From | Message | ||
---|---|---|---|
cmtoo 20-Jun-19, 20:10 |
![]() In mathematics, there is a clearly delineated sequence of topics that should be covered, and every student is expected to learn these topics before moving to their next year of study. Naturally, as the years go by, there is more flexibility, and specializing requires us to diverge into seemingly separate fields. Having said that, at least the first thousand hours of mathematical training are almost universally accepted as both necessary and sequential in nature. The landscape of chess training paints a completely different picture. Lesson topics are often disconnected one from the other, and there is often an emphasis on personalization. It is not uncommon for a coach to say that his or her lessons are tailored toward the individual needs of each student. That has always puzzled me. Would you ever tell a middle-school child that, given his personality and personal preferences, he should learn trigonometry before learning fractions? Devising a chess curriculum that is both effective and universal is a very complex task, with many interesting questions and challenges I hope to explore over the years. At the same time that I am exploring this topic, so is the St. Louis Chess Club. The club works to provide chess training and instruction in St. Louis area schools. While structuring chess is a difficult task, they are also working on a curriculum that chess instructors, and even teachers, can follow to bring the educational benefits of chess to the masses.” From St. Louis Public Radio web site - Mauricio Flores is a chess grandmaster based in Minnesota, where he finished his Ph.D. in applied mathematics. He is the author of the book “Chess Structures, a Grandmaster Guide." news.stlpublicradio.org |
||
|
![]() |