teach anti-math and help foster this skill. For example, look at the position in Figure 3 and decide whether white or black has the advantage or if the game is equal.

39

Figure 3. Which side has the advantage?

Upon first inspection, many beginner students will determine that the position is equal because both sides have equal material of seven points. However, based on the position, black is clearly winning. The white knight is trapped on the f1 and h2 squares (moving to g3 or d2 will result in its capture) and cannot help the white pawns advance down the board. Black’s knight on the other hand, can easily move to c3 followed by the capture of the e2 pawn, which should lead to a fairly easy victory. The reason this is important is that many teachers will not even consider introducing a mathematical concept that would argue that seven does not equal seven. In this case, while both sides appear to be equal, black’s seven is greater than white’s seven. This example, and others like it can nurture students as they begin to question claims that are presented as and appear to be “obvious.” Especially when arguments are based on factual (as opposed to mere opinions) claims, it becomes easy to overlook the flaws that are present at their very core. To give a real life example, when wages begin to stagnate and no longer keep up with inflation, the public immediately begins to demand one of two things as a solution. We either ask for the creation of more jobs, or we ask our employers to be able to work more hours to make up for the loss in wages. Those who work multiple jobs just to make ends meet are praised in our society for being hardworking Americans. In 2005, president George W. Bush attended a

40 town hall meeting in Nebraska and spoke to a woman who said she worked three jobs to support her family. The president commended her for this and the entire audience broke out in applause in response (FunCore, 2013; Terkel, 2013). It might appear obvious that if one is not earning enough income with one job, he or she may want to increase the number of hours worked in order to earn more. This “solution” then becomes indisputable, and the focus of the conversation shifts to issues of immigration, technological advancements, job creation, and the “invisible hand” in economics. The answer to the problem has already been established without any debate, and the only thing that is debated is the way in which that solution will be implemented. What we need to do instead is go back and question the solution. For instance, instead of asking for more hours, why not ask for less hours (of course with increasing wages proportionally) and lower the threshold for what it means to be a full- time employee? As a result, unemployment will decrease as more people can get back to work and still earn a livable wage. We become so focused on demanding to work more simply because we never question the premise which appears to be common sense, that we forget that many of us would actually prefer to work less. The position in Figure 4 suggests a similar idea as Figure 3 but is slightly more difficult to find.

Figure 4. 3 ≠ 3 (white to move).

41

Each side has three points, yet this position is anything but equal. The plan for both sides is to somehow find a way to create a passed pawn that will journey to the end of the board and promote into a queen, which can then be used to checkmate the opponent’s king. White can ensure this with the move g6. Black is then forced to capture the pawn, which would otherwise be able to capture either f7 or h7 and promote on the next move. If black captures with the h pawn, white can then play f6, giving up another pawn. Again, black has no favorable options. If the f6 pawn is not attacked, it can capture on g7 and again, promote on the next move. But if g7 does capture f6, the h5 pawn becomes a passed pawn and is now able to reach h8 unobstructed. Similar to the last example, the goal of this lesson is to demonstrate to students that there are alternative ways to interpret even the most elementary “truths.” For a second or third grade student to have the understanding that three does not always equal three can help prepare and empower them to question other issues, which on the surface, appear to be indisputable. Students and citizens who do not accept the world as-is, and who seek to find new answers rather than pick one from the available choices, are the kind of people who not only adapt to their environment but actively attempt to change it. The next example, Figure 5, also challenges the traditional understanding of mathematics in the context of social hierarchies. The white pawn is now on the 7th rank and ready to promote on the next move. Many players might be tempted to quickly promote the pawn into a queen since she is the strongest piece in chess. But if the player acts on impulse alone and promotes to a queen, the game will end in stalemate since black will have no legal moves and its king is not in check. Therefore, in this position, white should promote the pawn into a rook, which will allow the king to move safely to g7, after which white can use the rook and king together to checkmate the black king. This is another example of a setting when five is greater than nine. This lesson displays that no one, regardless of social status or class, is more important than the benefit of all. There are times in chess as well as in life when those who are branded as weak or inferior have the power and ability to transform the entire outcome of a situation. Sometimes, even the mighty queen is unable to do what’s best, and must step aside to allow others to share their knowledge and skill.

42

Figure 5. Rook > Queen.

There are many versions of the rice and chessboard story, which is directly linked to math. One version is that a peasant performs a noble act for the king and as his reward, the king offers to give him anything he wishes. The man, to appear humble, only asks for one grain of rice to be given to him, and then doubled every day for as many days as there are squares on a chessboard. The king laughs and mocks the man for his naïve and silly request and immediately agrees to the deal. Once he calculates the amount of rice he would need by day 64, the king realizes that he was the one made a fool. By starting with one grain of rice on day one, two grains on day two, four on day three, and so on, the king would have to give the peasant a total of 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 grains of rice over the 64-day period. The problem is a classic example of the accelerated growth of exponential numbers and can be used to create other mathematical problems stemming from the story.

THE MIDDLE GAME – ART AND CREATIVITY: UNLIMITED POSSIBILITIES I believe every chess player senses beauty, when he succeeds in creating situations, which contradict the expectations and the rules, and he succeeds in mastering this situation. – Vladimir Kramnik

43

It is said that there are more possible chess moves than atoms in the observable universe (Shenk, 2007). With so many possibilities, chess can help nurture creativity and imagination for young students. Chess games have been recorded and shared over hundreds of years because there is a certain beauty that grazes the 64-square board which no one has seen before. New positions are constantly being discovered, analyzed, and marveled. And every once in a while, like a great painting or sculpture, chess games stand the test of time and get titles of “The Immortal Game,” “The Opera House Game,” and “The Game of the Century.”2 The public view them, admire them and write books about them. But perhaps best of all, unlike having to visit a museum to see an original Monet or Michelangelo, we are able to recreate these games right in our homes, parks, and libraries. The chess board is the canvas and the chess pieces are the different pigments of paint with which the chess player is free to create a new brush stroke with each move. Another famous game, sometimes referred to as “The Immortal King Walk” was played in 1912 between Edward Lasker (playing with the white pieces) and George Alan Thomas (playing as black). Figure 6 shows the position of the game after the first ten moves.

2 The Immortal Game was played between Adolf Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky in 1851. “Opera House Game” was played between Paul Morphy against the German Duke of Brunswick, Karl II and the French Count, Comte Isouard de Vauvenargues in 1858. “The Game of the Century” was played between Donaly Byrne and (13 year-old) Bobby Fischer in 1956.

44

Figure 6. Edward Lasker vs George Alan Thomas, 1912.

The material is equal and while white has slightly more active pieces, the black king seems to be safely protected in the corner of the board. But looks can be deceiving. Lasker’s next move is the beginning of a beautiful sequence where he forces the black king to march down the board and eventually be checkmated. Lasker captures the pawn on h7 with his queen, giving check to the black king. Thomas’ only escape is to capture the queen with the king. Lasker gives up his most powerful piece, the queen, in order to bring the king out from hiding. The next eight images shown in Figure 7 are the final 8 moves (positions shown are black to move) of the game. Note that I have also included the chess notations for each move under its respective image. An explanation of reading and understanding chess notation can be found in Appendix A .

45

Figure 6a Figure 6b Figure 6c 11. Qxh7+ …Kxh7 12. Nf6+ …Kh6 13. Neg4+

Figure 6d Figure 6e Figure 6f …Kg5 14. h4+ …Kf4 15. g3+ …Kf3 16. Be2+

Figure 6g Figure 6h …Kg2 17. Rh2+ …Kg1 18. Kd2#

Figure 7. Edward Lasker vs George Alan Thomas, 1912 (continued).

46

It is important to remember that during these games, players are not allowed to touch the pieces until they are going to move them nor are they allowed to use any other resources for help. Therefore, much of the beauty that comes from this example is that Lasker had to visualize all of these positions (and their possible variations) in his mind. This takes an extreme amount of concentration, imagination, calculation, and creativity. Even if someone was shown the position in Figure 6, and informed beforehand that there is a checkmate in eight moves, many chess players might still have difficulty finding the winning move. Lasker was able to discover the winning move without any hints to create a beautiful attack as he foresaw the next eight moves that would force the lonesome black king to march down the board surrounded by enemy pieces. While chess is a game of perfect information, Edward Lasker’s game is a great example of having to exercise one’s imagination to discover something new and exciting even though the information is available for anyone to see. But sometimes it is also important to be able to remove that which is visible in order to get a clearer understanding of the situation. At first glance, the position in Figure 8 might not seem favorable for white. Black is ahead in material (by 4 points) and is threatening checkmate (Qf1# or Qd2#) on the next move.

Figure 8. White to move and win.

47

Does the position in Figure 8 look familiar? If so, then you are on the right track. If one is to imagine the board without the rooks and queens, then the remaining position is almost a mirror image of the position in Figure 4, which we already know is winnable for white. The question then becomes “how do we get there?” One way would be to simply pick up the rooks and queens and remove them from the board. But if there was another way to exchange the pieces, then that would work just as well. With the following moves, white will be able to get to its desired position: 1. Rh8+ Qh4 2. Rxh4+ Kxh4 3. Rh6+ Kg3 4. Rxh2 Kxh2, and white can aim for pawn promotion from there. This example demonstrates what I mentioned in the beginning of this chapter regarding the value in starting from the endgame first and working backwards. This metaphor can transfer directly to life decision as well. As students seek to become problem posers and problem solvers, it is important for them to have a clear idea of their goals in order to be able to implement the appropriate plan of action.

THE OPENING – HISTORY, GEOGRAPHY AND RELIGION: FROM ELEPHANTS TO BISHOPS All this twaddle, the existence of God, atheism, determinism, liberation, societies, death, etc., are pieces of a chess game called language, and they are amusing only if one does not preoccupy oneself with 'winning or losing this game of chess’. – Marcel Duchamp As I was packing up my chess pieces one afternoon, a chess student I had been working with asked me, “Mister Harout, who was the best chess player ever in the world?” A question whose answer is usually debated among chess players. Bobby Fisher, Garry Kasparov, or the current world champion, Magnus Carlsen? Of course, it is difficult to agree on one definitive answer because these players were all in their primes at different times in history, and therefore make it difficult to compare them to one another. And with the long history of chess, many of the top players were never even alive at the same time. “I don’t know,” I answered to the curious 7-year-old boy. “Oh, I know” he replied, as if a lightbulb went off in his head, “The person who made chess.” The conversation allowed for an opportunity to discuss the history of chess with the young student. No one-person invented chess. In fact, its origins are still unclear as to whether it began in China or India (Josten & Petzold, 2001). The history of chess spans over 1,500 years and across the entire globe (Shenk, 2007). It was present during the cultural exchanges

48 between India and Persia in the 6th century, then to the Muslim world until it eventually reached Europe during the Middle Ages. The game took on many different changes throughout its journey, all of which reflected the cultures it encountered as well as the technological developments over time (Davidson, 1968). In the 6th century, a game known as chaturanga was being played in India. Chatarunga, like chess, had 64 squares (but only one color) and 32 pieces, where the object of the game was to capture or checkmate the enemy king. However, some historians believe that prior to its presence in India, chatarunga may have arrived via the Silk Road from China (Shenk, 2007). The game was used to reflect the arrangement of the Indian army. “Chatarunga,” literally meaning the “four arms” of the military (also the origin of the word “army,” which we use today) was composed of the infantry, cavalry, chariots, and elephants (Davidson, 1968). Through this simple observation, students can begin to make connections between their contemporary world and link it with events that occurred 1,500 years and 8,000 miles away across the Atlantic Ocean. Through the trade of goods and cultural exchanges between India and the Arab population, chess too traveled westward to the Arab World. Around the same time as Islam began to form as a collective religion of the Muslim Empire (Persia, Egypt, Syria, and North Africa) in the 6th century, chess began to gain popularity in Persia. By the 8th century “chatarunga” had transformed to “chatrang” or “shatranj” (Shenk, 2007). The the names of the pieces and the rules of the game were also beginning to take on minor shifts to reflect Persian culture (Shenk, 2007). By the 9th century, chess had reached as far west as the capital of the Byzantine Empire in Constantinople, and by the 11th century it had reached Medieval Europe (Davidson, 1968; Shenk, 2007). It had reached Europe by three main routes through Spain (via North Africa), Italy (through trade routes from the Mediterranean), and Eastern Turkey (by way of the Balkan Peninsula) (Davidson, 1968). By the 12th century, chess had spread throughout much of Europe including France, Britain, and Germany (Davidson, 1968; Shenk, 2007). The stages of chess throughout its expansion for the first thousand years reflect the cultures and ideologies through which it encountered. From its origins in India, the pieces were arranged much the same way a real army would with its valuable characters in the

49 center-back, fast attackers at the ends, and the foot soldiers on the frontlines (Davidson, 1968). With the exception of the minister and the elephant (modern day queen and bishop, respectively) in the Indian chatarunga, many of the pieces moved in the same or similar manner they move today. Since chess was a game symbolic of war, the movements of the pieces resembled the maneuvers of their respective weapons. In chatarunga, the elephant could move only one square diagonally or one square forward to mimic the four limbs and trunk of the animal (Davidson, 1968). But by the time the game had reached Western Europe, the elephant was largely unfamiliar to the population (especially as a weapon of war) and was thus changed to the bishop. Similarly, the minister (or counsellor), who stood beside and was weaker than the king, was converted to the queen and became the most powerful piece on the board (Shenk, 2007). It is fair to reason that many of these changes were not only cultural, but also technological. As weapons of war became more powerful and complex, so too did the symbolic weapons on the chessboard. The rook (chariot, boat) in chatarunga was the only fast-moving piece on the board until the game reached Europe and the rest of the pieces began to move longer distances as well. The pawns were given the option to move two squares on their initial move, the bishops could move diagonally across the entire board, and the queen had the power to move like a bishop and a rook. I have heard many times from different chess players who refer to the bishop as a “sniper,” especially when it is tucked in one of the corners of the board. Using the progression of chess as a framework, teachers can create an entire history curriculum spanning over fifteen centuries. Within this skeleton, other subjects can be incorporated as well. Geography can be better understood through the context of chess to allow students to see the migration of the game. Rather than being taught in a manner where students are expected to simply identify places on a map, they will learn the social and cultural relations between nations and how they impacted the modern world. Religion and politics can be studied as they influenced dramatic changes (both cultural and symbolic) to the development of the game. Even English lessons can be taught by asking students to write their own stories and responses to the different issues being learned. Keeping John Dewey’s principles in mind, these lessons can offer a new experience for learning in the classroom. Through this gamification of chess, John Dewey’s theories can be put into practice and we can begin to chip away at the barriers between learning and

50 playing. Students will no longer see learning as an obstacle to be overcome, but rather as an activity they might engage in at home on their “free” time.

51

CHAPTER 5

LARGER IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

Today many players, especially young ones, think that the older openings are so thoroughly analyzed that nothing more can be tried. This is a serious mistake. The methods of positional play become deeper and finer each year. Being well acquainted with them it is possible even in openings which seem to be fully explored to find ways to create a real fight. – Tigran Petrosian

After examining some of the limitations and concerns of the traditional education model in Chapters 1 and 2, it was discussed that using the Dewey’s progressive principles along with the concept of gamification would be a better alternative to address these issues. In Chapters 3 and 4, again using the theoretical framework from Chapter 2, I demonstrated how using chess in the classroom can create a more meaningful learning experience for students and teachers alike. It is now important to add one more layer, on the macro level, and explain the larger philosophical implications of using chess metaphorically to understand life situations. One of the goals of a progressive approach to education is to allow students and teachers not only to explore alternative options but to take it a step further and possibly create new ideas that were not previously present. Using chess as the medium to guide this endeavor presents an inherent dichotomy. On the one hand chess is an incredibly rigid, technical game bound by inflexible rules. The hierarchy among the pieces reinforces the concepts of social stratification and dualistic relationships. Every piece can, and, in some cases must be sacrificed for the well-being of the king. And even though every pawn has the potential to be promoted to a higher rank, it is still restricted from ever becoming a king. But on the other hand, the positions within the game know no bounds as the possibilities are endless. After just the first two moves (one turn per side), there are 400 possible positions which can result on the board. After four moves, that number jumps to 71,852; after move

52 six, nine million and after the eighth move there are 315 billion possible positions (Shenk, 2007). One can imagine the speed at which this number grows when we consider that during an average chess game, there are typically around eighty moves made by both sides (Chess beta, 2013). Mathematician Claude Shannon (1950) calculated what is now known as the Shannon Number that there are approximately 10120 possible positions in chess. In comparison, scientists have estimated that there are “only” about 1079 atoms in the observable universe (Shenk, 2007). In striving for a more progressive and democratic model of education (and society), this contradiction between the restrictive, and simultaneously, infinite aspects of chess present a challenging dilemma. But what better setting is there to confront these challenges than in the realm of progressive education? To do this, we can use the seven principles outlined by Apple and Beane (2007) as a guideline in creating a more equal and democratic environment for education. They are as follows: 1. Concern for the dignity and rights of individuals and minorities. 2. Concern for the welfare of others and “the common good.” 3. Faith in the individual and collective capacity of people to create possibilities for resolving problems. 4. The open flow of ideas, regardless of their popularity, that enables people to be as fully informed as possible. 5. The use of critical reflection and analysis to evaluate ideas, problems, and policies. 6. An understanding that democracy is not so much an “ideal” to be pursued as an “idealized” set of values that we must live and that must guide our life as a people. 7. The organization of social institutions to promote and extend the democratic way of life. In an anti-dualistic environment, where we aim to challenge the presumption that there is only one right answer, we can approach this question of social stratification from multiple perspectives. Perhaps David Shenk (2007) said it best when he wrote, “On the board (i.e., in life), each chess piece (person) had his own particular standing. But after the game (upon death), all the pieces (people) would be thrown into the bag (the afterlife) and would be equal forevermore” (p. 74). The bag he is referencing is the holding case in which all the pieces are put away once the game is finished. From this symbolic observation, an important

53 question then follows: “if peasants and kings were equal in death, where was the legitimacy in the arbitrary rules that made them unequal in life?” (Shenk, 2007, p. 75). This poses an important question regarding not only the structure of our education system, but also the hierarchies present in other social institutions such as politics, economy, and religion. Tackling the totality of this question is outside the scope of this thesis and can be pursued in future research. But it is important to start a dialogue to consider the various components that play a role in creating such a society. The explanation cannot be summed up in one or two neatly categorized statements, but lies within a complex web of different forces and institutions through which the apparatus is created. To look at a few of those issues, we can return to Bowles and Gintis, who link particular concerns in the education system with those in the economic and political spheres. Using chess as an analogy for real-world social structures can help highlight some of these matters. One approach can be to concede to the status quo and accept the unequal power relationships that govern many of our social institutions. If we are to accept the world as-is without challenging that which is unjust and coercive, then we have already failed. History shows that we are not merely passive citizens who resign to external pressures, but active agents who have the power to change our environment when it no longer meets our desires (Marković, 1974). Humans invented farming, domesticating animals, building metropolitan civilizations, defeating fascism, and exploring outer space. Given Apple and Beane’s (2007) principles, simply consenting to the existing conditions is ethically unacceptable. With regards to chess, it is true that most grandmaster (and even lower level) games end in resignation without the king being checkmated. But my goal is not to train students to become grandmasters, but to use chess as the framework for alternative methods of teaching, learning, and interpreting their surroundings. Using Dewey’s principles, it is possible to change the rules when needed. Therefore, students can be taught in a way to understand that resigning is not an option, and they must play until the very end. As they play, it will soon be apparent that even when all seems lost, the game can turn for the better. And when there is eventually a checkmate on the board, then they will learn how to win with humility and how to lose with grace. The second option is to acknowledge the problem and attempt to change it within the system. While this is a step in the right direction (and considerably better than the first

54 option), it too has its limitations. The main obstacles arise when the desired change, or the means by which agents seek to attain their goals do not fit within the rules that govern the organization. For example, if an educator is interested in incorporating new methods of teaching or insists on spending more time on a specific subject because students are struggling, then his or her request may be denied because of time constraints that pressure teachers to keep pace with national standards and deadlines. The demands fall from the top- down beginning at the federal level through the state, district, administration, teachers and finally the students. This structure generates obstacles that make change nearly insurmountable since on the surface, it appears that no one is responsible for the existing constraints. As a result, teachers may then attempt to achieve their lesson plans by inserting them when possible or using their own resources afterhours to resolve the issue. They can also pursue a promotion to become a principal where they can then have the power to change the system from within. But the problem does not necessarily lie within the position, but rather the structure of the institution. Once the teacher is promoted to principal, he or she will then face similar restrictions imposed from the district level because the power dynamics remain unchanged. This is not to say that there are never solutions within the given framework. Despite the bureaucratic red tape that sometimes hinders progress, it is still possible to navigate within the system, or at least to make strides that might help (although temporarily) alleviate or improve the condition. In much the same way, chess presents a similar problem. When faced with a troublesome position, a chess player attempts to find the best move within the existing rules of the game. Since both players have agreed to the rules beforehand, one cannot for example, pick up a rook and move it diagonally across the board and capture an opponent’s piece. Fittingly, the term for such a move that lies outside of the rules is referred to as an “illegal move” and in most cases must be taken back and a “legal” move played instead. If we are to use chess as a metaphor for seeking alternative solutions, then it is important to consider a third option; one that encourages students to be problem posers rather than just problem solvers (Freire, 1970). A problem solver attempts to find a solution to fix or remedy something that is unpleasant or unfair. A problem poser on the other hand, is one who is critical and reflective of the wider scope of elements that are at the source of the issue. A problem poser may attempt to locate the cause of the problem and eliminate it from the root

55 so it no longer poses a threat. Therefore, if the rules within the system become oppressive and prohibit progress, then the possibility to go outside of the system and change the rules altogether must be the next viable step. Paulo Freire (1970) refers to these roadblocks as “limit-situations.” Freire’s position is one of optimism rather than discouragement as he believes that as advocates of change, our response to these limit-situations defines our agency. He argues that “critical perception is embodied in action, a climate of hope and confidence develops which leads men to attempt to overcome the limit-situations” (p. 99). In other words, it is precisely when faced with limit-situations that agents of change must take responsibility and be willing to act and discover new possibilities for progress. How then can chess, a traditionally rigid, hierarchical and rule-bound game support such an idea? One must look at the history and evolution of chess to see that it has been changing all along and continues to do so today. The creation of the en passant rule was introduced at the same time as the move to allow a pawn the option to move two squares on its first turn. The reasoning for enpassant was in large part to prevent the unfair advantage of a pawn being able to evade in one move an opposing pawn who had worked its way to the 5th rank (Davidson, 1968). While there have been no major changes to the traditional rules of chess in the last 400 years, it is not to say that the game has not evolved. There have been numerous variants of chess created by people who were seeking a new game and different challenges that the standard game was unable to provide. The invention of the chess clock has allowed players to speed up an entire chess game to be played in less than two minutes. In “backwards chess” or “loser’s chess” the victor is the player who has all of his or her pieces captured first. Former world champion Bobby Fischer invented chess960, in which the starting position of the pieces are selected at random in order to avoid the lackluster opening positions found in many top-level matches. Chessboards with different numbers of squares, or with rectangular or hexagonal shaped boards, or even chessboards that allow for multiple players to play simultaneously have been invented and enjoyed by many. The list of variations of chess is plenty, and with the advancement of modern computers it is likely that more variations are on the horizon. In an attempt to “solve” chess, programmers are building computers that are able to calculate positions faster and deeper than ever before. With that in mind, it should not be surprising to see people use their creative agency to design new alternatives to chess.

56

I have attempted to show how chess can be used as a tool to create the foundation for an interdisciplinary curriculum in the classroom. In addition to teaching the academic subjects, chess also offers symbolic analogies to life-situations through which lessons can be designed and practiced. But chess is not the only activity that can provide such lessons. It is just one example I have chosen to present. Educators and teachers in the future can use a similar model with just about any activity to achieve the same aims. It would be absurd for me to expect that all teachers must learn chess in order to then be able to incorporate it into their lessons. That would be no different than what is happening with the national standards in common core. As long as the progressive principles at the heart of the model are not compromised, then the activities through which they are presented become secondary.

57

REFERENCES

Adams, T. C. P. (2012). Chess from square a1: Incorporating chess into the gifted class. Gifted Child Today, 35(4), 243-251. Ainsworth-Land, G. T., & Jarman, B. (1992). Breakpoint and beyond: Mastering the future— Today. Champaign, IL: HarperBusiness. Apple, M. W., & Beane, J. A. (2007). Democratic schools: Lessons in powerful education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Bilalić, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2007). Does chess need intelligence? — A study with young chess players. Intelligence, 35(5), 457-470. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. New York, NY: Basic Books. Bremner, R. (Ed.). (1971). Children and youth in America: A documentary history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1971). Perception in chess. Pittsburgh, PA: Department of Psychology, Carnegie-Mellon University. Chess beta. (2013, June 26). What is the average length of a game of chess? Retrieved from http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/2506/what-is-the-average-length-of-a- game-of-chess Collins, G. J., & Blaha, W. J. (2010). Timeline: Moments that changed public education. Retrieved from http://www.collinsblaha.com/pdfs/education-reform/Timeline- Moments-that-Changed-Public-Education.pdf Corbett, S. (2010). Learning by playing: Video games in the classroom. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/magazine/19video-t.html?pagewanted=all Davidson, H. A. (1968). A short history of chess. New York, NY: D. McKay Co. De Groot, A. D. (1978). Thought and choice in chess (2nd ed.). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press. Dewey, J. (1899). The school and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Dewey, J., & Dewey, E. (1915). Schools of to-morrow. New York, NY: Dutton. Dewey, J., & Small, A. W. (1897). My pedagogic creed. New York, NY: E.L. Kellogg & Co.

58

DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Gibson, D. R. (2010). More than a game: Sociological theory from the theories of games. Sociological Theory, 28(3), 247-271. Erickson, D. (2016, March 17). Innovative gamification in Windows OS. Retrieved from http://www.creativepr.com/innovative-gamification-windows/ Frank, A. (2011). Chess and aptitudes. Raleigh, NC: Lulu. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum International. FunCore. (2013, August 19). George W. Bush quote – you work three jobs [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFsqI5Mkfsk Jalongo, M. R. (2003). A position paper of the Association for Childhood Education International the child's right to creative thought and expression. Childhood Education, 79(4), 218. Johnson, H. B. (2008). Schools: The great equalizer and the key to the American dream. In J. H. Ballantine & J. Z. Spade (Eds.), Schools and society: A sociological approach to education (pp. 271-286). Los Angeles, CA: Pine Forge Press. Josten, G., & Petzold, J. (2001). Chess - a living fossil: In memoriam Professor Joachim Petzold. Köln, Germany: Josten. Kaplan, A. (2013). Reconstructing progressive education. Schools: Studies in Education, 10(1), 122-131. Kazemi, F., Yektayar, M., & Abad, A. M. B. (2012). Investigation the impact of chess play on developing meta-cognitive ability and math problem-solving power of students at different levels of education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 32, 372-379. Kennedy, M. (1998). More than a game, eight transition lessons chess teaches. Reaching Today's Youth, 2(4), 17-19. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. New York, NY: Crown Pub. Marczewski, A. (2013). Gamification: A simple introduction & a bit more. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/Gamification-Simple-Introduction-Bit-More- ebook/dp/B007U44MDU#nav-subnav Marković, M. (1974). From affluence to praxis: Philosophy and social criticism. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Murphy, J. W. (1989). Postmodern social analysis and criticism. New York, NY: Greenwood Press. Puddephatt, A. J. (2008). Incorporating ritual into greedy institution theory: The case of devotion in amateur chess. Sociological Quarterly, 49(1), 155-180. Raphael, M. W. (2011). Chess: The preface to a technical resource for sociology. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/2860991/Chess_The_Preface_to_a_ Technical_Resource_for_Sociology

59

Robinson, K. (2010, October 14). RSA ANIMATE: Changing education paradigms [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U Saint-Exupéry, A. d., (2000). The little prince. (R. Howard, Trans.). San Diego, CA: Harcourt. (Original work published 1943) School. (2016). In Online etymology dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=school Shannon, C. E. (1950). Programming a computer for playing chess. Murray Hill, NJ: Bell Telephone Laboratories. Shenk, D. (2007). The immortal game: A history of chess, or how 32 carved pieces on a board illuminated our understanding of war, art, science, and the human brain. New York, NY: Anchor Books. Sigirtmac, A. D. (2012). Does chess training affect conceptual development of six-year-old children in Turkey? Early Child Development and Care, 182(6), 797-806. Simões, J., Redondo, R. D., & Vilas, A. F. (2013). A social gamification framework for a K- 6 learning platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(2), 345-353. Smith, J. P., & Cage, B. N. (2000). The effects of chess instruction on the mathematics achievement of southern, rural, Black secondary students. Research in the Schools, 7(1), 19-26. Smolin, A., & Clayton, J. K. (2009). Standardized testing: How prepared are we? Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 12(4), 29-36. Terkel, A. (2013, March 15). Mitt Romney speech reminiscent of George W. Bush: Holding multiple jobs ‘patriotic.’ The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/mitt-romney-george-w- bush_n_2885077.html Thompson, M. (2003). Does the playing of chess lead to improved scholastic achievement? Issues in Educational Research, 13(2), 13-26. Willis, P. E. (1977). Learning to labour: How working class kids get working class jobs. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

60

APPENDIX A

RULES OF CHESS I believe that in order to fully grasp the concepts of this thesis, it is important to have a basic understanding of the rules of chess. For any readers who are unfamiliar with the game, this section will provide an explanation of the rules. Chess is a strategic game played by two players, where the object of the game is to checkmate the opponent’s king. To make it easier to visualize, I have included arrows to show the ways each piece can move and attack. First, this how the board is set up to begin play. The player with the white pieces moves first.

Now let’s meet the pieces…

Pawn – Moves forward one square at a time (can never move backwards), except on its first move, when it has the option to move two squares (as long as no pieces are impeding its movement). Cannot capture opponent’s piece while moving forward. Captures in a forward-diagonal direction (again, by only moving one square) by landing on

61 the opponent’s piece. It cannot move diagonally unless it is attacking a piece. When a pawn reaches the end of the board, it promotes to any other piece except a king. The promoted piece is immediately in play on the promoted square.

Knight – Moves in the shape of the letter “L” by jumping two squares vertically and one square horizontally, or two squares horizontally and one square vertically. The knight is the only piece that is able to jump over other pieces, but it only captures an opponent’s piece when it lands directly on its square.

62

Bishop – Moves in all diagonal directions and as many squares as long as no other piece is blocking it. It captures an opponent’s piece when it lands directly on the square which the opposing piece is occupying.

Rook – Moves vertically and horizontally (cannot do both on the same turn) in as many desired squares as long as no other piece is blocking it. It captures an opponent’s piece when it lands directly on the square which the opposing piece is occupying.

63

Queen – Moves in straight lines in all directions (diagonal, vertical, and horizontal) for as many squares as desired as long as no other pieces are blocking it. It captures an opponent’s piece when it lands directly on the square which the opposing piece is occupying.

King – Similar to the queen, the king can move in all directions but its distance is limited to only one square per turn (except during castling). The king cannot move to a square that is being attacked by an opposing piece.

64

Castling – A special move that is only allowed once during the course of a game where the king and one of the rooks move simultaneously. The king moves two squares towards the rook and the rook jumps over the king and lands directly next to the king’s new square. Castling can be done on either side of the board as long as it meets the following criteria: 1) There must be no other pieces between the king and the rook being used 2) Both the king and the rook being used must not have moved prior to castling and 3) one cannot castle if the king is in check or has to go through a check during the castling process. The examples below show the positions before and after castling for both sides. White is castling on the king-side while black is castling on the queen-side.

65

En Passant – An exception to the usual pawn capture and the only time any piece is able to capture another piece without directly moving to the square that the opposing piece is occupying. When player A moves a pawn two squares directly next to player B’s pawn, then on player B’s next turn only, he or she has the option to capture player A’s pawn by moving his or her pawn directly behind player B’s pawn.

Check – When a piece is moved to a position where it can attack the opponent’s king, then that king is “in check.” The opposing player must then do one of the three possible maneuvers to get his or her king out of check. In no particular order, the king can be taken out of check by (1) capturing the attacking piece (2) blocking the attack using another piece, or (3) moving the king to a safe square.

Checkmate – The objective of the game is to checkmate the opponent’s king. This is achieved when the king is in check and cannot be taken out of check by any of the three methods listed above.

Stalemate – When a player is not in check but has no legal moves to play, the result of the game is a stalemate, which is equal to a draw.

66

APPENDIX B

CHESS GLOSSARY: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Checkmate – When the king is in check without any way to get out of it. The game ends when one player is able to checkmate the opponent’s king and thus win the game. File – The vertical columns on a chess board marked by the letters “a” through “h.” Material – The sum of all values of the pieces on each side. This helps to give a better idea of how much “strength” each player has on the board. (Chess) Notation – Using symbols to more conveniently record and communicate chess moves. Each piece has a designated letter to represent it followed by the square to which the piece moves. The letters are “K” for king, “Q” for queen, “R” for rook, “B” for bishop, and “N” for knight. No letter is used for the pawn. An “x” is used to show if the moving piece is capturing a piece during its turn. If the move results in a check, the “+” symbol is used to indicate the check. Passed Pawn – a pawn that can go down a file without an opponent’s pawn being able to block or attack it. (Pawn) Promotion – The ability for the pawn to transform into any of the other pieces (except a king) when it reaches the opposite end of the board. Rank – The horizontal rows on a chess board marked by the numbers “1” through “8.” The white pieces begin on the side of the first rank, while the black pieces start on the side of the 8th rank. Stalemate – When one side has no legal moves to make (with the king or any other piece) and it is that sides turn to move, the game ends in a stalemate. The result of a stalemate is a tie game, and each player received a half point.

67

APPENDIX C

UNITED STATES PUBLIC EDUCATION TIMELINE

TIMELINE: MOMENTS THAT CHANGED PUBLIC EDUCATION 68 LOOK BACK AT SOME IMPORTANT EVENTS THAT IMPACTED SCHOOLING IN AMERICA

1635 1857 1879 1896 1918 FIRST PUBLIC SCHOOL BIRTH OF TEACHERS’ FORCED SCHOOLING PLESSY V FERGUSON FREE PUBLIC SCHOOLS UNION Boston Latin School, in As the main tenet of the effort to The mantra separate but equal stems All states have laws requiring Massachusetts, opens its doors as The National Teachers assimilate them into Anglo-American from this Supreme Court ruling, which mandatory school attendance for the first public secondary school. The Association was created to culture, Native American children are legalizes segregation. But institutions, children through elementary school. school still teaches a “contemporary give educators a united front, forced to attend boarding schools including schools, that are designated for classical education.” starting with just 100 where they are required to speak blacks are far inferior to those for whites. members. Today the union is English and attend church. the National Education Association and has more than 3.2 million members.

1920 1925 1946 1954 1957

THE BIRDS AND THE BEES PIERCE V SOCIETY OF SCHOOL LUNCH FOR ALL BROWN V BOARD OF EDUCATION MATH AND SCIENCE TAKE SISTERS PRECEDENCE Between 20 percent and 40 percent National School Lunch Act expands The decision reverses Plessy v Ferguson, of schools across the country begin This Supreme Court ruling access to school lunch by making ruling that separate is not equal, and The Soviets makes history, launching teaching sex education, some under finds that children can’t be available low-cost or free lunches for outlaws segregation. the Sputnik satellite into orbit and the title of “moral education.” Courses compelled to attend public low-income students. instilling fear in many Americans. This become even more widespread over school and can instead attend results in funding of more than $1 the next three decades. private school. billion to revamp science and math curricula in public schools.

1962 1965 1970 1972 1974 BANNING PRAYER FEDERAL FUNDING TEST RESULTS REPORTED TITLE IX BECOMES LAW LAU V NICHOLS TO GOVERNMENT The Supreme Court ruling in Engel v The Elementary and Secondary Title IX of the Education The Supreme Court expands the Vitale forbids organized prayer in Education Act of 1965 gives federal Standardized testing is used to Amendments of 1972 prohibits rights of students who have limited public schools. The following year, funding to schools while forbidding a measure school performance, and discrimination based on sex, but English skills, ruling that they should reading the Bible is banned. The national curriculum. scores are not reported to the becomes known most for legislating receive an equal education. cases set a precedent for limiting government and public. The federal equal treatment and opportunity for prayer in public schools. government takes a larger role in girls in school athletics. subsidizing schools and wants them to be held accountable.

1983 2001 2003 2010 A NATION AT RISK NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND GETTING CONNECTED RACE TO THE TOP The report, issued by President Signed into law by President George All American schools have access to President Barack Obama’s Race to Ronald Reagan’s National W. Bush, No Child Left Behind the Internet, according to the National the Top program ushers in a wave of Commission on Excellence in increases federal funding for Center for Education Statistics. education reforms as states compete Education, points to severe education and ushers in standards- for federal grants in the midst of a underperformance of American based reform. Proponents argue that recession. schools. it has increased schools’ accountability, while some opponents say it has made testing the focus of education, at the expense of critical thinking.

Source:Source: http://today.m sCollins,nbc.msn.com/id/3915433 G. J.,3/http: &//tod Blahaay.msnbc.m, W.sn.com J./id/ 39154333/(2010 ). Timeline: Moments that changed public education. Retrieved from http://www.collinsblaha.com/pdfs/education-reform/Timeline- Moments-that-Changed-Public-Education.pdf