DG of the Boylston Chess Club Blog posts, with disapproval, a story about an elementary school chess tournament with no tournament winners. (The only prize was a chess set awarded on the basis of - ironically - a drawing.)
As I mentioned, DG disapproves, heading his post "With no winners, isn't everyone a loser?", and his first commentator appeals to nature, red in tooth and nail, to offer his support. Commentator #2 ("The Hungarian Knight"; henceforth THK), however, agrees with the tournament organizers - but not based on an unqualified rejection of competition:
I can't disagree with you more. A chess tournament in an elementary school should be fostering life-long chess adherents. For 1st through 3rd grades any and all games should be instructive and not competitive. There is plenty of time for competitive chess. And, if a child is that good, there are definitely competitive avenues for that child to explore.
I'm no specialist in elementary ed, but - pending correction from relevant experts - I disagree with THK's reasoning. While I have no problem with the claim that an elementary school chess tournament should have as (a) primary motivation that of fostering an enduring love of the game, I can't see why a normal tournament with prize-winners would fail to have that effect. The only statement in the neighborhood of an argument is that (for 1st-3rd grades) "any and all games should be instructive and not competitive."
This looks like a false dilemma: can't a game be competitive and instructive? In fact, the competitive aspect may well foster the instructional value. If I know that doing x, y and z in the future will increase my winning chances while a, b and c will enrich my subsequent opportunities to lose, then unless I'm impervious to competitive factors, I'm motivated to incorporate x-z and eschew a-c!
Contrary to THK's thesis, it seems to me less likely that a player will learn when nothing's at stake. In the absence of carrots and sticks, it's hard to see what will attract kids to the game at all, let alone learning it. There is the beauty of the game, yes, but it's the rare youngster whose aesthetic sensibility is so well developed that he or she will fall in love with chess, apart from any concrete successes. (And those that would are (1) likely to be very good at the game, and (2) are such that if they weren't very good, would probably enjoy it anyway.)
Another point: the tournament organizers' ploy is hollow anyway, because while they're not recognizing overall tournament winners, the individual games are still conducted in the usual way; to wit, with winners and (gasp!) losers. Will a player who lost every game really learn more and feel a less upset, just because no one won a first-place trophy?
If anything, the tournament's unspoken message is rather cynical: excellence will not be rewarded and talent, practice and effort don't matter either. Wonderful!
Rather than perpetrate this farce against both chess and the value of excellence, teachers and organizers can foster a love of the game in other ways, while helping kids realize that their intrinsic value as human beings is not determined by their results in a chess tournament. Of course kids (and adults, for that matter) shouldn't associate their self-worth with their ELO or place in the tournament table, but that's a more general problem that can be addressed while simultaneously allowing for competition. Put simply, to say that A is better than B at X does not mean that A is superior to B per se. (Making this point is straightforward within Judeo-Christian thought; other frameworks will have to supply alternative explanations.)
In sum, at least three distinct but non-contradictory messages should be given to young children. First, all human beings, qua human beings, are equal. Second, it's important to do one's best. One doesn't have control over one's talents, but does have control over how hard she applies herself to whatever task is at hand (whether competing or practicing). And third, one should strive for, appreciate and reward excellence. (Most sensibly, one should find the intersection of their talents and interests and strive in that direction.)
Finally, a point about competition per se. While it's certainly possible to be overly competitive, competition can be healthy, too - see this extremely interesting essay on, of all things, boxing and philosophy. (Via Maverick Philosopher)
Moreover child's world is a tough one. Their line of reasoning is indeed, that the better one is also the superior one. A tournament with prizewinners confirms this thought and stimulates looking down on the weaklings.
Finally the argument, that competition leads to instruction is only true for those, who win at least a few games. The untalented ones only will develop dislike.
All in all I feel strong sympathy for this elementary school. Even adults enjoy skittle games, just to releave the pressure, don't they? Then the only good reason to stress competition is to select superiority - which happened in Nazi-Germany and in the Soviet-Union.
OK, I have exaggerated on purpose. But I hope to have made clear, why an elementary school - not a chess club - may want to get rid of the competitive element. It is not as beneficial as DM paints.
I'm not sure what's "strange" about my argument - that x disagrees with y doesn't automatically make y's argument strange. Leaving the rhetoric aside, let's work through the substance of the disagreement.
The first point you seem to be making is this: I recognize that the aesthetic appeal of chess is too "adult" for most children, but I also appeal to the "non-childish" carrot-and-stick method of motivating kids. Apparently, I'm guilty of some sort of inconsistency, but I don't see how. The problem with the aesthetic approach is that it requires a level of sophistication very young children are (a) unlikely to possess and (b) are relatively unlikely to find as a motivation. (At least that's my hypothesis - I could be wrong!) In short, there's a lack in the child. The carrot-and-stick (henceforth c-a-s) approach isn't impeded by any similar lack in the child - it's the adults who are utilizing it.
So the problem isn't inconsistency - in which case the comment about aesthetics is wholly beside the point - but that the c-a-s won't make kids fall in love with the game. I agree about it in a narrow sense - and think in that narrow sense the point applies to everyone, not just young children! In a broader sense, however, I think it's false. Many of us pursue new things for extrinsic reasons (i.e. carrots and sticks), but in the process, come to enjoy those new practices, subjects or what-not for their own sakes. Think of kids being pushed to play musical instruments, or a guy entering a dance class to meet gals and coming to enjoy the activity, or a person taking up jogging for the sake of her health and coming to love it for the runner's high, or a student taking a philosophy class to meet a requirement and coming to love the discipline. Maybe this happens primarily to adults, but it happens to kids, too.
Next point: the world of a child can be tough, sure. But it's not obvious either that the solution is to shield them from all competition. (If it is, then why let them play chess games at all?) Further, as I suggested in my post, there's no reason why the youngster can't be affirmed for her value while acknowledging that some are better at something or other than others. Some kids are stronger, better-looking, smarter, more popular, richer, faster, etc., etc., than others. It's just life.
Those who are severely competition-averse or whose self-esteem is exceptionally fragile can opt out - who said everyone had to play in the chess tournament in the first place? At any rate, I'm not persuaded that kids are as fragile as MN seems to think. I learned chess when I was 8, and while I was a smart kid, I was smaller and younger (up to 2 years younger) than my classmates. I don't think I was an outcast, but I wasn't Mr. Popularity, either. Yet when I was taught to play - for a school tournament! - I lost right away. I don't recall what happened next, but I didn't come to hate the game and I didn't wallow in self-pity. Granted, some kids might, but as far as I can tell, the 8-year-old me was just about as promising a test case for the fragility hypothesis as one is likely to find. So I think the hypothesis is pretty shaky.
Finally, MN manages to misrepresent my view while using an analogy that is both inapt and exceptionally inappropriate. My point wasn't to "stress competition", especially not to "select superiority". Rather, my point is that trying to drain away the competitive aspects of a chess tournament is artificial, misguided and possibly counterproductive. Who said they had to have a tournament in the first place? Why not just have a "free time" when anyone who wants to play can play (if we're worried about kids' reactions to competition)? All the kids who like the game and are competitive will gravitate, and those who enjoy "the pleasure of shifting wood" can do their thing, too.
As for the analogy, it seems to employ an argument of the form Bad people endorsed x; therefore, endorsing x is bad. As I recall, the Nazis were big on hygiene and physical fitness; does this mean Mr. Nieuweboer will therefore abstain from bathing and exercise? I hope not! Among the problems with this analogy: I'm not advocating competition for the reasons MN suggests; the fact that bad people did advocate competition doesn't mean that competition is bad; finally, what made the Nazis and the Soviet regime noxious wasn't their excessively enthusiastic attitude to competition. Rather, it was their demonically evil decision to murder millions of people on behalf of insane ideologies.
As a teacher I can tell you, that one can stimulate doing one's best by other means than competition. In fact the whole argument on extrensic reasons is the opposite of my practice as a teacher in maths and physics.
Komsomol and Hitler Jugend were founded on social darwinistic principles. So is a private chess tournament or the competition of a club. That is OK indeed on these occasions, but not on a primary school imo.
Finally DM is guilty of about the same he accuses me of: I never stated, that kids should be shielded from competition. My point is, that stressing competition on a primary school is a bad idea. So I think the "free time" chess idea a good one too. I can imagine, that the school in case wanted to have a more organised form though. And I fail to see, why the artificial form of non-prize winners should hurt any participating kid.
The fact, that something is artificial,is not an argument against it. Playing violin for instance requires unnatural positions of the head and both arms, which in the long run may cause severe injuries. Still I don't think DM objects it.
I want to avoid that mistake in our debate on competitive chess. That is why I focuse on the negative sides. The benefits of chess competition already have been stressed enough on this site.
"[O]ne can stimulate doing one's best by other means than competition." Possibly, sure, but I never denied this.
Re Komsomol and the @$#&*( youth: again, there's no point in tying them in as an example except to poison the wells. Frankly, I will not tolerate their continued use as examples. Competition is ubiquitous - it's inherent in a chess game, for goodness' sake! - and one isn't a social darwinist merely by holding events that have competitive outcomes.
Skipping to a new topic - boxing: I was not advocating boxing. What I said was that the essay is interesting - and it is! Further, the writer addressed the issue of head trauma. There's a huge difference between amateurs, who box three round fights with protective head gear and Mohammed Ali, who was a long-time professional (after a substantial amateur career) who went up against some of the hardest punchers ever in one 15-rounder after another.
One last comment, re the second PS: it's actually pretty rare that I stress the benefits of chess competition on the site. In fact, one of my first posts, back in the days when the blog was on blogspot, broached the question of whether Christians could, as Christians, legitimately play chess. There are benefits one can get from competition that are difficult to achieve by other means, but it has its dangers as well. But those dangers come from playing the game, and creating pseudo-tournaments will not eliminate them.
Unlike Music or dance playing chess is an inherently competitive activity. Aside from the occasional draw there is one winner and one loser in chess. It is precisely this makes chess a great game for children. They need to learn about competition in a healthy supportive environment so they can be prepared to enter the real world. This is especially true in capitalist countries. Let them learn how to lose a chess game so that they can handle the more important competitive losses to come later in life. And after they have this loss let them learn that with a little work and persistence they can achieve their goals. I see this happen all the time.