PDA

View Full Version : Chess In Schools



doc
18-08-2004, 02:25 PM
Hey , I was wondering what is the current situation with chess in schools.

Has chess in any school been incorporated into the curriculum for all students to participate?

jenni
18-08-2004, 03:31 PM
It was in a number of ACT schools. Evatt Primary was using it as part of their Maths program. St Monica's, St Thomas, North Ainslie and Holy Spirit all had Geoff Butler spending a day at the school and taking chess classes, where the whole class received chess lessons.

Jeff Suptut had similar arrangements with some schools and I think currently Hawker Primary and Turner Primary are doing some sort of whole of school chess exercise.

A number of schools in the ACT would like to do it, but we are lacking the chess coaches.

Many schools use it as a G&T/extension activity.

Rincewind
18-08-2004, 05:41 PM
I only "agreed" as it was not entirely clear what scale you were thinking of with the question. I think it should be included to the same extent that baseball (for example) is a part of the school curriculum. Not to the same extent that, say, history, economics or music are a part of the school curriculum.

PHAT
18-08-2004, 07:00 PM
I voted undecided.

While I would love to see chess as a subject, there is already too much in the school's curricula. FMD, kids are still coming out of the end of the sausage machine iliterate, innumerate or both. However, I think chess could definitely be used as a tool in teaching.

Chess ought best to be an "extra curricula" in the same way as dance, camps, science comps, et cetera are now.

jenni
18-08-2004, 09:01 PM
I only "agreed" as it was not entirely clear what scale you were thinking of with the question. I think it should be included to the same extent that baseball (for example) is a part of the school curriculum. Not to the same extent that, say, history, economics or music are a part of the school curriculum.
Why not? I agree with history, because I think it is a critiical subject (together with Maths, Science, English and Geography. Economics is a bit more dubious and definitely not music.

I think music is important, so is art, but why should a fully rounded curriculum not include something like bridge/chess?

Garvinator
18-08-2004, 09:09 PM
I think it is very important in todays times that chess is taught in schools from a very young age. Chess is one of the only sports where you are on your own, responsible completely for your own decisions. You have to learn to budget your time, think clearly and there are very few if no excuses.

cincinnatus
18-08-2004, 09:11 PM
While I would love to see chess as a subject, there is already too much in the school's curricula.

Chess shouldn't crowd out more traditional subjects if correctly integrated into the curriculum, but complement them.

See "The Case for Chess as a Tool to Develop Our Children's Minds".

http://www.auschess.org.au/articles/chessmind.htm

Kevin Bonham
19-08-2004, 01:49 AM
I think it should be included to the same extent that baseball (for example) is a part of the school curriculum. Not to the same extent that, say, history, economics or music are a part of the school curriculum.

I fully agree with this.

At school whenever a Phys Ed teacher rebuked me for a slack or sloppy effort at something, I would challenge him/her to play a game of chess against me in front of the class during Phys Ed lesson time. All shirked the challenge except one (who actually put up a reasonable fight and later went on to do a bit of chess coaching at school as well.)

PHAT
19-08-2004, 04:57 PM
At school whenever a Phys Ed teacher rebuked me for a slack or sloppy effort at something, I would challenge him/her to play a game of chess against me in front of the class during Phys Ed lesson time.

Good job :rolleyes: Just the kind of petulent reaction that makes chess look like todally-uncool geekdom.

Perhaps next time some chess player makes a comment about my slack effort OTB, I should invite them to pull on some boxing gloves.

It is no wonder you got bullied.

Rincewind
19-08-2004, 05:24 PM
Why not? I agree with history, because I think it is a critiical subject (together with Maths, Science, English and Geography. Economics is a bit more dubious and definitely not music.

I think music is important, so is art, but why should a fully rounded curriculum not include something like bridge/chess?

Both music and art are of much greater cultural significance than chess. Chess is a past-time, game and sport and should be integrated into the curriculum as such. It should not be a core subject (like math, english, science) or an elective subject (like history, geography, economics, foreign language, music or art).

PHAT
19-08-2004, 05:27 PM
Both music and art are of much greater cultural significance than chess. Chess is a past-time, game and sport and should be integrated into the curriculum as such. It should not be a core subject (like math, english, science) or an elective subject (like history, geography, economics, foreign language, music or art).

Ditto

Garvinator
19-08-2004, 05:43 PM
Chess is a past-time, game and sport and should be integrated into the curriculum as such.
in australia that is, in other parts of the world chess is the main sport, just as much as physical education and outdoor sports are in australia.

Rincewind
19-08-2004, 05:51 PM
in australia that is, in other parts of the world chess is the main sport, just as much as physical education and outdoor sports are in australia.

Sorry. I thought we were talking about the curriculum of Australian schools.

Yes chess is a bigger sport in many countries but that shouldn't make it any higher on the totem pole of subjects at school. In our school, all sports are taught as a part of physical education. We don't teach a bunch of sports as physical education and then have 3 hours a week dedicated to swimming (for example) for the whole year. We might spend 6 weeks on cricket and only 2 on baseball and in that sort of context, chess could be given more time. But I don't think we need to have a subject called chess which students can spend 3 hours a week in for the whole year, each and every year.

Perhaps chess should be added to the roster of winter sports in all schools as a first step.

Garvinator
19-08-2004, 05:55 PM
Perhaps chess should be added to the roster of winter sports in all schools as a first step. i would agree with this, especially in primary school. I remember in primary school doing swimming, athletics and all that stuff. In high school, our school gave us many sport options. Of course if chess is to be part of say pe, then it needs a competent teacher, or dare i say coach ;)

Garvinator
19-08-2004, 05:55 PM
Sorry. I thought we were talking about the curriculum of Australian schools. we are and the thread title was chess in schools
:D

jenni
19-08-2004, 10:18 PM
Both music and art are of much greater cultural significance than chess. Chess is a past-time, game and sport and should be integrated into the curriculum as such. It should not be a core subject (like math, english, science) or an elective subject (like history, geography, economics, foreign language, music or art).

Sounds like cultural imperialism to me. Perhaps the Russians might disagree with your placement of chess?

I think it should be an elective. At many schools you have a range of electives, such as dance, music, sewing, cooking, tech drawing etc. I can't see why chess can't have a place in the set of electives. (Apart from the lack of qualified people to teach it - a major problem in Australia)

Many of things we have as electives are practical (cooking), and an appreciation of art and music is valuable (maybe - I value it, but your average high school boy?). Curriculum seems very feminised to me - why include dance? Why not allow a choice of something like chess to balance it.

Kevin Bonham
20-08-2004, 12:10 AM
Good job :rolleyes: Just the kind of petulent reaction that makes chess look like todally-uncool geekdom.

It wasn't petulant at all - it was always done in the best of cheeky stirring humour and really the sort of stunt that you should be relating to and applauding instead of carrying on like a conservative killjoy for the sake of yet another personal beat-up. You have a great tendency to aggressively assert negatives about past situations which you actually know nothing about. :hand:


Perhaps next time some chess player makes a comment about my slack effort OTB, I should invite them to pull on some boxing gloves.

Irrelevant objection - chess and boxing are both freely enjoyed recreational activities, but in this case the curriculum prioritised physical sport over chess.

Looks like your argument just got KO'd. Again.

jenni: Perhaps I would agree with mind sports generally being a curriculum elective but I really can't see a case for chess being one by itself.

Garvinator
20-08-2004, 12:48 AM
I think it should be an elective. At many schools you have a range of electives, such as dance, music, sewing, cooking, tech drawing etc. I can't see why chess can't have a place in the set of electives. (Apart from the lack of qualified people to teach it - a major problem in Australia)

Many of things we have as electives are practical (cooking), and an appreciation of art and music is valuable (maybe - I value it, but your average high school boy?). Curriculum seems very feminised to me - why include dance? Why not allow a choice of something like chess to balance it.
up here in brisbane, i remember in year 8 and 9 doing all sort of subjects divided up into periods during the week. These subjects included art, graphics, dance, speech and drama and other 'non standard' subjects. I see no reason with all these subjects that chess couldnt be one of them.

At the end of year 9, each student had to do one type of maths, english, science and i think pe as well. then you had to choose another two subjects as well.

I am not suggesting that chess would be a subject that a student could choose for their op :lol: but could be taught in year 8 or 9 for other reasons already listed before.

firegoat7
20-08-2004, 02:26 AM
Interesting debate should chess be taught in school?

Well I thought it might help to investigate the concept of 'school' first before asking whether chess ought to be taught there.

Kindergarten- should be about socialising and the senses, so definately not. Any game that is competitive should be discouraged at this level.

Primary school- Well I'm a strong advocate for not teaching chess to anybody below the age of six, simply because most children at this age find it hard to conceptualise things. Basically I think Art,Language and Music would be much better investments of time.So I agree with Bazza here.

What about those above six. Well, this is a different ball game. Once children can write and do basic mathematics then I see no reason why chess ought not to be taught.

As an educational tool I believe it far outweighs, mathematics. It is simply broader in scope, with more benefits then the mere technicality of being a mathematician. afterall, haven't we invented calculators. Still I won't hold my breath on maths being made an elective. How else is scientific capitalism going to disguise its indoctrinating mandate if the peasants can't count.

Chess is a brutal game, it is possibly the ultimate in psychological competitve individualism. As such in our society it can teach lessons that possibly no other subject in school can teach. The worse thing it seems to do is to bruise your ego. Provided it is taught properly (I doubt this is the case with any coach in Australia), Its benefits ought to outweigh any other subject.

Regardless of what I think it can do, it is well documented, in numerous studies that chess is a powerful educational tool. So let us compare what it is up against:

History-: Well I know its changed quite a bit, but hey I never learnt about miners being shot by police in Newcastle during the 30s, or how colonials basically stole the whole continent. All I seem to remember is something about two dickhead bushwalkers the great bourke and willsy.

Geography-: What a crock that was, baobab trees and Bedouin bushmen. Please!, I learnt more from getting an air ticket.

English-: Dickens and Shakespeare, not to mention grammar imperialism. Fac it the post modernists have destroyed the notion that english matters. At the university level all it does is suck up to philosophy, basically because evryone knows that it it is a subject for flakes.

Science-: Would it really matter to 99% of people if they did not know how to use a bunson burner? I think not. I will only ever consider this hoax real when the white labcoat cults finally realise the proof that living in a completely rational world is BORING. Really all scientists are just observors. May I suggest bird-watching with a field manuel may be a more interesting way of gaining the same skills (sic). Afterall remember the famous saying "It wasn't the heroin addicts who invented the nuclear bomb!"

Economics: Spare me, Taro reading would be a more appropriate way of spending time. At least its often more accurate.

Lets face it. Education is a crock under market capitalism. Its all designed to keep the sheep bleating, the outsiders out, and the rich content. A game like chess that teaches the outcomes of individual competitiveness would surely be to dangerous to include as a propaganda device for the EDUCATED.

Rincewind
20-08-2004, 08:11 AM
Sounds like cultural imperialism to me. Perhaps the Russians might disagree with your placement of chess?

Perhaps the really chessaholic ones might. However, Russia has a very rich culture in music, painting, scupture and dance and I think a balanced look at the the contribution to Russian culture would put chess in a similar position of relative importance.


I think it should be an elective. At many schools you have a range of electives, such as dance, music, sewing, cooking, tech drawing etc. I can't see why chess can't have a place in the set of electives. (Apart from the lack of qualified people to teach it - a major problem in Australia)

Dance and music a major art forms of much greater social (to avoid the c-word) significance than chess. Sewing, cooking and tech-drawing are life/employment skills and so very important in preparing students for adulthood. Chess is basically a game.


Many of things we have as electives are practical (cooking), and an appreciation of art and music is valuable (maybe - I value it, but your average high school boy?). Curriculum seems very feminised to me - why include dance? Why not allow a choice of something like chess to balance it.

Even dance is more culturally significant than chess and there are several orders of magnitude more professional dancers in Australia (and I would venture to guess also in Russia) than professional chess players.

Don't get me wrong, it is not that chess should not be included in school curriculum. It is a question of finding the correct scale. Elite chess players will need to be coached outside of school and for several hours a week much like any developing elite sportsperson. However, the run of the mill student should not be made endure any more chess than, say, baseball. And it is not the average school's job to develop elite chess players.

jenni
20-08-2004, 09:58 AM
Perhaps the really chessaholic ones might. However, Russia has a very rich culture in music, painting, scupture and dance and I think a balanced look at the the contribution to Russian culture would put chess in a similar position of relative importance.



Dance and music a major art forms of much greater social (to avoid the c-word) significance than chess. Sewing, cooking and tech-drawing are life/employment skills and so very important in preparing students for adulthood. Chess is basically a game.



Even dance is more culturally significant than chess and there are several orders of magnitude more professional dancers in Australia (and I would venture to guess also in Russia) than professional chess players.

Don't get me wrong, it is not that chess should not be included in school curriculum. It is a question of finding the correct scale. Elite chess players will need to be coached outside of school and for several hours a week much like any developing elite sportsperson. However, the run of the mill student should not be made endure any more chess than, say, baseball. And it is not the average school's job to develop elite chess players.

I guess I have a different perspective after 10 years of working (on a voluntary basis) in schools and with school children. Children (boys particularly ), are made to endure hours of art lessons and dance lessons and music lessons. It is excrutiatingly boring for most of them and leads to major behaviour problems.

I don't see chess as just a "game" or just a "sport'. I find your attitude very blinkered! If you have seen just how wonderful chess can be when used in a curriculum, I htink you would have a different attitude. There are many (female) principals in the ACT, who have embraced chess with enthusiasm (although they still have not the faintest idea how it is played), because they have seen the benefits in their schools, particularly with boys.

If I had a dollar for every time I have been warned by a teacher to watch out for xyz, because they are so badly behaved , when taking a group out of school, I would be on the road to riches! Needless to say xyz has always behaved impeccably at chess comps.

We talk a lot about diffeentiated curriculums, but it doesn't happen. Chess meets the needs of a group of children who fall theough the cracks in the average school. I have yet to come across primary school kids who find chess boring.

I don't believe schools should turn out elite chess players - whoever said that? They don't cater for elite musicians or artisits either. However a basic chess program, either as an elective, used in Gifted and talented program, or as maths enrichment works very well.

Canada has an enormous Maths and Chess program, which works successfully.

Anyway we will continue to include chess in the curriculum in the ACT - maybe the reason why the ACT is so successful at chess per head of population in Australia. :D

Rincewind
20-08-2004, 01:10 PM
I guess I have a different perspective after 10 years of working (on a voluntary basis) in schools and with school children. Children (boys particularly ), are made to endure hours of art lessons and dance lessons and music lessons. It is excrutiatingly boring for most of them and leads to major behaviour problems.

I would say reveals pre-existing major behavioural problems. Appreciation for art and music (in particular) is an important part of education and should not be undersold. Perhaps the problem is with the method. Dance is important too but not really sure what is on the curriculum here. When I went to school dance was more about developing social skills and interacting with the opposite sex in particular. As such it is important, dance as an art form was not covered in my public school education.


Anyway we will continue to include chess in the curriculum in the ACT - maybe the reason why the ACT is so successful at chess per head of population in Australia. :D

I agree it should be on the curriculum and the ACT probably has it closer to the right balance than NSW. Really I don't think our two positions are that different. Just that I tend to understate the case a bit so as not to be confused with those who overstate it. ;)

arosar
20-08-2004, 02:05 PM
Don't listen to jenni. She's a chess fundamentalist. It's ridiculous to give chess the same status and importance as mathematics, or humanities or music, etc. What can you do with chess other than to play chess?

And naturally, no one really takes fg7's post seriously.

AR

Rincewind
20-08-2004, 02:30 PM
Don't listen to jenni. She's a chess fundamentalist. It's ridiculous to give chess the same status and importance as mathematics, or humanities or music, etc. What can you do with chess other than to play chess?

Chess is a game that could be useful as a teaching aid in some parts of the existing curriculum. I am against presenting a position which is over the top as it tends to erode credibility. I doubt Jenni is as "fundamentalist" as you make out.


And naturally, no one really takes fg7's post seriously.

I took his post seriously. The problem with it is it was not about chess in schools and so off-topic for this thread. And not really about chess at all and so off topic for this forum. :)

firegoat7
20-08-2004, 02:36 PM
Dance and music a major art forms of much greater social (to avoid the c-word) significance than chess. This is plainly wrong. Afterall, what does social significance mean? If you mean social bonds formed between people then chess, unlike most sports, forms long term social bonds. I studied this once and found out that at my chessclub most of the members had played chess for an average of twelve years. Contray to popular belief, chess is, in actual fact, a very social game, despite its paradoxical individual nature, (u actually need an other to play).

Also, who is measuring social significance? I don't see how ballet, for example, is social? Isn't it exclusive. Only for certain body types. Your statement is simply wrong, dance is not necessarily more social then chess.

Music on the other hand may be, since speech itself is musically connected. However, often in modern society, musical taste depends on age. While music does include often it excludes (do u still listen to the wiggles?). Chess dosen't suffer these cultural problems. It is non- racial, generational, gender, and economically biased.


Sewing, cooking and tech-drawing are life/employment skills and so very important in preparing students for adulthood Sewing- I must admit, while I admire the skill, since it increases fine motor skills, has no real significance for most adults. People simply buy new clothing nowdays.

Cooking, again a handy skill, but one that is not necessary for an adult life in modern society. I can eat out every night without cooking in modern society. However, I personally do believe that this is an actual essential tool for people to be educated in (that is if we want people not to be dependent on others).

Technical drawing?? Technical drawing?? Technical drawing?? May be nice to learn, but lets face facts, I will not lose sleep if I cannot draw technically. Besides computers are eliminiting this skill.


Chess is basically a game. But then so is anything if thats the way you want to look at it. Life is a game itself. By saying its just a game, belittles chess. "Your equating it to peanuckle-SFBF". The Olympics are just games. Business is just a game. No!- Chess is not just a game, its a pursuit of excellence. To be excellent at chess develops qualities. It is the developing of qualities inside yourself that is the real winner for school chess.

So if you want to argue why chess should be taught in schools. Talk about what it develops culturally in people. Don't talk about chalk and cheese. Coffee dosen't taste like tea. Descibe the benefits for yourself.

Rincewind
20-08-2004, 03:06 PM
Your post is amusing but quite boring to debunk. Perhaps this is why I come across as a boring bourgeois. Still for the benefit of balance I guess someone has to do it.


This is plainly wrong. Afterall, what does social significance mean? If you mean social bonds formed between people then chess, unlike most sports, forms long term social bonds. I studied this once and found out that at my chessclub most of the members had played chess for an average of twelve years. Contray to popular belief, chess is, in actual fact, a very social game, despite its paradoxical individual nature, (u actually need an other to play).

By social significance I meant they inteprete and give meaning to our shared experience as a group. Not all the groups include everyone but there is an aspect of shared experience there which proves the post-modernest were wrong. ;)


Also, who is measuring social significance? I don't see how ballet, for example, is social? Isn't it exclusive. Only for certain body types. Your statement is simply wrong, dance is not necessarily more social then chess.

Everyone measures it for themselves but as a culture it is the collection of all these measures which is important. Go and ask 100 people in the street if they have been more inspired by Morphy or Mozart.


Music on the other hand may be, since speech itself is musically connected. However, often in modern society, musical taste depends on age. While music does include often it excludes (do u still listen to the wiggles?). Chess dosen't suffer these cultural problems. It is non- racial, generational, gender, and economically biased.

I do still listen to the Wiggles, Bach, Public Enemy, Radio Head, Rage Against the Machine, Villa Lobos, Libertines, etc. Not all music is inclusive all all human beings but as I said above, they all have some inclusiveness in their nature.


Sewing- I must admit, while I admire the skill, since it increases fine motor skills, has no real significance for most adults. People simply buy new clothing nowdays.

And who manufactures these clothes?


Cooking, again a handy skill, but one that is not necessary for an adult life in modern society. I can eat out every night without cooking in modern society. However, I personally do believe that this is an actual essential tool for people to be educated in (that is if we want people not to be dependent on others).

Don't be bourgeois.


Technical drawing?? Technical drawing?? Technical drawing?? May be nice to learn, but lets face facts, I will not lose sleep if I cannot draw technically. Besides computers are eliminiting this skill.

The medium is changing the skills remain the same. Tech drawing is less about drawing a line without smudging than you think. Last time I check Tech drawing had been assimilated in to a more generic Engineering curriculum anyway.


But then so is anything if thats the way you want to look at it. Life is a game itself. By saying its just a game, belittles chess. "Your equating it to peanuckle-SFBF". The Olympics are just games. Business is just a game. No!- Chess is not just a game, its a pursuit of excellence. To be excellent at chess develops qualities. It is the developing of qualities inside yourself that is the real winner for school chess.

Now you start to get carried away. Both the Olympics and Business are not games, they are about making money and providing an opiate to the masses to take their attention of the fact that their governments are selling them out to the global corporations.


So if you want to argue why chess should be taught in schools. Talk about what it develops culturally in people. Don't talk about chalk and cheese. Coffee dosen't taste like tea. Descibe the benefits for yourself.

OK. Start a new thread with some reasoned arguments. Something on the contribution of chess to the culture of Western civilisation would be interesting. I never said it was zero but it certain isn't in the same league as music, painting or sculpture.

arosar
20-08-2004, 03:47 PM
So if you want to argue why chess should be taught in schools. Talk about what it [chess] develops culturally in people.

We've all forgiven but not forgotten. So my question is: was that Doeberl incident a display of culture then fg7?

AR

arosar
20-08-2004, 03:49 PM
Something on the contribution of chess to the culture of Western civilisation would be interesting.

Not so grandiose perhaps - but it was thanks to chess that the Brits lost their American colony.

AR

jenni
20-08-2004, 05:07 PM
Don't listen to jenni. She's a chess fundamentalist. It's ridiculous to give chess the same status and importance as mathematics, or humanities or music, etc. What can you do with chess other than to play chess?

And naturally, no one really takes fg7's post seriously.

AR

I am absolutely not a fundamentalist. If I am passionate about chess, it is because I have seen so many children benefit from having it added to their lives over the years.

Neither Tony or I played chess, until we ended up with chess addicted children.There are many times that I wish my children's school had not had it in the curriculum!

It fills a gap in what schools offer and can be used as an important educational tool. Kids don't find it boring, but it teaches concentration, accuracy and strategic thinking.


What can you do with chess other than to play chess?
AR

Umm - what do you do with music, except play it and listen to it? Not sure I understand the difference.

You can love playing chess and you can love watching chess. Personally I am more a watcher than a player :)

Rincewind
20-08-2004, 05:21 PM
Umm - what do you do with music, except play it and listen to it? Not sure I understand the difference.

Surely you are not as cold as this. Music communicates, it offers explaination and mean to our shared experiences. It has the power to change lives, bring down governments, redeem lost existences. Music operates on levels which chess simply does not and cannot.

Don't get me wrong, I really like chess too. But I think it is a limited agent for cultural enrichment.

arosar
20-08-2004, 05:33 PM
what do you do with music, except play it and listen to it? Not sure I understand the difference.

Music is communicative. Thus, I think it performs a far more significant socio-cultural function than chess ever could. This is because music, of whatever genre, style or type, requires no special knowledge to be appreciated.

AR

jenni
20-08-2004, 06:13 PM
Surely you are not as cold as this. Music communicates, it offers explaination and mean to our shared experiences. It has the power to change lives, bring down governments, redeem lost existences. Music operates on levels which chess simply does not and cannot.

Don't get me wrong, I really like chess too. But I think it is a limited agent for cultural enrichment.
Just give chess a chance. :)

I have two musicians in the family and I sit through innumerable practise sessions, competitions and orchestra performances. There is a level of appreciation - hard won over the years. However give me a game of chess anyday.

I guess we are coming from different angles - you are looking at the adult world of "culture". I look at the children's world, where music is incredibly important to a section (quite a large one) of children. It is fantastically funded and supported. I then look at those kids who really need somehting like chess and those needs are ignored. Lots of huffing and puffing about boys and boys education- quite the flavour of the moment, but nothing is done.

jenni
20-08-2004, 06:23 PM
Music is communicative. Thus, I think it performs a far more significant socio-cultural function than chess ever could. This is because music, of whatever genre, style or type, requires no special knowledge to be appreciated.

AR

Very sweeping statement! Looking back on my youth I liked music because
my friends liked it and I wanted to be part of the group, so I liked various groups and artists (Beetles, Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, Simon and Garfunkle). Predominantly I like the lyrics and identified them - it was that that talked to me and the music it went with insignificant.

Anyway this is not an attack on Music (or art or even tech drawing, although I do think computers have kind of made that irrelevant).

I just think chess is needed as well. There is a section of the school population that needs chess in the curriculum. No-one is suggesting music is thrown out, merely that chess is an elective (or combined in an extension maths program), so that the choice is there.

firegoat7
23-08-2004, 12:47 AM
Everyone measures it for themselves but as a culture it is the collection of all these measures which is important. Go and ask 100 people in the street if they have been more inspired by Morphy or Mozart. Actually I beg to differ, this popular measurement means very little actually. Go out and ask the same people if they are more inspired by Mozart or Big Brother. :eek:

Besides I'm asking you to forget about the culture angle. Ask yourself what chess develops in a person as opposed to what dance develops in a person. Then ask 'what is education supposed to be about?'






And who manufactures these clothes?


Increasingly, machines.




Don't be bourgeois. how is there something bourgeois about eating out?






OK. Start a new thread with some reasoned arguments. Something on the contribution of chess to the culture of Western civilisation would be interesting. I never said it was zero but it certain isn't in the same league as music, painting or sculpture. Why? Surely contributing to western cultural analysis, in an exclusive realm, is the epitome of being a bougeois. Lest we remind ourselves that chess was not invented in the west. Just what agenda are you pushing here, Barry?

Rincewind
23-08-2004, 01:35 AM
Actually I beg to differ, this popular measurement means very little actually. Go out and ask the same people if they are more inspired by Mozart or Big Brother. :eek: '

For a fair comparison, ask them about Big Brother in 200 years time. :eek:


Besides I'm asking you to forget about the culture angle. Ask yourself what chess develops in a person as opposed to what dance develops in a person. Then ask 'what is education supposed to be about?'

I don't think there is any one answer to that question. An important part of school education is about preparing the student for life beyone school. This means many things to many students and music will figure more importantly in the majority of students lives than chess will.


Increasingly, machines.

At the moment, still laboreously operated by humans.


how is there something bourgeois about eating out?

If you have to ask that question then it is already too late. Only the comfortable middle-class can contemplate not preparing their own meals on the scale you describe.


Why? Surely contributing to western cultural analysis, in an exclusive realm, is the epitome of being a bougeois. Lest we remind ourselves that chess was not invented in the west. Just what agenda are you pushing here, Barry?

There is no denying white Australian culture's occidental roots. While multiculturalism has adopted Asian and indigineous sub-cultures they are still trying to show-horn them into the "mainstream" western model.

The roots of chess are still a matter of some debate but that is of no relevance here as the question is with regard to the degreee to which chess should be adopted into the curriculum of Australian schools.

Debating this point is my agenda, muddying the waters would seem to be yours.

firegoat7
23-08-2004, 02:20 AM
For a fair comparison, ask them about Big Brother in 200 years time. :eek: Illogical. You have no way of predicting the future, so your arguement bares no credo. What is more, even if this statement made any sense, which it dosen't, you would have no possible way of determining the cultural values of a future society from their perspective. All you are doing is reconfirming your own cultural values.




I don't think there is any one answer to that question. An important part of school education is about preparing the student for life beyone school. This means many things to many students and music will figure more importantly in the majority of students lives than chess will. I've already agreed about music anyway, so this debate is irrelevent.



If you have to ask that question then it is already too late. Only the comfortable middle-class can contemplate not preparing their own meals on the scale you describe. Please spare me the moral lesson. Firstly, many people don't cook. Secondly, Cooking is often gender divided in modern households. Thirdly, since when has eating out been more expensive then cooking at home.

Why don't you go to a supermarket- buy some fresh fish and potatoes- consider the time it takes you to purchase and cook the product-factor in your cooking costs- and compare the results against going to your local fish and chip shop. Better still go a soup kitchen, then compare if your so called middle class reality arguement still exists then. Face it Barry, the exact opposite is probably true, middle class families eat at home because they are petty bourgeoisie. They like their private isolated environments.

Like I said before I agreed cooking was a necessary skill, but I'm not the one who suggests that eating out is bourgeois. That was you!

firegoat7
23-08-2004, 02:43 AM
At the moment, still laboreously operated by humans.

Ahhh but then we wouldn't have to learn to sew would we Barry. So why do students learn to sew in school?






Debating this point is my agenda, muddying the waters would seem to be yours. If debate was your point then why the emotive arguement? Could it be you were offended by me suggesting you are bourgeois. I was going to apologise for that statement and qualify it by suggesting that I was attacking your opinion not you personally.

But since you have adopted the porcupine defence of trying to defend these ideas without actual engagement, whilst utilising the arguements aka:bonhamesque of self assured moral superiority, with pedantic put downs then I am simply unsure whether I ought to apologise now.

Without knowing you personally (meaning I cannot talk with any real authority), may I suggest that your ideas on culture may not be your own, their simply a conditioning formed by a structurally dominant hegemonic power in which we are often not conscious of whose facts we espouse, hence my initial criticism of your writing. Only you can know if that is accurate or not.

Rincewind
23-08-2004, 08:01 AM
Illogical. You have no way of predicting the future, so your arguement bares no credo. What is more, even if this statement made any sense, which it dosen't, you would have no possible way of determining the cultural values of a future society from their perspective. All you are doing is reconfirming your own cultural values.

But I was not comparing, I was just demonstrating why your comparison was not fair. Let me make this easy for you, you were saying I was arguing ad populum , however, my argument is that in a discussion on cultural significance, argumentem ad populum isn't inappropriate. Lets start forom this point, assuming you even want to debate this point (see below).


I've already agreed about music anyway, so this debate is irrelevent.

Then why even try to debase my ad populum argument?


Please spare me the moral lesson. Firstly, many people don't cook. Secondly, Cooking is often gender divided in modern households. Thirdly, since when has eating out been more expensive then cooking at home.

Again, I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of your argument. Only the bourgeois can afford to eat out every night and you know it.


Why don't you go to a supermarket- buy some fresh fish and potatoes- consider the time it takes you to purchase and cook the product-factor in your cooking costs- and compare the results against going to your local fish and chip shop. Better still go a soup kitchen, then compare if your so called middle class reality arguement still exists then. Face it Barry, the exact opposite is probably true, middle class families eat at home because they are petty bourgeoisie. They like their private isolated environments.

Equating time with money is another trait of the bourgeois. The proletariat are money poor and time rich, therefore the time required to shop and prepare food does not enter into the equation.

Soup kitchens? Please. If that is the depths in disingenuity that you are willing to to descend to try and defend the indefensible I'd rather you didn't bother. You are just embarassing yourslf.



Like I said before I agreed cooking was a necessary skill, but I'm not the one who suggests that eating out is bourgeois. That was you!

And it is true.


Ahhh but then we wouldn't have to learn to sew would we Barry. So why do students learn to sew in school?

Sorry? I don't follow. Learning to use an overlocker is an essential skill in getting a job in the rag trade. As an aside, Australian textile workers also outnumber the number of professional chess players worldwide by a margin of many orders of magnitude.


If debate was your point then why the emotive arguement? Could it be you were offended by me suggesting you are bourgeois. I was going to apologise for that statement and qualify it by suggesting that I was attacking your opinion not you personally.

I thought I was remaining cool and detached.


But since you have adopted the porcupine defence of trying to defend these ideas without actual engagement, whilst utilising the arguements aka:bonhamesque of self assured moral superiority, with pedantic put downs then I am simply unsure whether I ought to apologise now.

If you call questioning your position the porpupine defense then that is your terminology, not mine. Like I said, I am interested in debating the value of chess as a curricular activity at Australian schools.

Apologising requires you to publically admit a mistake and therefore I'm sure you wont apologise, but feel free to publically commentate on your moral dilemma.


Without knowing you personally (meaning I cannot talk with any real authority), may I suggest that your ideas on culture may not be your own, their simply a conditioning formed by a structurally dominant hegemonic power in which we are often not conscious of whose facts we espouse, hence my initial criticism of your writing. Only you can know if that is accurate or not.

All people exist within their own cultural sensibilities. Just some are more sensible than others.

JGB
23-08-2004, 08:52 PM
There is an 'agree' although there in no option 'disagree' only 'strongly disagree'.

I basically disagree beacuse the kids already have too much to learn in school and have too little free time to play and enjoy free time compared to European kids. In the information age the kids need more time in the outdoors. It should definately be an option for thoses children who want to undertake it, and every school should have a chess club if the have a music or football team. It should not be a compulsory subject, even Russia has abolished that idea.

Lets face it the mathematics most kids learn in school they will never use again until they have to help their own kids out 20 years later, why add chess to that list. The kids who are forced to analyse chess position when they already dislike the game are not going to make chess any more popular.

jenni
23-08-2004, 09:33 PM
Lets face it the mathematics most kids learn in school they will never use again until they have to help their own kids out 20 years later, why add chess to that list. The kids who are forced to analyse chess position when they already dislike the game are not going to make chess any more popular.

When I picked myself off the floor after rolling around laughing at this one, I just had to post and agree with it. I think it depends how you include chess in the curriculum.

Certainly if you did it at high school, you might have to include some serious chess and analyse positions and make it drudgery.

However all the chess I have seen in schools, has been at the primary level and the kids have all been really engaged. They love learning they love playing. Tony and I were taking some year 5 kids for remedial reading some years ago - a couple of these kids were seriously badly behaved (you know future serial killer types, with those dead eyes, poor things). Anyway even these ones enjoyed playing chess. I used to do chess with them, while Tony did reading one on one and then swap over.

I just love working with young kids and chess, because they just love it so much. However I can imagine if you tried hard enough, you could make it deadly boring.

Alan Shore
23-08-2004, 11:03 PM
I just love working with young kids and chess, because they just love it so much. However I can imagine if you tried hard enough, you could make it deadly boring.

Oh I think the problem can be the opposite - overexuberance! I think my kids enjoy chess almost too much! Then there are those artistic types that build the pyramids out of pieces and those that create their own skittle variants... I think at that age it's always going to be fun, it's not till you're much older you realise hmm.. maybe not as fun as other things.

P.S. Jenni, I showed our game to one of my groups of kids today :D
It actually made a nice little puzzle for them to find the mate and then find it again if you had your queen on g7.

firegoat7
24-08-2004, 12:36 AM
But I was not comparing, I was just demonstrating why your comparison was not fair. Let me make this easy for you, you were saying I was arguing ad populum , however, my argument is that in a discussion on cultural significance, argumentem ad populum isn't inappropriate. Lets start forom this point, assuming you even want to debate this point (see below). Your ad populum arguement makes little sense. Culture is not measurable in such a way. Culture simply exists or it does not exist. Significance is a term you (BC) utilise to justify your cultural pre-dispositions. There is no way you can measure significance objectively, it is by nature subjective. Worth is not based on popularity.




Then why even try to debase my ad populum argument? if you care to remember, I suggested that music is a more social pursuit then chess simply because it has a closer relationship to human senses. I regard your ad populum arguement as nonsense. I have suggested to you that it would be better to focus on what skills learning chess develops in children. Since you so obviously miss my point, I will elucidate.

1.Chess teaches concentration
2.Chess teaches planning
3.Chess develops visualisation
4. Chess develops self-responsibility for decisions
5. Chess teaches you to be reflective
6. Chess encourages diary skills (ie remembering your historical games)
7. Chess develops long term community friendships
8. Chess skill leads to employement
9. Chess is a language that enables you to travel anywhere in the world with instant friendship (since all chessplayers speak the same language)
10. Chess develops your intuition.

Feel free, to add any of your own.




Again, I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of your argument. Only the bourgeois can afford to eat out every night and you know it.

Equating time with money is another trait of the bourgeois. The proletariat are money poor and time rich, therefore the time required to shop and prepare food does not enter into the equation.

Soup kitchens? Please. If that is the depths in disingenuity that you are willing to to descend to try and defend the indefensible I'd rather you didn't bother. You are just embarassing yourslf.

You clearly have little understanding of the terms 'bourgeoisie' and 'proletariat'. You also confuse E.P Thompsons time analysis of the bougeois with your own invention of proletariat lifestyles, add to this some irrelevent abstract conclusion and we have nothing but a repeating pattern of your misunderstanding. If any one should be embarrassed it would be you (BC). I reiterate you have little understanding of the terms 'bougeoisie' and 'proletariat'. The proof is your analysis.





And it is true. YEAH YEAH, and iraq had weapons of Mass destruction. We have heard all this before.




Sorry? I don't follow. Learning to use an overlocker is an essential skill in getting a job in the rag trade. As an aside, Australian textile workers also outnumber the number of professional chess players worldwide by a margin of many orders of magnitude. Therefore the conclusion would be education is about becoming an overlocker for industry. Great! school kids can't think in Barryworld but they dress nicely, and make lovely factory fodder.



If you call questioning your position the porpupine defense then that is your terminology, not mine. Like I said, I am interested in debating the value of chess as a curricular activity at Australian schools. Sure you are, so what values have you suggested chess develops? :owned:


Apologising requires you to publically admit a mistake and therefore I'm sure you wont apologise, but feel free to publically commentate on your moral dilemma.

All people exist within their own cultural sensibilities. Just some are more sensible than others. I apologise for calling you bougeoisie. You clearly have little understanding of what it means. Obviously your sensible replies have been shaded by your emotional nonsense.

Cheers FG7

P.S As for my moral dilemma, well its nice to engage in debate, but when people become authoritarian tossers aka (Self-Censored) and (Self-Censored) then its time to stop.

Rincewind
24-08-2004, 07:30 AM
P.S As for my moral dilemma, well its nice to engage in debate, but when people become authoritarian tossers aka (Self-Censored) and (Self-Censored) then its time to stop.

The only sensible thing you had to say. :hand:

arosar
24-08-2004, 09:37 AM
The only sensible thing you had to say. :hand:

Don't be such a d.ickhead Barry mate. Now respond properly.

Mate this is the only thread that's got something going for it over the past few days. Don't disappoint us.

C'mon mate. You can take him.

AR

ursogr8
24-08-2004, 11:18 AM
Don't be such a d.ickhead Barry mate. Now respond properly.

Mate this is the only thread that's got something going for it over the past few days. Don't disappoint us.

C'mon mate. You can take him.

AR

AR

While you are in an urging mood, what about talking ChessLover into a return to action? (Like, that selection APPEAL came and went without a whimper).

starter

jenni
24-08-2004, 11:51 AM
Oh I think the problem can be the opposite - overexuberance! I think my kids enjoy chess almost too much! Then there are those artistic types that build the pyramids out of pieces and those that create their own skittle variants... .

Yes they really like building those pyramids don't they? There you are - chess being used for fine motor development :)

arosar
24-08-2004, 01:37 PM
I basically disagree beacuse the kids already have too much to learn in school and have too little free time to play and enjoy free time compared to European kids. In the information age the kids need more time in the outdoors. It should definately be an option for thoses children who want to undertake it, and every school should have a chess club if the have a music or football team. It should not be a compulsory subject, even Russia has abolished that idea.

You're absolutely right on the money with this mate. These days it seems to me that the most popular forms of recreation are of a sedentary nature. Kids today remain indoors and just play video games. Stuff that! Mate I remember when I was a kid we went out fishing (one time we hired a poor fisherman's boat and sank it - what a laugh a second that was), catching birds and cook 'em, BMX riding, swimming, etc, etc; all active outdoorsy stuff. We had video games back in the day but that was just those tiny hand-held 'Game & Watch' ones (any1 remember them?).

OK, so chess should be in schools, but we must not givem the same importance as, say, Maths - no matter what some chess Taliban would have us believe.


The kids who are forced to analyse chess position when they already dislike the game are not going to make chess any more popular.

Quite right. I know of one 2000+ player who has not touched chess pieces for a coupla years cos he just came to hate it. He reckoned that when he started out in chess as a kid, he didn't find it particularly interesting cos it was a thing 'to study'. He only became serious as an adult. He woulda preferred it to be a a fun thing with lotsa puzzles. Now he's a major marathoner - runs bloody 10Ks a day mate!!

See, what some of these chess jihadists are proposing is a bit like speed dating. It's all artificial, regimented and formulaic. There's none of that decisive moment when you set your eyes upon someone (or something) and just be struck by the beauty and mystery of it all - as if to be left motionless like a stunned mullet. If some kid really falls in love with chess, then he or she will pursue it. That you can't teach.

AR

jenni
24-08-2004, 03:40 PM
You're absolutely right on the money with this mate. These days it seems to me that the most popular forms of recreation are of a sedentary nature. Kids today remain indoors and just play video games. Stuff that! Mate I remember when I was a kid we went out fishing (one time we hired a poor fisherman's boat and sank it - what a laugh a second that was), catching birds and cook 'em, BMX riding, swimming, etc, etc; all active outdoorsy stuff. We had video games back in the day but that was just those tiny hand-held 'Game & Watch' ones (any1 remember them?).

OK, so chess should be in schools, but we must not givem the same importance as, say, Maths - no matter what some chess Taliban would have us believe.



Quite right. I know of one 2000+ player who has not touched chess pieces for a coupla years cos he just came to hate it. He reckoned that when he started out in chess as a kid, he didn't find it particularly interesting cos it was a thing 'to study'. He only became serious as an adult. He woulda preferred it to be a a fun thing with lotsa puzzles. Now he's a major marathoner - runs bloody 10Ks a day mate!!

See, what some of these chess jihadists are proposing is a bit like speed dating. It's all artificial, regimented and formulaic. There's none of that decisive moment when you set your eyes upon someone (or something) and just be struck by the beauty and mystery of it all - as if to be left motionless like a stunned mullet. If some kid really falls in love with chess, then he or she will pursue it. That you can't teach.

AR
this is so selfish (AR = selfishness we all know that :) )you were lucky enough to be exposed to chess.

what about all the children in schools in Australia who would fall in love with chess if they were exposed to it - but never will under your philosophy?

If we expect them to love chess by going to some excrutiatingly boring adult club - yuk :evil:

Anyway my last word on the subject - my life is out of control at the moment and I can't waste time on the BB. Canberra will continue to have chess in the curriculum in schools and will continue to achieve way over our population base.

You can continue to hug your chess to your little chests and make it as small as possible - always nice to be a big fish in a small pond that the other way round.

arosar
24-08-2004, 04:34 PM
what about all the children in schools in Australia who would fall in love with chess if they were exposed to it - but never will under your philosophy?

If we expect them to love chess by going to some excrutiatingly boring adult club - yuk :evil:

Listen to me OK Mrs Oliver. We're not saying chess shouldn't be in schools. We're saying it should be, but not accorded the same importance as traditional subjects. By all means provide funding for a chess club, books, equipment or even time off to attend comps. But to make chess a full elective? C'mon! I suppose you want them kids to be tested in the HSC and VCE too?

Listen I appreciate what you're saying. I still remember how I finally succumbed to chess. I was in high-school and I happened to pick up Chernev's, "Combinations: The Heart of Chess" at the school library. I was completely breathless! Such beauty.

AR

Ian Rout
24-08-2004, 04:57 PM
I think there is a distinction between chess on the curriculum as a full elective and having it as one of those one period per week afterthoughts, such as music. When I was at high school we had music once or twice per week - I can't remember learning anything except possibly that Handel died in 1770, or maybe Beethoven was born then, or both, but I know 1770 was a big year - anyway we had music so somebody must have thought it was useful. At least one music teacher left allegedly due to a nervous breakdown but I expect that's in line with the national average.

At that time (the 1970s) I would have agreed that this is the sort of role chess could have, and it couldn't be a bigger waste of time than music, but not chess as a full subject. However in an era when people can do PhDs in surfing or jazz I am not so sure.

[In case anybody thinks I am having a go at music I should add that in my first year at high school the music teacher allowed an unofficial chess club to operate in the music room at lunch time until it was disbanded by the Deputy Principal, who was a woodwork teacher.]

PHAT
24-08-2004, 05:24 PM
... in my first year at high school the music teacher allowed an unofficial chess club to operate in the music room at lunch time until it was disbanded by the Deputy Principal, who was a woodwork teacher.

:lol:
I have been training up a woodwork teacher to continue as the enthusiastic chess co-ordinater at the local Sports High School.

jenni
24-08-2004, 06:20 PM
Listen to me OK Mrs Oliver. We're not saying chess shouldn't be in schools. We're saying it should be, but not accorded the same importance as traditional subjects. By all means provide funding for a chess club, books, equipment or even time off to attend comps. But to make chess a full elective? C'mon! I suppose you want them kids to be tested in the HSC and VCE too?


AR

I think we are into semantics here. Electives as I understand them are frill subject - such as woodwork, sewing etc. Don't believe they have sewing in the HSC - although I might be wrong. My kids are heavily into maths and science, so havn't explored all the by-ways of year 11/12 subjects.

In a previous post I did say I thought the "serious" subjects should take precendence. In fact I am not even sure that chess should be in the curriculum at High School. It is at primary school that it should be - expose them young while the passion and wonder for everything is still there. From that point on they will either take to it and want to go further themselves, or not. I wouldn't mind it as as an elective along with frill subjects at High School, to give those kids who are bored silly with art, woodwork and sewing soemthing else to choose. Now I really have to go - I have 2 High School comps to run tomorrow and Thursday!

JGB
24-08-2004, 08:13 PM
Hey now we are onto something folks !!! Chess on the VCE exam instead of english! Perhaps I would have done a bit better on my year 12 exams if I had 100 'mate in 4' questions, instead of ...in the novel 'Patsy's Whippingboy' what was the correlation between Martha's love for her cat and her husbands drug addiction?!

Ian Rout
24-08-2004, 08:45 PM
I think we are into semantics here. Electives as I understand them are frill subject - such as woodwork, sewing etc. Don't believe they have sewing in the HSC - although I might be wrong. My kids are heavily into maths and science, so havn't explored all the by-ways of year 11/12 subjects.

In a previous post I did say I thought the "serious" subjects should take precendence. In fact I am not even sure that chess should be in the curriculum at High School. It is at primary school that it should be - expose them young while the passion and wonder for everything is still there. From that point on they will either take to it and want to go further themselves, or not. I wouldn't mind it as as an elective along with frill subjects at High School, to give those kids who are bored silly with art, woodwork and sewing soemthing else to choose. Now I really have to go - I have 2 High School comps to run tomorrow and Thursday!

I don't know about arosar, I was using "elective" in the sense it was used in my schooldays which were "real" subjects but those where you had a choice. It was compulsory to do English, Maths, Science and either History or Geography. You then chose two electives from a dozen or so choices, the six had equal weight. Nomenclature may have changed since.

I don't recall what the odds and sods as a group were called - they didn't count to the School Certificate but you had to pass them (of course everybody did). "Frill" is a good word.

JimF
24-08-2004, 09:13 PM
First, bring back the cane.
Second, whatever happened to the delights of reading John Donne or Milton?
Finally, what has bloody Mozart done over the last 200 years except decompose?

Rincewind
25-08-2004, 12:52 AM
Don't be such a d.ickhead Barry mate. Now respond properly.

Mate this is the only thread that's got something going for it over the past few days. Don't disappoint us.

C'mon mate. You can take him.

I already have. fg7 is just too caprine to have realised.

Also being bourgeois I'm time poor and have prioritised my posting. If you have nothing better to do, perhaps you could take fg7 last post and run a poll to see if anyone thinks he has any sort of point.

Rincewind
25-08-2004, 12:58 AM
First, bring back the cane.
Second, whatever happened to the delights of reading John Donne or Milton?
Finally, what has bloody Mozart done over the last 200 years except decompose?

All good points. I have a lot of time for Milton, never really got into Donne.

btw I think John Donne would be leading in the decomposing stakes.

Rincewind
25-08-2004, 01:02 AM
I don't know about arosar, I was using "elective" in the sense it was used in my schooldays which were "real" subjects but those where you had a choice. It was compulsory to do English, Maths, Science and either History or Geography. You then chose two electives from a dozen or so choices, the six had equal weight. Nomenclature may have changed since.

I don't recall what the odds and sods as a group were called - they didn't count to the School Certificate but you had to pass them (of course everybody did). "Frill" is a good word.

What's wrong with just including it in the sports curriculum? Physical Education and Health or whatever it is called these days. It would seem to be the best fit. The only problem is these teachers are probably the least motivated/qualified to teach it. Still a good teacher can teach anything, right?

Alan Shore
25-08-2004, 01:06 AM
All good points. I have a lot of time for Milton, never really got into Donne.

btw I think John Donne would be leading in the decomposing stakes.

Dostoyevsky and Orwell (particularly 1984) should be compulsory reading. And Mozart is great, where's the appreciation for classical music? Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto #3, Liszt's 'La Campanella' and Beethoven's 9th and 5th symphonies and Moonlight Sonata are just too good to pass up.

arosar
25-08-2004, 10:53 AM
. . . and Beethoven's 9th . . .

I have a Claudio Abbado conducting the Berlin Philharmonic on the 9th.

You wanna know who is an expert on classical music? 1minGM mate. He knows everything that bloke.

What about jazz - anyone like jazz? As for poets, I liked that Keats fella. One thing about those Romantics is that they were all a bunch of depressed bastar.ds, weren't they? And they had a fancy word for it too: melancholia.

AR

Rincewind
25-08-2004, 08:48 PM
Orwell (particularly 1984)

What about Burmese Days, have you read that one? Without a doubt the most depressing novel I've ever read. I read it in a night in the hope that something positive would happen. It didn't. Must be what it feels like to be dragged out into the ocean by a rip. Highly recommended but to be avoided if you have a tendancy towards self-destructive behaviour.

JimF
25-08-2004, 08:59 PM
As for jazz, our own home grown - provided Adelaide agrees that it is part of Oz - Janet Seidel (degree in classical music, can really hold her own with the SSO) but if that does not grab you, use your discretionary dollars on Diana Krells DVD "Live in Paris". Beats the CD.

And for punishment in schools, if each child does not excel in chess they are to read J.W. Dunne's "An Experiment with Time". First published in 1927 and hardly read by anyone as it is so tedious it is difficult to get past the first page - I've never got beyond page 3 but then I have a short attention span.

AES
26-08-2004, 09:48 AM
[QUOTE=JimF]As for jazz, our own home grown - provided Adelaide agrees that it is part of Oz - Janet Seidel QUOTE]

I think you mean provided YOU agree Adelaide is part of Oz! :owned:

Alan Shore
26-08-2004, 10:49 PM
I think you mean provided YOU agree Adelaide is part of Oz! :owned:

Hmm, do we really want you? :hmm:

Yeah.. sure, hehe.