Hi, this is Ray.

Confession: I am a deeply mediocre chess player. I have been playing on and off for about 20 years, and my Elo rating still hovers somewhere around "could probably beat your dad if your dad has not played in a while." I have lost to 9-year-olds. I have lost to bots set to "beginner." I once tried to play through a Najdorf opening from memory and ended up in a position so bad that the engine just sighed at me. (I'm pretty sure it sighed. Engines can convey contempt now.)

And yet, despite my extremely amateur status, I keep coming back to the game. Not because I'm getting noticeably better (I am, charitably, plateauing on a slow upward slope) but because every single time I play, I can FEEL my brain working in a way it doesn't work during most other activities. There's a particular quality of focus that chess demands. A specific kind of mental gymnastics: pattern recognition, planning, holding multiple possibilities in mind, suppressing the impulse to make the obvious move so you can find the better one underneath. It feels like cognitive cross-training. And it turns out, after digging into the research for this newsletter, that "cognitive cross-training" might be one of the more accurate descriptions of what chess actually does.

Today I want to walk through what the science actually says about chess and learning… the encouraging parts AND the parts where pop-science has gotten ahead of the data. Because there's a real, evidence-backed case for chess as a learning enhancer. There's also a less-real, hype-driven case that we should probably not buy into wholesale. Let's separate the two.

When you play a game of chess, you're running a stack of cognitive operations more or less simultaneously. You're scanning the board for patterns. You're holding the position in working memory. You're calculating sequences of moves several plies deep. You're suppressing the impulse to grab a piece that looks free, because you've learned that sometimes free pieces are bait. You're predicting what your opponent will do. You're updating your plan when they do something unexpected. You're managing your emotions when you realize you just blundered your queen and now have to play through the cringe.

This bundle of skills (working memory, planning, attention, inhibition, pattern recognition, cognitive flexibility) is exactly the toolkit you depend on when learning anything complex. As one neuroscience review of chess put it, chess involves high-level cognitive aspects, requires sophisticated problem-solving abilities, and uses creativity, anticipation, perception, and memory simultaneously, making it a useful tool for studying individual differences in cognitive processes. Translation: chess is one of the few activities humans have invented that engages basically every executive function at once. It's a full cognitive load test, voluntarily entered into, repeatedly, for fun. Weird species, us.

Brain imaging studies confirm what subjective experience suggests. When you play chess, fMRI scans light up the prefrontal cortex (planning and decision-making), the parietal cortex (spatial reasoning), the temporal cortex (pattern memory), and the basal ganglia (procedural learning). These are the same brain regions you depend on when you're learning calculus, debugging code, working through a dense paragraph, or trying to figure out why your team's project plan stopped making sense in week three. Chess and "real" cognitive work are running on largely overlapping hardware. Train one, you arguably train the other… at least in theory.

Most creators spend years building an audience on platforms that own it. The reach is real. The relationship isn't. One algorithm change and the people who chose you stop seeing you.

A newsletter is different. Your list is yours. Every subscriber is earned and stays earned. And on beehiiv, the tools to grow it, monetize it, and own it completely are built in from day one.

30% off your first 3 months with code LIST30. Start building today.

Now to the data. The largest meta-analysis on chess and academic skills, conducted by Sala and Gobet, looked at 24 studies with over 5,000 students. The findings, as the researchers reported, showed that chess instruction enhanced primary and middle school students' achievement in mathematics with a moderate effect size of 0.38, overall cognitive ability with an effect size of 0.34, and literacy with a smaller effect of 0.25, with the size of the effects positively related to the amount of training. Effect sizes around 0.3 to 0.4 in education research are not earth-shattering, but they're real. They're roughly comparable to many evidence-based educational interventions. And critically, the effects scaled with training time… more chess, more benefit… suggesting a genuine dose-response relationship rather than a fluke.

A neuroscientific review of chess and academic performance summarized the cognitive benefits across multiple studies, noting that subjects who play chess improve their spatial reasoning, long-term planning, decision-making, and creativity… and chess can be used as a learning tool to allow students to self-regulate their learning and reach specific objectives. That last bit is the one I find most interesting. Self-regulation. The ability to make yourself stay focused, follow through on a plan, and not chase shiny distractions. That skill predicts academic success better than IQ does, in many studies. If chess is even modestly building that muscle, it's earning its place on the cognitive training menu.

The effects appear strongest, unsurprisingly, on math. Chess and math share deep structural similarities: both demand abstract reasoning, both reward following precise rules with creative application, both require holding multi-step procedures in working memory while executing them. As one analysis of chess in early childhood education found, the strategic and logical nature of chess appears to enhance young children's ability to understand and apply mathematical concepts and improve their reading comprehension, suggesting that the cognitive skills developed through chess instruction can be transferred to other areas of learning. Pattern recognition trained on chessboards seems to generalize, at least somewhat, to pattern recognition on number lines. Which is heartening.

Now here's the part where I have to put on my "Ray actually reads the studies" hat instead of my "Ray reposts the inspirational chess infographic" hat. The research on chess as a generalized learning booster has some real limitations, and intellectual honesty requires me to lay them out.

A more recent and critical review in Educational Psychology Review scrutinized 45 chess instruction studies covering more than 12,000 participants and reached a more cautious conclusion. The researchers found that the studies showed lower average statistical power, higher proportions of false positive outcomes, larger publication biases, and lower replication rates in the academic performance domain than in the cognitive ability domain, raising reasonable concerns about the evidence regarding the benefits of chess instruction, particularly for academic achievement outcomes. Translation: many of the studies showing big effects had methodological problems, and the field as a whole has the markers of inflated findings. The benefit is probably real, but probably smaller than the most enthusiastic pop-science claims.

More damning: a randomized controlled trial in the UK (one of the most rigorous studies done on this topic) found that teaching children chess did NOT meaningfully improve their math, reading, or science abilities. A separate study in Catalonia, also using a randomized design, looked at chess effects on critical thinking, attention, patience, and risk aversion in 12-year-olds. After a full academic year of chess instruction, the differences between the treated and control group were not statistically significant for any of these outcomes. One academic year of chess. No detectable transfer to the cognitive skills the researchers measured. That's a real result we should not pretend doesn't exist.

So what gives? How do we reconcile the "chess helps" findings with the "chess doesn't help" findings?

Here's my read of the literature, for what a non-researcher's read is worth. Chess almost certainly improves your chess skills (near transfer). It probably improves some closely-related skills like spatial pattern recognition and certain kinds of planning. It MAY contribute modestly to math performance and general cognitive ability when practiced consistently over many hours. The further you get from the chessboard, the weaker the effects become… and at some distance, they may disappear entirely.

This isn't a critique of chess. This is just how cognitive training works. The dream of "do this one weird trick to get smarter at everything" is a dream the brain mostly does not cooperate with. Skills are largely domain-specific, and the more general the cognitive ability you're trying to train, the harder it is to move the needle. That's true for chess, and it's true for every brain-training app that has ever promised to make you smarter while charging $14.99 a month.

But here's the thing (and this is where I land on the actual practical question of "should you play chess to be a better learner") even if the far-transfer benefits are modest, chess offers some real things that ARE worth your time:

It trains sustained focus in a way most modern activities don't. A serious chess game requires 30+ minutes of locked-in attention, which is, in 2026, an increasingly rare skill. Practicing focus IS practicing focus, even if it doesn't magically transfer everywhere.

It builds tolerance for hard thinking. Chess makes you sit with uncomfortable cognitive effort. The longer you play, the more comfortable you become with the feeling of "I don't know what to do here, I need to think." That comfort is genuinely transferable to studying, problem-solving, and learning hard subjects.

It teaches you to lose gracefully. This sounds soft, but it matters. Every chess player loses constantly. Every chess player has to develop the emotional skill of analyzing a loss without spiraling, learning from it, and coming back. That's the same emotional skill required for learning anything difficult. Embarrassment-tolerance is a learning superpower. Chess is a great training ground for it.

It cultivates patience and the suppression of obvious-but-wrong moves. This is one of the deepest skills in chess and one of the most useful in the rest of life. The first move you think of is often not the best one. The obvious answer is often a trap. Chess players learn, slowly and painfully, to pause and verify before acting. Apply that to your studying, your decision-making, your arguments online, and you'll see the carryover.

It's one of the most cognitively demanding activities you can do for free, anywhere, anytime, on a phone. No equipment, no subscription, infinite opponents available 24/7. The accessibility is genuinely remarkable. Most "good for your brain" activities require a lot more friction.

If you want to actually leverage chess for cognitive benefit, here's what the research and my own experience suggest:

Play regularly. Once a week, minimum. The effects in the studies scale with training time, and the threshold for meaningful benefit appears to be around 25-30 hours total, roughly a year of weekly play.

Play LONGER time controls when you can. Three-minute blitz is fun, but it trains pattern recognition almost exclusively. Slower games (15-30 minutes per side) train deeper calculation, planning, and self-regulation. The longer formats are where the cognitive workout happens. Bullet chess is the McDonald's of cognitive training. Tasty, occasionally satisfying, not exactly nutritious.

Do tactics puzzles. Chess.com and Lichess both have free puzzle trainers that drill pattern recognition. 15 minutes a day of tactics puzzles is, honestly, one of the better short-burst cognitive exercises available. It's also weirdly satisfying once you start seeing the patterns.

Analyze your losses. The reason most chess players plateau isn't that they're not playing enough… it's that they're not LEARNING from each game. After every loss, look at where it went wrong. What did you miss? What pattern would have helped? This metacognitive review is where the real growth happens. It's also a transferable skill: post-mortem analysis is how good learners get better at literally anything.

Don't expect miracles. Chess is not a cheat code. It will not turn you into a genius. It will, slowly and steadily, build some specific cognitive muscles that are useful for learning. That's a worthwhile thing. It's just not a magic thing.

Here's what I'll leave you with. The honest case for chess as a learning aid isn't that it'll boost your IQ or transform your academic performance. The case is that it's one of the few activities in modern life that asks you to sit quietly, think hard, plan ahead, and accept honest feedback about whether your thinking was good or bad. Every game ends with a clear result. You won, you lost, or you drew. There's no fudging it. There's no "well, technically I learned a lot from that experience" cope. The board doesn't lie. Either your plan worked or it didn't.

That kind of honest mirror is rare. Most of the time, life lets us tell ourselves whatever story we want about how well we're thinking. Chess refuses. And practicing the discipline of being honest about your own thinking (where it failed, what you missed, what you should do differently next time) might be the most underrated learning skill there is.

So if you've been looking for a habit that quietly trains your brain, gives you honest feedback, and is available for free on your phone right now, you could do a lot worse than chess. Just don't expect it to make you a genius. Expect it to make you slightly more focused, slightly more patient, and slightly more comfortable with hard thinking. Slightly, compounded over years, is where most real learning lives anyway.

Even if you, like me, occasionally lose to nine-year-olds. The nine-year-olds are probably learning faster. Maybe we should ask them for tips.

Keep learning (and keep playing),

Ray