Poker in schools is not going to happen. Chess is respected by everyone and is a game that demands logical and creative thinking to excel in; even if you think its a waste to teach in schools, for whatever reason, this is still true.
I think it would be healthy to have some chess teaching in elementary classes, and I'm not saying that just because I'm a chess player. If a large part of the population knew a few openings and enjoyed it as a past time, that would be healthy I think.
Might not the entire society (in which chess was taught in schools) become obsessed with chess, and divert an undue proportion of their time to it?
Kids have to learn about addiction at somepoint. Isn't school about preparing them for the harsh realities of life?
Kids have to learn about addiction at somepoint. Isn't school about preparing them for the harsh realities of life?
Gambling's an addiction to some as well...nah I'm just messin' around
If you play poker with play money, the spirit of gambling is basically unchanged.
Monopoly is different, it is a loose simulation of real-estate enterprise, and while it does involve fake money and risk taking it is not "gambling" in the same sense as poker is. No-one plays Monopoly with real money, fake money is the norm, and even in real life enterprise, the risks taken aren't "gambling" in the sense meant when used in conjunction with a game like Poker or roulette.
Risk and gambling are at times synonymous, but again, surely you can see the distinction between Poker and chess, monopoly or soccer in regards to the definition of "gambling" that was originally tabled.
also there is a term called 'calulate risk' where you can work on it to minimise the risk.
Gambling is betting money when the risk is simple. "Investment" is risking money when the risk factor is complex.
Well, it's possible to play poker without money, or using fake money - I played it like that as kid.
Yeah, I played it with chocolate chip cookies lol.
Trust me, I get it, gambling can have a much broader meaning that was meant when the point was originally raised.
The problem here, and the part you seem not to be getting, is that context is important. All of those other contexts in which the word gambling might apply simply aren't relevant to the point at hand.
Finally, as for the fake money vs. real money thing, poker is a game who's sole purpose is to facilitate gambling. Be it for chips, dollars, chocolate chip cookies or points. Playing poker is gambling in both the spirit and context that pertains to the original point. Playing soccer or chess is not.
You seem insistent on corrupting the intent of the word "gambling" in the context it was originally raised. Your ridiculous point about gambling in sports or chess because they employ some element of risk taking is a perfect example of twisting the context until it suits your argument, but is no longer relevant to the original point.
Just because you have to make risk/reward decisions in a particular activity, or because outside parties can bet on it, does not make a game inherently gambling, at least not as intended in the original point. That betting is a required activity as a part of gameplay in poker, regardless of what you are betting with, does.
Well not exactly (I'm pretty sure the first mention of poker was meant to be sarcastic), but regardless, that was the original context in which "poker" was raised, not "gambling".
Gambling was first mentioned in post #36 (as a result of poker being mentioned earlier), as being something that would never be taught in schools:
Furthermore poker is gambling game, which would never be taught in schools.
Excuse me, but people gamble on just about all sports now. So we shouldn't teach them in schools either? And, at least here in the States, the government sanctions gambling. Even encourages it! And supposedly, State run gambling money goes to the schools!
I thought you were done Karl
Why dont we have poker at school as well
Maybe cause we might actually learn something about real life?
Post #32. I rest my case!
Yes, in reference to poker.
Gambling was first explicitly mentioned in post #36.
Also: what ivandh said.
Schools in California barely teach English, Math and Science. PE was dropped long ago - and the version of history/geography taught in CA will remind you of pre-cold war propaganda. For example a new law just passed in California requiring schools to teach Gay history.
There's a school district in Texas that mandated everyone take Arabic.
A school district in Georgia that is dropping cursive from the curriculum.
Need I go on?
Chess in the schools, important - but it's an elective. Not core curriculum.
Woah. Glad I'm not in California. And I thought our jr. high/high school had a limited curriculum (We don't even have Geometry, just Algebra 1-3).
What if aspects of chess were brought into EVERY subject:
Maybe cause we might actually learn something about real life?
I know chess has taught me to deal with pressure. The first time I played with a chess clock I was terrible! But with time, I relax during my games and think things through. I reckon that's important in life.