Chess stands out as a strategic tool in education
Dana Reizniece, Deputy Chair of the FIDE Management Board, stressed in her speech at the Chess in Education Summit in San José that advocates must approach politicians and decision-makers with the right framing if chess is to be included in education systems. According to Reizniece, the issue is not simply getting more children to play chess; it is being able to present chess as a tool that serves the concrete goals of education policy. For that reason, she said the chess community must tailor its language to the priorities of the institution it is addressing. If the aim is sporting success and medals, sports ministries are the right target; if the goal is to improve the quality of learning in the classroom, education authorities are the proper address.
Reizniece, who also served as Latvia’s finance minister from 2014 to 2016, noted that governments see investment in education as a long-term, high-return area. In practice, however, the picture is more complex: rising social inequality, pressure on public budgets, the gap in opportunities between urban and rural areas, and difficulties in reaching disadvantaged groups force decision-makers into difficult choices. At this point, Reizniece said, chess offers a low-cost, scalable, and flexible model. The fact that large numbers of students can be reached with chess sets, teaching materials, and basic teacher training gives it a special place among many educational tools.
The central idea of the speech was the issue of quality in education. Reizniece argued that chess should not be seen merely as a mind sport or club activity, but rather as a learning instrument that contributes to the development of skills such as attention, planning, problem-solving, patience, and decision-making. Its ability to create a common learning ground for students from different socioeconomic backgrounds makes chess one of the tools that can help reduce social division. This approach strengthens the argument that chess should move beyond being an extracurricular pursuit and find a place within public education policy.
On an international scale, chess in schools projects have long been part of discussions on education reform. In many countries, even where chess is not a compulsory subject, it is being expanded through elective programmes, in-school activities, and teacher support packages. FIDE’s work in recent years has also positioned chess not as a factor that single-handedly determines academic success, but as a complementary tool that supports students’ cognitive and social development. The message delivered in San José was clear: if the chess community wants to persuade decision-makers, it should speak less in romantic terms and more in terms of measurable benefit, accessible cost, and social impact.
Reizniece’s assessment points to an important direction for the future of chess. Today, success in education policy is measured not only by curriculum density or exam results, but also by children’s capacity for analytical thinking, self-control, and long-term planning. While chess offers a strong supporting tool in these areas, it also promises a model practical enough for any school to implement. That is why the discussion has now moved beyond the question, “Is chess useful?” toward “How can we integrate chess into the education system in the best possible way?”