The Q & A Way

Surprise, No Prize

By Bruce Pandolfini

Question: Do you think it's a good idea to give prizes as
incentives? (Mary Jo Johnson, USA)

Answer: This is one of those eternal questions, such as "Does the
world consist of the one or the many?" or "Is there a meaning to
life?" No matter how cogently you argue your position the other
side can construct a counter-argument irritatingly worthy of being
heard. And this is practically the case here. Purists make a strong
argument for playing the game for the game's sake, but chess
teachers and organizers know a different reality. They realize that
incentives are often needed to keep kids involved and motivated.
And while this may be repugnant to hardcore chessplayers,
educators contend that it's worth it to keep kids interested, almost
no matter what it takes, because the benefits derived from chess
are so great. This is the stronger logic for me, so I'm going to
come down in favor of giving prizes and incentives. There may be
something questionable about it, but in my opinion the end result --
getting kids to play chess -- outweighs the possible drawbacks --
getting them to play for the wrong reasons.

Question: I liked your comment to a questioner about learning the
kids' names when trying to teach or sponsor chess in a school. I
will take that advice. My question is: What do you think is an
appropriate prize level for an elementary school chess club?
Trophies? Gift certificates? Books? Key chains for all entries? I'm
getting ready to hold the school championship this spring and
respect your opinion. (Paul Sweeney, USA)

Answer: The trend these days is to give large trophies and plenty
of them. There are events in which everyone garners a gargantuan
trophy, with the trophies being bigger than the recipients. It also
strikes many observers as curious how some contestants can win
trophies even though they've failed to win a single game.
Organizers are able to justify this cornucopia of prizes by creating
numerous awards in special categories, particularly for
tournaments extending over an entire semester. Besides prizes for
finishing at the top (such as Champion, 2nd place, etc.), awards are
given for a range of achievements, including Most Improved
Player, Most Outstanding Player, Most Valuable Player, Hardest
Working Player, Rookie of the Year, Best Girl (certainly a
controversial and dubious award in today's world), Best Attacker,
Best Defender, Best Combination Player, Best Endgame Player,
and so on. 

It may sound as if I'm opposed to the awarding of abundant prizes,
and indeed I am, but the truth is that I haven't been able to escape
this phenomenon in my own teaching. To keep kids happy and
under control I've felt constrained to give trophies, medals, books,
ribbons, Beanie Babies, Pokemon cards, stickers, pencils, points,
and other trinkets. Recently I've tried to get a handle on these
excesses by finding an appropriate level of presentation. I'm not
suggesting that you follow my approach, for it may not work in
your circumstances, but what I aim to do now is give just one
trophy for the overall champion (personalized, with the winner's
name on it) and ribbons for 2nd and 3rd place. Anyone else worthy
of being distinguished receives a certificate or possibly a book.

It's natural for a student to react despondently if many trophies are
awarded and he or she gets nothing. But it's hard for students and
players to feel too badly for not receiving a trophy if only one
trophy is presented, and this just to the winner. Nevertheless, if a
teacher or an organizer still feels compelled to satisfy the general
need for a red badge of courage, he or she can provide certificates
of participation to each student completing the course, tournament,
or camp. This would be egalitarian without being materialistically
ridiculous. It would also save money, which then could be used to
run more tournaments, which eventually should produce more
committed chessplayers. This might seem a little unreal, but it's
how I'd like to see things go. May your school championship
proceed according to plan, whatever you decide.

Question: I teach several after-school chess programs, and I like
to give points for performance. I give fifteen points for a win and
five points for a loss. If the players draw, they each get ten points.
Moreover, I give other types of points for answering questions, for
doing homework, for cleaning up, and for doing other tasks. I think
the real reason I give these points, which can be a bookkeeping
problem, is to command the class. The problem is that sometimes
all this point giving causes bad feelings, especially when the
winners gloat. How would you handle a poor winner? (Thomas
Prescott, USA)

Answer: I know what you're talking about because I've always
given points and it's sometimes proved to be a real headache. Not
only is it difficult to mete them out fairly and objectively, but
keeping score can become quite daunting. How do you tally them
accurately when so many things happen over the course of a
semester? Like you, I too have used points to direct the class,
specifically by providing incentives for doing work and for
cooperating. But I've never really felt good about awarding points,
thinking that perhaps it was conveying the wrong message and also
realizing that it's too easy to allot points arbitrarily. When this
happens the system breaks down and we're back where we started,
in primeval chaos. 

How would I handle poor winners who gloat over their points?
Either I'd set the winner straight and support the loser by saying
something soothing or truthfully complimentary (if this could be
done), or I'd take a different tack altogether. I'd award more points
to the loser in an attempt to emphasize good sportsmanship. But if
I did take this unorthodox stance, I'd also give the winner a chance
to gain compensatory points for improving behavior before the end
of the session, which is the actual point of giving points in the first
place: to keep the class under control. If good conduct is instilled
along the way, all the better.

Question: I am a USCF expert and a chess teacher. I read your
columns regularly and find your suggestions to be extremely
insightful. My favorite books change almost daily, but the ones I
recommend to my (usually advanced) students (1500-1800)
include: My System by Nimzovitch, Think like a Grandmaster by
Kotov, My Best Games of Chess 1908-1937 by Alekhine, My 60
Memorable Games by Fischer, and my all-time favorite, Zurich
International Chess Tournament, 1953 by Bronstein. These are all
classics, and I believe that beginning chess players should become
familiar with these before they consider tackling more recent great
books such as Fire on Board, anything by Dvoretsky, or John
Watson's Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy. However, the teacher
should be very familiar with these and other resources, not only for
the wealth of practical examples but also to help his or her students
to understand and enjoy the complexities of the game. I also have a
question. I have a student who has tremendous potential. She has
blossomed under (or perhaps despite) my tutelage, and is now
ready for more advanced training. I have recommended that she
find a fairly strong master to help her in person, but she is having
difficulty locating someone who is compatible with her personality
and skills. She is a young teenager who has gained almost 600
rating points in three years to break 1900 USCF. If she decides to
enlist the services of someone via the Internet, how would you
recommend she select her next teacher? (Dan Avery, USA)

Answer: It seems as if you've done an excellent job. Obviously
your student is quite talented, but I'm also sure she's benefited
greatly from your expertise, your concern, and your sincerity. It
takes a very wise and loving teacher indeed to recognize that
maybe the best way to help a student is to help her move on. And
this suggests an answer to your question. 

To continue fulfilling your job as her teacher you should take the
active role in helping her find a new chess teacher, whether it's
through the internet or by some other means. As her teacher you're
trying to counsel her, and finding a new teacher involves making
some really difficult decisions. She's going to need your caring
advice. With her approval, and that of her parents, you should take
the initiative in exploring new possibilities. 

You should conduct the interviews and make the introductions.
You should ask the necessary questions to maintain continuity and
insure a smooth transition. And you should help the student
finalize the new alliance by reviewing the first couple of lessons
and providing sincere feedback. Furthermore, after the new lessons
assume their own life, there's no reason you shouldn't check in
now and then to see how things are going. 

If this is a problem for the new teacher then one has to question the
new teacher. What are his or her true concerns? Helping the
student or establishing dominance? I'm not saying that you should
interfere with the new teacher's lessons. Of course this would be
counterproductive and even injurious to the student. But it's
perfectly reasonable to monitor how your former student is doing,
maintaining your association as a kind of mentor, especially if the
relationship remains mutually beneficial to both of you. It's the
natural outcome of any good teaching relationship   lifelong
respect, support, and friendship. Surely the new teacher can
understand this, for these are things he or she presumably wants as
well. Good luck on your search. It may not be easy to find another
you.

Question: I am a class B player in my twenties. Recently I had the
opportunity to take a few (about a dozen actually) chess lessons
from an FM who was visiting my province for an extended stay.
Most of the lessons consisted of going over my games from
previous tournaments and having him point out where I went
wrong (even if I won!) and what choices I made were good ones.
In addition, he helped me develop a "style" of play and an opening
repertoire that was consistent. One comment that he made struck
me. He said "as you develop as a player you will be more likely, in
a given position, to choose a move that suits you stylistically than
one that leads to objective equality." What do think of the chess
teacher who stresses to the student the need for finding a style of
play over playing moves that are (or, at least, they believe are)
absolutely correct? (Robin Lindsay, Canada)

Answer: I agree with your chess teacher. That is, as you continue
developing as a player, it's likely that you will choose moves
consistent with a style. This doesn't mean that you should ignore a
strong move when you know what it is, especially if the move is
clearly best. 

Probably your teacher was referring to grayer situations, where the
right move is better for intangible reasons, and where playing
certain alternatives might not necessarily be deleterious. In these
instances choosing innocuous moves suitable to a style may lead to
positions in which you feel more comfortable than those stemming
from moves theoreticians consider objectively best. Theoreticians
and chess teachers can't play the game for you. If you're an
attacking wizard you don't want to find yourself in lifeless
middlegames. If you're a positional player you don't want to
immerse yourself in a jungle of loose pieces and complicated lines.


So play the right move if you know what it is and where to go with
it, but not if you know what it is but don't like where you're
headed. As you develop your own style, make sure you understand
its limitations. Try to be aware of its presence and affect. The truly
complete player factors in everything pertinent, from the analysis
of opening specialists to a mindfulness of one's own subjective
tendencies. You can try to be a better player, but you can't stop
being yourself. What do I think of a chess teacher who understands
the importance of style in selecting moves? I think he knows what
he's talking about. He's probably a fine chess teacher. 

Question: Are you aware of any studies that have been conducted
on the relationship between the ability to play chess and the ability
to learn to speak languages other than one's native tongue?
Alternately, might there be studies showing that bilingual (or
multi-lingual) people are better chess players? (Lynne Chapman,
USA)

Answer: Your questions are fascinating though I'm not aware of
any studies done on the possible relation of chess and linguistics. It
has been shown, I believe at least in a study conducted by Stuart
Margulies, that children who play chess read better, but this seems
more likely because kids studying chess turn to chess books, not
because chess inherently improves reading skills. 

Howard Gardner, in his theory of multiple intelligences, does point
out that talented people are usually gifted in at least two areas, and
that on some level these areas may be related. For example, strong
chessplayers tend to have at least two great strengths, usually in
the logical-mathematical realm and in that of spatial relations. To
my knowledge, however, no correlation has been established
between chess and verbal language or chess and multi-lingual
abilities.

But one language theory does apparently connect chess to math
and music, and this theory has to do with non-verbal language.
Each of these areas (chess, music, and math) seem to rely on
specialized non-verbal languages that children sometimes intuit,
and they can do this without knowing much about their own native
language. This somewhat might explain the existence of prodigies
in these disciplines. I believe Professor David Feldman, based on
his work at Tufts, explored this correspondence in his book
"Nature's Gambit."

But as good as kids can become in these recondite fields, they
never quite reach the loftier echelons of mastery without first
maturing and, possibly, not before learning a lot more about their
own tongue. For instance, Mozart was incredibly prodigious at a
tender age, but his early creations were by no means equal to the
majesty of his later productions. And as good as Capablanca and
Reshevsky were at eight, it took years of growth and development
before they assumed the mantle of world-class grandmasters. Even
so, though some authorities think that language may aid abstract
comprehension, we can't say for sure to what extent the
acquisition of language impacts on the attainment of true mastery.

What we do realize is that smart people are smart for numerous
reasons, and that intelligence no longer can be understood merely
in terms of traditional concepts. In the current scheme there's room
for the inclusion of various expressions of aptitude, including those
needed for verbalizing and those helpful for playing chess. Maybe
one day some ingenious person will connect these talents and
chessplayers will derive new insights into how they play both
games, chess and language. For now, what we cannot speak about
we must play over in silence.