If Chess were a College Degree

With a solid 3.5 and a Bachelors in Chess probably a class A player or Expert assuming they entered with a rating from 1300-1600.

Idk what do you think

It depends on the quality of the training/teachers, etc. 

I would agree that it should amount to at least a master level. 

While I think a Bachelor's should probably be in Games and cover more of a foundation of the purpose/history of games in society  i.e. Games as exercise, stress relief, group bonding.  I think a general overview of the various types of games/sports and their basic strategies would be appropriate.  Enough for a solid 1400 rating.

In my opinion Chess should be relegated to a Phd.  which should put one at least into the high Master category, but I would imagine anyone with a 4.0 would be a GM.

Masters level coursework I feel should cover a specific branch of games and I feel it should qualify one to teach any of the games in that branch.. As per Chess I think an Expert rating would be an appropriate level of skill following the Coursework..

If one were to just spend 4 years from start to finish focusing on Chess with the same intensity and level of instruction applied to a College education however..  I think one would be hard pressed not to at least be an Expert, and anyone with the equivelant 3.0 or higher likely a Master.

I read somewhere, but don't ask me where, that anybody of average intelligence could, if properly trained (like schooling, where much time/effort was devoted), achieve a 2000 rating. I actually see that as pretty accurate.

In a school format you grow up in school learning basic and fundemental things, basic maths, science, ect, so to translate into chess we would have to make some leveling assumptions. Lets say that going into the "degree" program, everyone knows how to play chess. A Bachelors, about 4 years of study, would probably entail a lot of history of the game, its best players and their basic biographies, a good knowledge of their notable games and the study of them. They would probably have studies related to mastering the fundamentals and understanding how to approach different positions using proper evaluating techniques. A lot of home work would be related to writing their thoughts and analysis of famous master games, the practicing of tactics, and playing games then annotating them for their respective professors (which are masters). They would attend tournaments in which they might participate themselves, or be a journalist and report on, giving their analysis of notable games, perhaps the stronger ones giving live commentary of master games.

Of all sports chess is the only one that could possibly become an actual profession in which one could study and get a degree in. If Chess eventually becomes more mainstream as an industry and decent wages could be earned at various levels in its journalism, competitions, instructors, and so forth, it could become a popular degree. For now however it is all but theoretical. 

It wouldn't really make sense to have letter grades or GPAs for specific ratings because everyone advances at their own pace and some are naturally better.  Would you fail someone for being rated only 1700 when their classmates are 2200?  Some of the entering freshmen would be stronger than most of the graduating seniors - so what do you do with those, give them automatic 4.0 GPA and graduate them instantly?

^I agree with your philosophy, however, that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Take a look at the Soviet chess machine. Something similar could be done in our schools, if "someone" really wanted to.

I believe it as Lasker who once commented that anyone with average intelligence could become a master player if they wished. Not sure how that would relate in todays world, but surely dedicated study would yield substantial results. I'm aiming to find out myself!

Right but without a proper study I'm hesitant to accept that as a fact, although with the increasing number of masters and high level players I wouldn't be surprised if something like that were true.

So then to get your phd you have to create your own opening for your thesis :P Good luck.

Glad you don't work in the science field. 

Cite your source please.

Another question...How many aspiring to improve their rating have even finished the study guides provided for that purpose right here on chess.com?

Learningthemoves,

I asked a 1900 rated player to play me. and he did  then suggested 2 things" read "Just the Facts" about endgames. and spend a year doing the Tactics on chess.com.

I have am doing both. but the Tactics seem a bit random. Is there an order you'd suggest?

Joe

Joe,

I was 1400s last year in online chess too. Tactics trainer and strategy has brought me up since then - I have not yet studied endgames in any serious way.

Oh great...so instead of actually learning how to play the game, we're going to spend 4 years in some institution where they give you a Certificate of Proficiency in playing the game.

Hey Joe,

I noticed you can select what kind of tactics are covered in your training in your settings...

If you want the best of both worlds while still maintaining focus,

you could set your settings to strictly endgame tactics for awhile.

I did this just last month and noticed some immediate increase in confidence, endgame strength and pattern recognition compared with only last month.

For example, just some basic fundamentals like:

*Opposition

*Fox in the chicken coup

*Lucena Position

That's really not even the tip of the iceberg, if you'll forgive the cliche, but for me, it's most important to keep it bite-sized at first, to avoid overwhelm and then add on more knowledge after you are confident enough to use the new knowledge, tactics and strategies you learn in a match, contributing to overall growth.

For example, once we learn more endgame and feel more confident with it, the middlegame can improve because now we know what we're working toward, right?

I think the advice you received about tactics training is good if my limited personal experience so far matches the norm.

The important thing is you've already made the decision to improve and seem motivated enough to ensure it happens. And that's exciting.

When you learn some new strategies, tactics, concepts, fundamentals, etc. that seem to directly increase your overall strength and rating, make sure you let me know so I can benefit too! And best wishes on reaching that next level. 

What the heck is "fox in the chicken coop"?  Sounds like a step in square-dancing.

I'm always amazed to read up here on all the basic fundamentals I've missed out on...

Yes. Your intuition already knew. It is precisely like square-dancing...

Dancing on 64 squares. Instead of picking a partner, and grab your partner two by two,

You are the King picking off enemy pawns one by one in the endgame.

But first, you must dosey doe away from your opponent's king! 

All the while, preserving and pushing your passed pawns on through to promotion. Really, it's quite thrilling. (Personally I find it even more fulfilling than squaredancing if you can believe that.)

Depending on region, it may also be referred to as fox in the henhouse or something like that...something to do with chickens.