- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Engaging healthily with chess: an Acceptance and Commitment therapist's guide

Nice work, thanks for sharing your thoughts and research.
Some insight of a chess coach for decades, and theorist:

  1. Chess is ill defined, and means different things to different people. The most popular form of chess in non competitive among children, like any other board game. The least popular form of chess is competitive chess. Less than 1/20 regular chess players will ever play in a chess tournament, and the majority of chess players don't care or follow competitive chess.

So any psychological study of chess has to properly define and divide the various forms of chess, as studies have revealed different things about 'why people play chess?' or 'what chess means?', and competitive players (vast minority of players) are mostly interested in winning and ego factors.

The majority of non-competitive players that enjoy chess, often don't have a strong connection to the reason of competitive players, or tournament players, and often don't even understand why people are so competitive, and not sure what winning at chess actually means.

  1. Problem Solving, joy of figuring things out.

Majority of amateur chess players have various reasons for enjoying playing chess, such as networking, social factors, that have nothing to do with the game itself, and winning or losing has little influence on why they play.

But besides the social factors, the main attraction to chess, especially for the main audience (elementary / middle school students) is about learning problem solving skills. The joy of solving problems is different from competitive play, and goes together with the young mind learning mathematics and other logic skills, but the winning / competitive aspect is less important to the education value of learning to use one's mind.

  1. The Cross

This history of the game, and the obvious dynamics of the board, most notable the Black / White dynamic, and the Cross, often stands out most to new players (experienced / competitive players often forget the Cross, or detach chess from the meaning of the Cross.

But being the article about pain / suffering in chess, has to recognize the symbolism of the Cross That has the religious note such as Ecclesiastes 1:18, "with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief,", but a clear connection between self-improvement and suffering.

  1. Self-improvement
    As I say 'chess is about self improvement', but more a bait and switch for children. Chess is a means, not an end, the end is self improvement. And self-improvement is what is painful.

As GM Ben Finegold popularized for chess 'the Truth hurts', as self improvement has to realistically see the defects in the current status, compared to a future state where a person no longer acts like they currently do. Hence the Truth hurts, looking in the mirror honestly, reveals flaws, and the only way to make the flaws go away is the painful process of self-improvement.

Hence elementary students are the primary beneficiary of chess, as young children recognize their status and want to improve and become adults, and the current state of children is not caused by their own bad decisions, but just being young and not knowing. So self-improvement in young children is in fact not as painful is self-improvement for adults, or even teenagers.

Check out my blog on Cognitive Dissonance and Chess Improvement, where I espouse the same idea.
https://lichess.org/@/DIAChessClubStudies/blog/cognitive-dissonance-and-chess-improvement/H1i9q3so

I had planned a long series on Models of Expertise - Stages from Novice to Master - Introduction, but did not make much progress.
https://lichess.org/@/DIAChessClubStudies/blog/models-of-expertise-stages-from-novice-to-master-introduction/Iql3GxJ8

In that article I note the change in approach in the 1980s from Michelene Chi (original test subject in Chase and Simon's 1972 study at Carnegie Melon. But shifted away from studied 'chess masters' as not particularly informative for psychology. As the process form beginner to intermediate is much more important for psychological research than top players, and research into top players has provided very little useful insight, so much so modern pyschology no longer studies top chess players.

Blessings, thanks for writing, be interesting in working together on this line of research, but more a 'general theory of selfimprovement / expertise',

Nice work, thanks for sharing your thoughts and research. Some insight of a chess coach for decades, and theorist: 1. Chess is ill defined, and means different things to different people. The most popular form of chess in non competitive among children, like any other board game. The least popular form of chess is competitive chess. Less than 1/20 regular chess players will ever play in a chess tournament, and the majority of chess players don't care or follow competitive chess. So any psychological study of chess has to properly define and divide the various forms of chess, as studies have revealed different things about 'why people play chess?' or 'what chess means?', and competitive players (vast minority of players) are mostly interested in winning and ego factors. The majority of non-competitive players that enjoy chess, often don't have a strong connection to the reason of competitive players, or tournament players, and often don't even understand why people are so competitive, and not sure what winning at chess actually means. 2. Problem Solving, joy of figuring things out. Majority of amateur chess players have various reasons for enjoying playing chess, such as networking, social factors, that have nothing to do with the game itself, and winning or losing has little influence on why they play. But besides the social factors, the main attraction to chess, especially for the main audience (elementary / middle school students) is about learning problem solving skills. The joy of solving problems is different from competitive play, and goes together with the young mind learning mathematics and other logic skills, but the winning / competitive aspect is less important to the education value of learning to use one's mind. 3. The Cross This history of the game, and the obvious dynamics of the board, most notable the Black / White dynamic, and the Cross, often stands out most to new players (experienced / competitive players often forget the Cross, or detach chess from the meaning of the Cross. But being the article about pain / suffering in chess, has to recognize the symbolism of the Cross That has the religious note such as Ecclesiastes 1:18, "with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief,", but a clear connection between self-improvement and suffering. 4. Self-improvement As I say 'chess is about self improvement', but more a bait and switch for children. Chess is a means, not an end, the end is self improvement. And self-improvement is what is painful. As GM Ben Finegold popularized for chess 'the Truth hurts', as self improvement has to realistically see the defects in the current status, compared to a future state where a person no longer acts like they currently do. Hence the Truth hurts, looking in the mirror honestly, reveals flaws, and the only way to make the flaws go away is the painful process of self-improvement. Hence elementary students are the primary beneficiary of chess, as young children recognize their status and want to improve and become adults, and the current state of children is not caused by their own bad decisions, but just being young and not knowing. So self-improvement in young children is in fact not as painful is self-improvement for adults, or even teenagers. Check out my blog on Cognitive Dissonance and Chess Improvement, where I espouse the same idea. https://lichess.org/@/DIAChessClubStudies/blog/cognitive-dissonance-and-chess-improvement/H1i9q3so I had planned a long series on Models of Expertise - Stages from Novice to Master - Introduction, but did not make much progress. https://lichess.org/@/DIAChessClubStudies/blog/models-of-expertise-stages-from-novice-to-master-introduction/Iql3GxJ8 In that article I note the change in approach in the 1980s from Michelene Chi (original test subject in Chase and Simon's 1972 study at Carnegie Melon. But shifted away from studied 'chess masters' as not particularly informative for psychology. As the process form beginner to intermediate is much more important for psychological research than top players, and research into top players has provided very little useful insight, so much so modern pyschology no longer studies top chess players. Blessings, thanks for writing, be interesting in working together on this line of research, but more a 'general theory of selfimprovement / expertise',

Really liked the article, interesting topic! There is a small mistake in the fourth part ("What is ACT about?") "being flexible in your understanding of who you are (Self-as-Content)" - it should probably say Self-as-Context in the brackets.. same for the next 2 lines:the ability to initiate and follow-through on intentional choices you make (Inaction)" =>"Commited action" and the last one should be "Values" I believe

Really liked the article, interesting topic! There is a small mistake in the fourth part ("What is ACT about?") "being flexible in your understanding of who you are (Self-as-Content)" - it should probably say Self-as-Context in the brackets.. same for the next 2 lines:the ability to initiate and follow-through on intentional choices you make (Inaction)" =>"Commited action" and the last one should be "Values" I believe

@CagnusMarlsen92 said in #6:

Really liked the article, interesting topic! There is a small mistake in the fourth part ("What is ACT about?") "being flexible in your understanding of who you are (Self-as-Content)" - it should probably say Self-as-Context in the brackets.. same for the next 2 lines:the ability to initiate and follow-through on intentional choices you make (Inaction)" =>"Commited action" and the last one should be "Values" I believe

Thank you! I will correct it.

@CagnusMarlsen92 said in #6: > Really liked the article, interesting topic! There is a small mistake in the fourth part ("What is ACT about?") "being flexible in your understanding of who you are (Self-as-Content)" - it should probably say Self-as-Context in the brackets.. same for the next 2 lines:the ability to initiate and follow-through on intentional choices you make (Inaction)" =>"Commited action" and the last one should be "Values" I believe Thank you! I will correct it.

Brilliant exposition! I have been looking for a way to link chess to life for a long time, this approach is very immediately relevant and easy to get. Also you explain ACT paradigm very clearly and accessibly. Saved $$ of therapy :)

Brilliant exposition! I have been looking for a way to link chess to life for a long time, this approach is very immediately relevant and easy to get. Also you explain ACT paradigm very clearly and accessibly. Saved $$ of therapy :)

This is a nice article. I haven't read it in depth yet but I found your blog post on the six ACT pivots engaging. Before I came to chess as a game, I played other difficult games like Starcraft: Broodwar. What I found interesting on reflection is that my chess games were more painful to lose than SC, although both games are roughly equal in how much skill determines their outcome (as opposed to luck).

So I started thinking of chess as something like "Starcraft over-the-board" (pretty fun actually from an imaginative standpoint, too) and considered some of the concepts that the chess community holds onto dearly such as "adult-improvers." Why are there no "adult-improvers" in Starcraft? The game has been out since 1999, and still has a scene, albeit niche. It has something to do with the culture around the game, and I believe there's some insight into how that culture can affect our self-worth when engaging with chess or any other game.

Looking forward to reading more of your article. Thanks.

This is a nice article. I haven't read it in depth yet but I found your blog post on the six ACT pivots engaging. Before I came to chess as a game, I played other difficult games like Starcraft: Broodwar. What I found interesting on reflection is that my chess games were more painful to lose than SC, although both games are roughly equal in how much skill determines their outcome (as opposed to luck). So I started thinking of chess as something like "Starcraft over-the-board" (pretty fun actually from an imaginative standpoint, too) and considered some of the concepts that the chess community holds onto dearly such as "adult-improvers." Why are there no "adult-improvers" in Starcraft? The game has been out since 1999, and still has a scene, albeit niche. It has something to do with the culture around the game, and I believe there's some insight into how that culture can affect our self-worth when engaging with chess or any other game. Looking forward to reading more of your article. Thanks.

@AnDreW_B_CoOpeR said in #8:

Brilliant exposition! I have been looking for a way to link chess to life for a long time, this approach is very immediately relevant and easy to get. Also you explain ACT paradigm very clearly and accessibly. Saved $$ of therapy :)

I definitely think this is a good start for someone looking to apply ACT to their life, but I also firmly believe (from experience) that seeking out a therapist trained in ACT is the best way to do that! If you can afford it, I highly recommend that you do.

@AnDreW_B_CoOpeR said in #8: > Brilliant exposition! I have been looking for a way to link chess to life for a long time, this approach is very immediately relevant and easy to get. Also you explain ACT paradigm very clearly and accessibly. Saved $$ of therapy :) I definitely think this is a good start for someone looking to apply ACT to their life, but I also firmly believe (from experience) that seeking out a therapist trained in ACT is the best way to do that! If you can afford it, I highly recommend that you do.