Parents and school administrators ask me this question more than any other:
does chess actually make kids better at math?
It is a fair question. Chess looks like a game. Math is a subject. Why would playing one improve performance in the other?

I have taught chess to thousands of children over forty years in Brooklyn schools, libraries, and after-school programs. I have watched many of them become stronger math students. But my observations are not evidence. Research is evidence.

Here is what the studies actually say — the strongest findings, the weaker ones, and what any parent or school administrator needs to know before making a decision.

The most compelling mathematics study in chess education research comes from Canada.
Researcher Louise Gaudreau followed elementary school students across three academic years, comparing children who received structured chess instruction to those who did not.

The results were striking.

Chess students improved from a baseline of 62% to 81.2% in mathematics assessments — a gain of 19.2 percentage points over the study period. When compared against the control group’s trajectory, chess-instructed students held a 21.46 percentage point advantage by the end of the third year.

This is not a marginal effect. A 21-point advantage in mathematics over three years is a meaningful and educationally significant result.

Italian researcher Roberto Trinchero conducted a study examining chess instruction and mathematics performance that produced a finding most educators find surprising.

Students who started with lower mathematics performance showed greater gains than their higher-achieving peers after chess instruction.
This is the reverse of what most enrichment activities produce. Typically, students who already perform well benefit most from enrichment, while struggling students see smaller effects.

Trinchero’s finding suggests that chess may be particularly valuable as a support tool for students who find traditional mathematics instruction difficult.
The game provides a different entry point — one built around problem-solving, pattern recognition, and logical reasoning rather than memorization

One of the largest chess education studies ever conducted took place in Venezuela. Researchers examined 4,266 students who participated in a national chess instruction program.

After just 4.5 months of instruction, students demonstrated measurable gains in IQ scores and cognitive ability measures. While this study focused on general cognitive development rather than mathematics specifically, the reasoning and problem-solving skills it measured are directly connected to mathematical performance.

The significance of the Venezuela study is its scale. Results from 4,266 students across a national program are harder to dismiss as a local anomaly. When improvements appear consistently across thousands of students from different schools and backgrounds, the pattern carries more weight.

In 2016, researchers Giovanni Sala and Fernand Gobet published a meta-analysis examining 24 separate chess education studies, including several focused on mathematics performance.

A meta-analysis pools results across multiple studies to identify patterns that individual studies cannot reveal. Their key finding for mathematics:

Chess instruction improves mathematics performance — but only when students receive at least 25 to 30 hours of instruction. Programs shorter than this threshold showed weak or no academic effects.

Twenty-five to thirty hours works out to approximately one lesson per week across a full school year. This means brief chess workshops, one-week intensives, or short-term programs are unlikely to produce the academic gains that sustained, year-long programs deliver.

This finding has direct implications for schools considering chess programs. Commitment matters. An after-school chess club that meets once a week for a full school year is substantially different from a six-week introductory program.

Researchers have proposed several explanations for the observed connection between chess and mathematics:

Pattern Recognition

Chess players learn to recognize recurring patterns — tactical motifs, piece configurations, structural features. Mathematics also relies heavily on pattern recognition. Students who practice identifying patterns in one domain may strengthen this ability across domains.

Logical Reasoning

Every chess move requires cause-and-effect reasoning: if I move here, my opponent can respond there, which leads to this position. This sequential logical thinking overlaps with the reasoning required to solve multi-step math problems.

Spatial Reasoning

Chess requires players to visualize positions and calculate sequences of moves without physically moving pieces. This spatial reasoning ability is closely related to the geometric and algebraic thinking required in mathematics.

Working Memory

Calculating chess variations requires holding multiple possibilities in mind simultaneously. Working memory capacity is one of the strongest predictors of mathematics achievement, and chess provides a rigorous, engaging workout for this cognitive skill.

Not every study has found a positive effect. The 2015 Institute of Education Sciences (IOE) randomized controlled trial in the United Kingdom — the largest chess education study ever conducted, covering 3,865 students — found no significant academic improvement over a passive control group.

I include this result because educators deserve complete information. The IOE study is methodologically rigorous and cannot be dismissed.

However, the IOE study used a shorter intervention than the programs that produced the strongest effects. The 25-30 hour threshold identified by Sala and Gobet’s meta-analysis is relevant here. Duration, consistency, and instructor quality all appear to matter significantly.

The weight of evidence across multiple studies conducted over five decades suggests that well-implemented, sustained chess instruction can improve mathematical reasoning. The key phrase is well-implemented and sustained. Brief, low-quality programs are unlikely to produce academic results.

Research confirms what I have witnessed in classrooms and after-school programs across Brooklyn for four decades.

Students who study chess regularly become more comfortable with multi-step problems. They learn to break a complex situation into smaller parts, evaluate each option, and commit to a decision. These are mathematical habits of mind.

I have also observed the Trinchero effect firsthand. Children who struggle in traditional classroom settings often thrive in chess. The game meets them where they are. It rewards logical thinking over memorization, and many students who have been told they are “not math people” discover through chess that they think analytically after all.

That discovery can change the trajectory of a child’s relationship with mathematics.

Based on five decades of research, here is what the evidence supports:
Sustained chess instruction — at least one lesson per week across a full school year — is associated with meaningful mathematics gains in multiple peer-reviewed studies.
The cognitive skills chess develops — pattern recognition, logical reasoning, working memory, and spatial thinking — are directly connected to mathematical performance.
Students who struggle in traditional math may benefit disproportionately from chess instruction.
Short programs are unlikely to produce measurable academic effects.
Duration and consistency are critical.
Chess for Children brings research-based chess instruction to schools across Brooklyn and New York City.
Our programs are designed to meet the 25-30 hour threshold the research identifies as necessary for academic benefit. →

Created with

Does Chess Improve Math Skills? What the Research Actually Shows

By National Master Ernest Colding

The Strongest Evidence: Gaudreau’s Three-Year Study

What makes Gaudreau’s study particularly credible:

Trinchero’s Italy Study: Chess Benefits Lower-Attaining Students Most

The Venezuela Study: Scale Across Thousands of Students

What the Meta-Analysis Found: The 25-Hour Threshold

Why Might Chess Improve Math Skills?

An Honest Assessment of the Evidence

What I Have Observed After 40 Years of Teaching

Key Studies at a Glance

The Bottom Line for Parents and Schools

Related Research

More reading: