Skip to main content

Exercise:: Pair Chess Game


Some years ago I designed this exercise for a Pair Programming simulation using the media of the game of chess.  The idea was to have a pair on each side of the board, they would work together to finish a famous game against their opponents (a pair also).

I never used the exercise because the developers I was working with didn't know the game of chess, and didn't seem interested in the simulation.   If you use this please let me know how it works out.




Garry Kasparov (White) vs X3D Fritz Computer (Black)
Man-Machine World Chess Championship 2003
Game 1 (after 31 ... Bxa2)
White to move





Instructor material for Chess Game Pairing Exercise

Required Materials

Chess board and pieces (one per 4 students)
Timers (optional)
Diagram of an in-progress chess game(s) (attached)

Introduce the Exercise

Pair programming is generally thought of as an XP (extreme programming) practice.  In true Agile form we are borrowing a practice that has value to use in our process.  Pair programming is when two (or sometimes more) developers work on a task simultaneously at the same computer.

This exercise is designed to give you the feel of pair programming. You will pair up with another person and become a chess playing savant team!  Each team will be pitted against another team to solve a world class chess problem.  Setup the chess board in the exact position described on the problem sheet.  Then playing as a pair (perhaps with limitations – see variations below).

The Exercise – Part One: Setup the board 

Instruct the students to retrieve a chess set and the sheet describing the chess problem.

Their task is to setup the chess board as diagrammed.  

Exercise – Part Two:  Let the games begin!

The instructor can give limitations or not, constraints, rules, etc.
Then they are to begin – White moves first! 

Variations
  • Only allow the pair that is in play to talk, the pair not moving must stay silent.
  • No talking and strict turn taking for first 5 moves, then instructor announces that communication and cooperation may take place for the rest of the moves.
  • One minute time limit per move.
  • Pair beginners with experts – have the group self rate from 1 – 10.
Debrief the Exercise

The only reason to do an exercise is to get to the debrief stage.  This is where students will apply the simulation to the “real world” and learning will happen. Please give at least 20 minutes for the debriefing phase.

Facilitator will start the debriefing – ask open-ended questions such as:
  • What happened during the exercise?
  • What did you notice about the act of pairing in a traditionally solo activity?
  • Which activity was harder, more fun, required more concentration, stimulated creativity, produced more interesting results?
  • What do you like/dislike about pairing?
  • How did you decide to what moves to make – did you talk? Did you test out move?
  • Did you find that one partner lead and the other followed, did the lead change?
  • How does this simulation compare to the task of programming?
  • What lessons can you learn?
The debrief should take 10 – 30 minutes (if the students don’t have anything to discuss, then it was not very instructive).

Major points of the exercise:  

Pairing can be more fun, more creative.  Problem solving is creative and one person’s idea can spark better ideas in another person.  To effectively pair one must take turns, and communicate their ideas and intentions, they must actively involve the partner.




Bobby Fischer (white) vs Greenblatt Computer (black)
1977 Computer Match
White to move














See Also:

Globe Chess Board


Comments

Most Popular on Agile Complexification Inverter

Exercise:: Definition of Ready & Done

Assuming you are on a Scrum/Agile software development team, then one of the first 'working agreements' you have created with your team is a 'Definition of Done' - right?



Oh - you don't have a definition of what aspects a user story that is done will exhibit. Well then, you need to create a list of attributes of a done story. One way to do this would be to Google 'definition of done' ... here let me do that for you: http://tinyurl.com/3br9o6n. Then you could just use someone else's definition - there DONE!

But that would be cheating -- right? It is not the artifact - the list of done criteria, that is important for your team - it is the act of doing it for themselves, it is that shared understanding of having a debate over some of the gray areas that create a true working agreement. If some of the team believes that a story being done means that there can be no bugs found in the code - but some believe that there can be some minor issues - well, then yo…

Do You Put “CSM” After Your Name?

I’ve noticed a new trend—people have been gaining titles. When I was younger, only doctors had initials (like MD) after their names. I always figured that was because society held doctors, and sometime priests (OFM) in such high regard that we wanted to point out their higher learning. I hope it was to encourage others to apply themselves in school and become doctors also. Could it have been boastful?

The Wikipedia describes these “post-nominal initials”:
Post-nominal letters, also called post-nominal initials, are letters placed after the name of a person to indicate that the individual holds a position, educational degree, accreditation, office, or honor. An individual may use several different sets of post-nominal letters. The order in which these are listed after a name is based on the order of precedence and category of the order. That’s good enough for me.
So I ask you: is the use of CSM or CSP an appropriate use of post-nominal initials?
If your not an agilista, you may wonder …

David's notes on "Drive"

- "The Surprising Truth about what Motivates Us" by Dan Pink.

Amazon book order
What I notice first and really like is the subtle implication in the shadow of the "i" in Drive is a person taking one step in a running motion.  This brings to mind the old saying - "there is no I in TEAM".  There is however a ME in TEAM, and there is an I in DRIVE.  And when one talks about motivating a team or an individual - it all starts with - what's in it for me.

Introduction

Pink starts with an early experiment with monkeys on problem solving.  Seems the monkeys were much better problem solver's than the scientist thought they should be.  This 1949 experiment is explained as the early understanding of motivation.  At the time there were two main drivers of motivation:  biological & external influences.  Harry F. Harlow defines the third drive in a novel theory:  "The performance of the task provided intrinsic reward" (p 3).  This is Dan Pink's M…

Agile Story Estimation via Dog Grooming Exercise

Practice story estimation techniques with this exercise in dog grooming.

Related Post:
Affinity Estimating: A How-To by Sterling Barton.
Dogfood David why I feel like an expert in the concept of eating one's own dogfood.
   Slideshare:  Affinity Estimation - Size 60 Stories in about 20 Minutes.
For each dog below, estimate the work effort (size) required to groom the dog.  Assuming that you have the tools and experience to groom dogs.  Grooming includes washing, drying, combing, nail clipping, and hair triming in some cases.


Start with the ever popular:
Golden Retriever (22-24 in, 50-90 lbs).




The short haired Dachshund (15-28 lbs).



The Standard Poodle (15-18in, 40-80 lbs).




Bernese Mountain Dog (25-28 in., 65-120 lbs).




German Shepherd (23-26 in, 50-90 lbs).



Yorkshire terrier (5 in, <10 lbs).




Beagle (13-16 in, 18-35 lbs).



Boxer (26-31 in, 55-110 lbs).




Bulldog (40-55 lbs).





Labrador Retriever (21-25 in, 55-130 lbs).





Great Dane (28-38 in, 120-200 lbs).




Komondor (25-32 in, 90-130 lbs).


Situational Leadership II Model & Theory

Have you ever been in a situation where you thought the technique needed to move forward was one thing, yet the person leading (your leader) assumed something else was what was needed?  Did you feel misaligned, unheard, marginalized?  Would you believe that 54% of all leaders only use ONE style of leadership - regardless of the situation?  Does that one style of leading work well for the many levels of development we see on a team?

Perhaps your team should investigate one of the most widely used leadership models in the world ("used to train over 5 million managers in the world’s most respected organizations").  And it's not just for the leaders.  The training is most effective when everyone receives the training and uses the model.  The use of a ubiquitous language on your team is a collaboration accelerator.  When everyone is using the same mental model, speaking the same vernacular hours of frustration and discussion may be curtailed, and alignment achieved, outcomes …