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


Post a Comment

Most Popular on Agile Complexification Inverter

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…

Elements of an Effective Scrum Task Board

What are the individual elements that make a Scrum task board effective for the team and the leadership of the team?  There are a few basic elements that are quite obvious when you have seen a few good Scrum boards... but there are some other elements that appear to elude even the most servant of leaders of Scrum teams.









In general I'm referring to a physical Scrum board.  Although software applications will replicated may of the elements of a good Scrum board there will be affordances that are not easily replicated.  And software applications offer features not easily implemented in the physical domain also.





Scrum Info Radiator Checklist (PDF) Basic Elements
Board Framework - columns and rows laid out in bold colors (blue tape works well)
Attributes:  space for the total number of stickies that will need to belong in each cell of the matrix;  lines that are not easy eroded, but are also easy to replace;  see Orientation.

Columns (or Rows) - labeled
    Stories
    To Do
    Work In P…

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, …

What belongs on the Task Board?

I wonder about these questions a lot - what types of task belong on the task board?  Does every task have to belong to a Story?  Are some tasks just too small?  Are some tasks too obvious?  Obviously some task are too larger, but when should it be decomposed?  How will we know a task is too large?

I answer these questions with a question.  What about a task board motivates us to get work done?  The answer is: T.A.S.K.S. to DONE!



Inherent in the acronym TASKS is the point of all tasks, to get to done.  That is the measure of if the task is the right size.  Does it motivate us to get the work done?  (see notes on Dan Pink's book: Drive - The surprising Truth about what motivates us) If we are forgetting to do some class of task then putting it on the board will help us remember.  If we think some small task is being done by someone else, then putting it on the board will validate that someone else is actually doing it.  If a task is obvious, then putting it on the board will take vi…

Team Performance Model - by Drexler and Sibbet

Many of you have all heard of the Tuckman model of team dynamics (Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing).  It was created in 1966 and has become the most popular model for describing team behavior.  Is it time to level up in your mental model of team dynamics?  Are you ready for a richer more functional model?



Introducing the Team Performance Model by Drexler and Sibbet



Orientation - Why am I here?
"Orientation is about understanding the purpose of a team and assessing what it will mean to be a member.  you need to understand the reason the team exist, what will be expected of you and how you will benefit from membership.  In a new team, these are individual concerns, because the group is only potentially a team.  that is why these concerns are illustrated as occurring in your imagination at an intuitive level.  As a team leader it is important to provide time and space for people to answer these internal questions themselves."

Keys to when Orientation challenges are resolve…