INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

A beginner often wonders if he has what it takes to become proficient at the Royal Game. The answer is that there are many aspects of intelligence and personality that correlate with the potential to become a good chess player.

Almost everyone realizes that a lot of hard work will be necessary to climb

the ladder of chess success, and few want to put in many hours of work with

little prospects for reward. Knowing that you have some of the requisite

talents is always helpful in keeping up your spirits.

CONCLUSION

As they begin law study, students undergo a linguistic rupture, a change in how they view and use language.The change affects not only their understanding of language, but also their ideas about how the law works and its place for them, their experiences, and their values.In this article, I propose that law students may find a better fit within the legal culture of argument if they explore rhetorical alternatives to narrowly formalist or realist perspectives on how the law works.

I BELIEVE THAT better rhetoricians become better lawyers carries within it something more important: rhetorical alternatives recognize students power and ability to affect outcomes in their rhetorical communities, both now, while they are law students, and later, when they are practicing lawyers.

To sum up, studying the law as rhetoric allows students to take part in the many-voiced and open-ended rhetorical process through which the law is made. When students study the law as rhetoric, they are encouraged to bring in pluralistic and complicating forces, including their own experiences, values, and senses of themselves. Studying legal arguments as rhetorical performances helps law students become more aware of the effects of language and symbol use and meaning frames. This growing awareness makes them more rhetorically effective speakers and writers. Beyond improving their skills, engaging in law as rhetoric may help conjure and channel students natural ability to imagine and invent, and it may enable them to better listen to alternative views and to speak in their own voices.

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

A. INSTITUTION OF RIGHTS

Institutional rights may be found in institutions of very different character. A chess player has a chess right to be awarded a point in a tournament if he checkmates an opponent. A citizen in a democracy has a legislative right to the enactment of statutes necessary to protect his free speech. In the case of chess, institutional rights are fixed by constitutive and regulative rules that belong distinctly to the game, or to a particular tournament. Chess is, in this sense, an autonomous institution; I mean that it is understood, among its participants, that no one may claim an institutional right by direct appeal to general morality. No one may argue, for example, that he has earned the right to be declared the winner by his general virtue. But legislation is only partly autonomous in that sense. There are special constitutive and regulative rules that define what a legislature is, and who belongs to it, and how it votes, and that it may not establish a religion. But these rules belonging distinctly to legislation are rarely sufficient to determine whether a citizen has an institutional right to have a certain statute enacted; they do not decide, for example, whether he has a right to minimum wage legislation. Citizens are expected to repair to general considerations of political morality when they argue for such rights.

The fact that some institutions are fully and others partly autonomous has the consequence . . . that the institutional rights a political theory acknowledges may diverge from the background rights it provides. Institutional rights are nevertheless genuine rights. Even if we suppose that the poor have an abstract background right to money taken from the rich, it would be wrong, not merely unexpected, for the referees of a chess tournament to award the prize money to the poorest contestant rather than the contestant with the most points. It would provide no excuse to say that since tournament rights merely describe the conditions necessary for calling the tournament a chess tournament, the referees act is justified so long as he does not use the word chess when he hands out the award. The participants entered the tournament with the understanding that chess rules would apply; they have genuine rights to the enforcement of these rules and no others.

Institutional autonomy insulates an officials institutional duty from the greater part of background political morality. But how far does the force of this insulation extend? Even in the case of a fully insulated institution like chess some rules will require interpretation or elaboration before an official may enforce them in certain circumstances. Suppose some rule of a chess tournament provides that the referee shall declare a game forfeit if one player unreasonably annoys the other in the course of play. The language of the rule does not define what counts as unreasonable annoyance; it does not decide whether, for example, a player who continually smiles at his opponent in such a way as to unnerve him, as the Russian grandmaster Tal once smiled at Fischer, annoys him unreasonably.

The referee is not free to give effect to his background convictions in deciding this hard case. He might hold, as a matter of political theory, that individuals have a right to equal welfare without regard to intellectual abilities. It would nevertheless be wrong for him to rely upon that conviction in deciding difficult cases under the forfeiture rule. He could not say, for example, that annoying behavior is reasonable so long as it has the effect of reducing the importance of intellectual ability in deciding who will win the game. The participants, and the general community that is interested, will say that his duty is just the contrary. Since chess is an intellectual game, he must apply the forfeiture rule in such a way as to protect, rather than jeopardize, the role of intellect in the contest.

We have, then, in the case of the chess referee, an example of an official whose decisions about institutional rights are understood to be governed by institutional constraints even when the force of these constraints is not clear. We do not think that he is free to legislate interstitially within the open texture of imprecise rules. If one interpretation of the forfeiture rule will protect the character of the game, and another will not, then the participants have a right to the first interpretation. We may hope to find, in this relatively simple case, some general feature of institutional rights in hard cases that will bear on the decision of a judge in a hard case at law.

I said that the game of chess has a character that the referees decisions must respect. What does that mean? How does a referee know that chess is an intellectual game rather than a game of chance or an exhibition of digital ballet? He may well start with what everyone knows. Every institution is placed by its

participants in some very rough category of institution; it is taken to be a game rather than a religious ceremony or a form of exercise or a political process. It is, for that reason, definitional of chess that it is a game rather than an exercise in digital skill. These conventions, exhibited in attitudes and manners and in history, are decisive. If everyone takes chess to be a game of chance, so that they curse their luck and nothing else when a piece en prise happens to be taken, then chess is a game of chance, though a very bad one.

But these conventions will run out, and they may run out before the referee finds enough to decide the case of Tals smile. It is important to see, however, that the conventions run out in a particular way. They are not incomplete, like a book whose last page is missing, but abstract, so that their full force can be captured in a concept that admits of different conceptions; that is, in a contested concept.1 The referee must select one or another of these conceptions, not to supplement the convention but to enforce it. He must construct the games character by putting to himself different sets of questions. Given that chess is an intellectual game, is it, like poker, intellectual in some sense that includes ability at psychological intimidation? Or is it, like mathematics, intellectual in some sense that does not include that ability? This first set of questions asks him to look more closely at the game, to determine whether its features support one rather than the other of these conceptions of intellect. But he must also ask a different set of questions. Given that chess is an intellectual game of some sort, what follows about reasonable behavior in a chess game? Is ability at psychological intimidation, or ability to resist such intimidation, really an intellectual quality? These questions ask him to look more closely at the concept of intellect itself. . . .

This is, of course, only a fanciful reconstruction of a calculation that will never take place; any officials sense of the game will have developed over a career, and he will employ rather than expose that sense in his judgments. [Such a] reconstruction [of the questions that the referee must ask] enables us to see how the concept of the games character is tailored to a special institutional problem. Once an autonomous institution is established, such that participants have institutional rights under distinct rules belonging to that institution, then hard cases may arise that must, in the nature of the case, be supposed to have an answer. If Tal does not have a right that the game be continued, it must be because the forfeiture rule, properly understood, justifies the referees

intervention; if it does, then Fischer has a right to win at once. It is not useful to speak of the referees discretion in such a case. . . . The proposition that there is some right answer . . . does not mean that the rules of chess are exhaustive and unambiguous; rather it is a complex statement about the responsibilities of its officials and participants. . . .

In chess the general ground of institutional rights must be the tacit consent or understanding of the parties. They consent, in entering a chess tournament, to the enforcement of certain and only those rules, and it is hard to imagine any other general ground for supposing that they have any institutional rights. But if that is so, and if the decision in a hard case is a decision about which rights they actually have, then the argument for the decision must apply that general ground to the hard case.

The hard case puts, we might say, a question of political theory. It asks what it is fair to suppose that the players have done in consenting to the forfeiture rule. The concept of a games character is a conceptual device for framing that question. It is a contested concept that internalizes the general justification of the institution so as to make it available for discriminations within the institution itself. It supposes that a player consents not simply to a set of rules, but to an enterprise that may be said to have a character of its own; so that when the question is put To what did he consent in consenting to that? the answer may study the enterprise as a whole and not just the rules.

Legislation

Legal argument, in hard cases, turns on contested concepts whose nature and function are very much like the concept of the character of a game. These include several of the substantive concepts through which the law is stated, like the concepts of a contract and of property. But they also include two concepts of much greater relevance to the present argument. The first is the idea of the intention or purpose of a particular statute or statutory clause. This concept provides a bridge between the political justification of the general idea that statutes create rights and those hard cases that ask what rights a particular statute has created. The second is the concept of principles that underlie or are embedded in the positive rules of law. This concept provides a bridge between the political justification of the doctrine that like cases should be decided alike and those hard cases in which it is unclear what that general doctrine requires.

These concepts together define legal rights as a function, though a very special function, of political tights. If a judge accepts the settled practices of his legal system if he accepts, that is, the autonomy provided by its distinct constitutive and regulative rules then he must, according to the doctrine of political responsibility, accept some general political theory that justifies these practices. The concepts of legislative purpose and common law principles are devices for applying that general political theory to controversial issues about legal rights.

RELATED STUDIES

THE GAME OF CHESS

Chess is an exercise of infinite possibilities for the mind, one which develops mental abilities used throughout life: concentration, critical thinking, abstract reasoning, problem solving, pattern recognition, strategic planning, creativity, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, to name a few. Chess can be used very effectively as a tool to teach problem solving and abstract reasoning. Learning how to solve a problem is more important than learning the solution to any particular problem. Through chess, we learn how to analyze a situation by focusing on important factors and by eliminating distractions. We learn to devise creative solutions and put a plan into action. Chess works because it is self-motivating. The game has fascinated humans for almost 2000 years, and the goals of attack and defense, culminating in checkmate, inspire us to dig deep into our mental reserves.

Chess has been played and enjoyed by people around the world for two thousand years. If there were an award for game of the millennium, it would belong to chess. The game is said to have been invented in India around the fourth century b.c.,by a Brahman named Sissa at the court of the Indian Rajah Balhait, where it was calledchaturanga, although its earliest mention in literature occurred in a Persian romance, theKarnamak, written about 600 a.d. Alexander the Greats conquest of India brought the game west to Persia . It moved east from India along overland trade routes into the Orient and west from Persia into Arabia, wherechatrang, as the game was later called, then spread across northern Africa and into Europe when the Moors invaded Spain.Ajedrez(as it was known by the Spanish) spread quickly through Europe and had spread even earlier north from Persia into Russia, so that before the discovery of the Americas chess had a firm and established following on three continents as a supreme fascination and test of mental ability, an aesthetic beauty enjoyed by both nobleman and peasant (or shall we say king and pawn?).

Many notable people in history made chess their favorite pastime. The games fascination was embraced by Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand of Spain, Churchill, Napoleon, Voltaire, and the great mathematician, Euler, to name a few.Benjamin Franklin, in his work,The Morals of Chess, regarded chess as more than just an idle amusement, ascribing several valuable" qualities of the mind, useful in the course of human life, [that] are to be acquired or strengthened by it, so as to become habits, ready for all occasions. For Life is a kind of Chess . Franklin enumerated these qualities as 1. Foresight 2. Circumspection 3. Caution and 4. Perseverance in hope of favorable resources. In this sense, we may credit Franklin with being one of the first to

hypothesize that chess strengthens valuable qualities of the mind and to open the inquiry concerning whether or not chess makes one smarter.

Many parallels have been drawn between mathematics, music, and chess. Lasker (1949) states:Mathematical thinking is generally held to be more or less closely related to the type of thinking done in chess. Mathematicians are indeed drawn to chess more than most other games. What is less widely known is that very frequently mathematicians are equally strongly attracted to music. Many musicians do not reciprocate this attraction, but I firmly believe that this is mainly due to their lack of acquaintance with mathematics, and to the widespread confusion of mathematics with figuring.An intriguing phenomenon that links mathematics, music and chess is the fact that child prodigies have been known only in these three fields. That children have never produced a masterwork in painting, sculpture, or literature seems only natural when we consider their limited experience of life. In music, chess, or mathematics, that experience is not needed. Here, children can shine, because native gifts are the dominant factor. Aesthetic sensitiveness and ability to think logically are certain inborn qualities. How, otherwise, could Mozart have composed a minuet, and actually written it down, before he was four years of age? How could Gauss, before he was three years old, and before he knew how to write, have corrected the total of a lengthy addition he saw his father do? How could Sammy Reshevsky play ten games of chess simultaneously when he was only six?The reasoning ingredient in a chess combination is always of prime importance, even though a vivid imagination will make a chess player think of possibilities that will not occur to a less imaginative logician.In the twentieth century, many educators, parents and chess experts maintain that chess education improves a host of mental abilities, including abstract reasoning and problem-solving . Artise (1993) argues that the game of chess makes one of the most important contributions to the field of education. Inherent in it is [sic] the basic principles of psychological learning theory: memory, pattern recognition, decision-making, and reinforcement. Proponents believe that chess belongs in schools. Interest in chess can be generated in all groups of students regardless of cultural or economic background. Aptitude for the game is not restricted to the more scholarly students. Peter Shaw, a computer science and chess teacher in Pulaski, Virginia, states, The game demands both inductive and deductive reasoning. You see the kid looking at a problem, breaking it down, then putting the whole thing back together. The process involves recall, analysis, judgement, and abstract reasoning . As Vail (1995) points out, Chess, it seems, possesses a rare quality: Children enjoy it despite the fact its good for them. Chess, with its aesthetic appeal and inherent fascination for students of all ages, is catching the attention of educators, who are beginning to realize its academic and social benefits:

To the players, the game is like an unfolding drama... The players live through the emotions of an exciting story... Chess has a powerful aesthetic appeal. The best chess games are works of art. They are the products of original and creative thinking. The beauty of chess is as compelling and pleasure giving as any other art form. The endless opportunities for creating new combinations in chess are perhaps comparable to painting or music.

Several benefits accrue from the teaching and promoting of chess in schools: 1. Chess limits the element of luck; it teaches the importance of planning. 2. Chess requires that reason be coordinated with instinct [intuition]; it is an effective decision teaching activity. 3. Chess is an endless source of satisfaction; the better one plays, the more rewarding it becomes. 4. Chess is a highly organized recreation. 5. Chess is an international language. It can be a lifelong source of interest, amusement, and satisfaction. Chess provides more long-term benefits than most school sports

Chess clearly is a problem-solving tool, an ideal way to study decision-making and problem-solving because it is a closed system with clearly defined rules . When faced with a problem, the first step is to analyze [it] in a preliminary and impressionistic way: sizing up the problem , possibly looking for patterns or similarity to previous experiences. Similarity judgements may involve high levels of abstract reasoning . As in mathematics, which might be defined as the study of patterns, pattern recognition in chess is of prime importance in problem solving. After recognizing similarity and pattern, a global strategy can be developed to solve the problem. This involves generating alternatives, a creative process. A good chess player, like a good problem solver, has acquired a vast number of interrelated schemata, allowing for good alternatives to quickly and easily come to mind. These alternatives must then be evaluated, using a process of calculation known as decision tree analysis, where the chess player/problem solver is calculating the desirability of future events based on the alternative being analyzed. Horgan (1988) found that the calculation may go several to eight or ten moves ahead. This stage requires serious concentration and memory abilities[or]visual imagery . Child chess experts were studied by Schneider, Gruber, Gold, and Opwis (1993), and were found able to store larger chunks of information, or pre-stored schema, than were non-expert adults, and were able to recall them much faster than the adults when reconstructing a position. Once a suitable alternative for solving the problem is reached and implemented, it can be evaluated. Chess players, like all good problem solvers, will go back and evaluate the outcome of a solution to increase their level of expertise. Experts and potential experts want to know, even when they are successful, if there was a better alternative available to them .

According to Bloom (1956), this evaluation process is one of the most important goals of learning and should therefore be considered one of the highest educational objectives of our schools. The tendency of chess to develop skills which may be used to deal with the complexities of life make it a valuable tool for learning. Chess needs to be an elective in the public school curriculum

CHESS IN OTHER COUNTRY

The mathematics curriculum in New Brunswick, Canada, is a text series called Challenging Mathematics which uses chess to teach logic from grades 2 to 7. Using this curriculum, the average problem-solving score of pupils in the province increased from 62% to 81%.

Reports from students, teachers and parents not only extol the academic benefits of chess on math problem solving skills and reading comprehension, but increased self-confidence, patience, memory, logic, critical thinking, observation, analysis, creativity, concentration, persistence, self-control, sportsmanship, respect for others, self-esteem, coping with frustration, and many other positive influences which are difficult to measure but which can make a great difference in student attitude, motivation and achievement.

The Province of Quebec, where the program was first introduced, has the best math scores in Canada. Canada consistently scores higher than the United States on international mathematics exams. Former U.S. Secretary of Education Terrell Bell encourages knowledge of chess as a way to develop a preschoolers intellect and academic readiness (Bell, 1982, pp. 178-179). The State of New Jersey passed Bill #S452 legitimizing chess as a unit of instruction. An excerpt from the bill reads as follows:

The Legislature finds and declares that:Chess increases strategic thinking skills, stimulates intellectual creativity, and improves problem-solving ability while raising self-esteem;When youngsters play chess they must call upon higher-order thinking skills, analyze actions and consequences, and visualize future possibilities;In countries where chess is offered widely in schools, students exhibit excellence in the ability to recognize complex patterns and consequently excel in math and science

In a Texas study of 571 regular (non-honors) elementary school students, Liptrap (1997) found the 67 who participated in a school chess club showed twice the improvement of 504 non-chessplayers in Reading and Mathematics standard scores between third and fifth grades on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills.

In a 1992 New Brunswick, Canada, study, using 437 fifth graders split into three groups, experimenting with the addition of chess to the math curriculum, Gaudreau found increased gains in math problem-solving and comprehension proportionate to the amount of chess in the curriculum

In a Zaire study conducted by Dr. Albert Frank, employing 92 students age 16-18, the chess-playing experimental group showed a significant advancement in spatial, numerical and administrative-directional abilities, along with verbal aptitudes, compared to the control group. The improvements held true regardless of the final chess skill level attained

The New York City Schools Chess Program included more than 3,000 inner-city children in more than 100 public schools between 1986 and 1990. Based on academic and anecdotal records only, Palm (1990) states that the program has proven:

Chess dramatically improves a child's ability to think rationally.Chess increases cognitive skills.Chess improves children's communication skills and aptitude in recognizing patterns, therefore:Chess results in higher grades, especially in English and Math studies.Chess builds a sense of team spirit while emphasizing the ability of the individual.Chess teaches the value of hard work, concentration and commitment.Chess instills in young players a sense of self-confidence and self-worth.Chess makes a child realize that he or she is responsible for his or her own actions and must accept their consequences.Chess teaches children to try their best to win, while accepting defeat with grace.Chess provides an intellectual, competitive forum through which children can assert hostility, i.e. "let off steam," in an acceptable way.Chess can become a child's most eagerly awaited school activity, dramatically improving attendance.Chess allows girls to compete with boys on a non-threatening, socially acceptable plane.Chess helps children make friends more easily because it provides an easy, safe forum for gathering and discussion.Chess allows students and teachers to view each other in a more sympathetic way.Chess, through competition, gives kids a palpable sign of their accomplishments.Chess provides children with a concrete, inexpensive and compelling way to rise above the deprivation and self-doubt which are so much a part of their lives (Palm, 1990, pp. 5-7).OTHER CHESS STUDIES

In a 1973-74 Zaire studyconducted by Dr. Albert Frank, employing 92 students, age 16-18, the chess-playing experimental group showed a significant advancement in spatial, numerical and administrative-directional abilities, along with verbal aptitudes, compared to the control group. The improvements held true regardless of the final chess skill level attained.

In a 1974-1976 Belgium study,a chess-playing experimental group of fifth graders experienced a statistically significant gain in cognitive development over a control group, using Piaget's tests for cognitive development. Perhaps more noteworthy, they also did significantly better in their regular school testing, as well as in standardized testing administered by an outside agency which did not know the identity of the two groups. Quoting Dr. Adriaan de Groot: ...``In addition, the Belgium study appears to demonstrate that the treatment of the elementary, clear-cut and playful subject matter can have a positive effect on motivation and school achievement generally...''

In a 1977-1979 studyat the Chinese University in Hong Kong by Dr. Yee Wang Fung, chess players showed a 15% improvement in math and science test scores.

A four-year study(1979-1983) in Pennsylvania found that the chess-playing experimental group consistently outperformed the control groups engaged in other thinking development programs, using measurements from the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal and the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking.

The 1979-1983 Venezuela ``Learning to Think Project,''which trained 100,000 teachers to teach thinking skills and involved a sample of 4,266 second grade students, reached a general conclusion that chess, methodologically taught, is an incentive system sufficient to accelerate the increase of IQ in elementary age children of both sexes at all socio-economic levels.

During his governor's teacher grantfrom the New Jersey State Department of Education, William Levy found that chess consistently (1980-1987) promoted self-esteem after a year of exposure. Many students' self-images improved dramatically.

According to a two-year studyconducted in Kishinev under the supervision of N.F. Talisina, grades for young students taking part in the chess experiment increased in all subjects. Teachers noted improvement in memory, better organizational skills, and for many increased fantasy and imagination (Education Ministry of the Moldavian Republic, 1985).

In his 1986 pilot study,Dr. Ferguson found that it is possible to enhance achievement by focusing on individuals' modality strengths, creating an individualized thinking plan, analyzing and reflecting upon one's own problem solving processes, sharing his/her thinking system with peers, and modifying the system to integrate other modalities.

During the 1987-88 ``Development of Reasoning and Memory through Chess,''all students in a rural Pennsylvania sixth grade self-contained classroom were required to participate in chess lessons and play games. None of the pupils had previously played chess. The pupils significantly improved in both memory and verbal reasoning. The effect of the magnitude of the results is strong (eta 2 is .715 for the Memory test gain compared to the Norm). These results suggest that transfer of the skills fostered through the chess curriculum did occur.

A 1989-92 New Brunswick, Canada study,using 437 fifth graders split into three groups, experimenting with the addition of chess to the math curriculum, found increased gains in math problem-solving and comprehension proportionate to the amount of chess in the curriculum.

A 1990-92 studyusing a sub-set of the New York City Schools Chess Program produced statistically significant results concluding that chess participation enhances reading performance.

Playing Chess: A Study of Problem-Solving Skills in Students with Average and Above Average Intelligence,''a study by Philip Rifner, was conducted during the 1991-1992 school term. The study sought to determine whether middle school students who learned general problem solving skills in one domain could apply them in a different domain. Data indicated that inter-domain transfer can be achieved if teaching for transfer is an instructional goal.

During the 1995-1996 school year,two classrooms were selected in each of five schools. Students (N = 112) were given instruction in chess and reasoning in one classroom in each school. Pupils in the chess program obtained significantly higher reading scores at the end of the year. It should be noted that while students in the chess group took chess lessons, the control group (N = 127) had additional classroom instruction in basic education. The control group teacher was free to use the ``chess period'' any way he/she wanted, but the period was usually used for reading, math or social studies instruction. The control groups thus had more reading instruction than the chess groups.

Even so, the chess groups did better on the reading post-test; therefore, the gains in the chess groups were particularly impressive.

In a 1994-97 Texas study,regular (non-honors) elementary students who participated in a school chess club showed twice the improvement of non-chess players in Reading and Mathematics between third and fifth grades on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills.

Researchers and educators have questioned what causes this growth. The Venezuelan study claimed: ``Chess develops a new form of thinking, and this exercise is what contributes to increase the intelligence quotient.''More recent researchers speculate that it is the growth of new synaptic connections. Chess promotes the growth of dendrites!

Why does chess have this impact?Briefly, there appear to be at least seven significant factors:

1) Chess accommodates all modality strengths.

Chess provides a far greater quantity of problems for practice.

Chess offers immediate punishments and rewards for problem solving. Chess creates a pattern or thinking system that, when used faithfully, breeds success. The chess playing students had become accustomed to looking for more and different alternatives, which resulted in higher scores in fluency and originality. Competition. Competition fosters interest, promotes mental alertness, challenges all students, and elicits the highest levels of achievement (Stephan, 1988). A learning environment organized around games has a positive affect on students' attitudes toward learning. This affective dimension acts as a facilitator of cognitive achievement

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?Chess is a game for people of all ages.You can learn to play at any age and in chess, unlike in many other sports, you don't ever have to retire. Age is also not a factor when you're looking for an opponent --young can play old and old can play young.

Chess develops memory.The chess theory is complicated and many players memorize different opening variations. You will also learn to recognize various patterns and remember lengthy variations.

Chess improves concentration.During the game you are focused on only one main goal -- to checkmate and become the victor.

Chess develops logical thinking.Chess requires some understanding of logical strategy. For example, you will know that it is important to bring your pieces out into the game at the beginning, to keep your king safe at all times, not to make big weaknesses in your position and not to blunder your pieces away for free. (Although you will find yourself doing that occasionally through your chess career. Mistakes are inevitable and chess, like life, is a never-ending learning process.)

Chess promotes imagination and creativity.It encourages you to be inventive. There are an indefinite amount of beautiful combinations yet to be constructed.

Chess teaches independence.You are forced to make important decisions influenced only by your own judgment.

Chess develops the capabilityto predict and foresee consequences of actions. It teaches you to look both ways before crossing the street.

Chess inspires self-motivation.It encourages the search of the best move, the best plan, and the most beautiful continuation out of the endless possibilities. It encourages the everlasting aim towards progress, always steering to ignite the flame of victory.

Chess shows that success rewards hard work.The more you practice, the better you'll become. You should be ready to lose and learn from your mistakes. One of the greatest players ever, Capablanca said, "You may learn much more from a game you lose than from a game you win. You will have to lose hundreds of games before becoming a good player."

Chess and Science.Chess develops the scientific way of thinking. While playing, you generate numerous variations in your mind. You explore new ideas, try to predict their outcomes and interpret surprising revelations. You decide on a hypothesis, and then you make your move and test it.

Chess and Technology.What do chess players do during the game? Just like computers they engage in a search for the better move in a limited amount of time. What are you doing right now? You are using a computer as a tool for learning.

Chess and Mathematics.You don't have to be a genius to figure this one out. Chess involves an infinite number of calculations, anything from counting the number of attackers and defenders in the event of a simple exchange to calculating lengthy continuations. And you use your head to calculate, not some little machine.

Chess and Research.There are millions of chess resources out there for every aspect of the game. You can even collect your own chess library. In life, is it important to know how to find, organize and use boundless amounts of information. Chess gives you a perfect example and opportunity to do just that.

Chess and Art.In the Great Soviet Encyclopedia chess is defined as "an art appearing in the form of a game." If you thought you could never be an artist, chess proves you wrong. Chess enables the artist hiding within you to come out. Your imagination will run wild with endless possibilities on the 64 squares. You will paint pictures in your mind of ideal positions and perfect outposts for your soldiers. As a chess artist you will have an original style and personality.

Chess and Psychology.Chess is a test of patience, nerves, will power and concentration. It enhances your ability to interact with other people. It tests your sportsmanship in a competitive environment.

Chess improves schoolwork and grades.Numerous studies have proven that kids obtain a higher reading level, math level and a greater learning ability overall as a result of playing chess. For all those reasons mentioned above and more, chess playing kids do better at school and therefore have a better chance to succeed in life.

Chess opens up the world for you.You don't need to be a high ranked player to enter big important competitions. Even tournaments such as the US Open and the World Open welcome players of all strengths. Chess provides you with plenty of opportunities to travel not only all around the country but also around the world. Chess is a universal language and you can communicate with anyone over the checkered plain.

Chess enables you to meet many interesting people.You will make life-long friendships with people you meet through chess.

Chess is cheap.You don't need big fancy equipment to play chess. In fact, all you may need is your computer! (And we really hope you have one of those, or else something fishy is going on here.) It is also good to have a chess set at home to practice with family members, to take to a friend's house or even to your local neighborhood park to get everyone interested in the game.

CHESS ISFUN!Dude, this isn't just another one of those board games. No chess game ever repeats itself, which means you create more and more new ideas each game. It never gets boring. You always have so much to look forward to. Every game you are the general of an army and you alone decide the destiny of your soldiers. You can sacrifice them, trade them, pin them, fork them, lose them, defend them, or order them to break through any barriers and surround the enemy king. You've got the power!

To summarize everything in three little words: Chess is Everything

RHETORICS Rhetoricis the ancient art of argumentation and discourse. When we write or speak to convince others of what we believe, we are "rhetors." When we analyze the way rhetoric works, we are "rhetoricians." The earliest known studies of rhetoric come from the Golden Age, when philosophers of ancient Greece discussedlogos,ethos, andpathos. Writers in the Roman Empire adapted and modified the Greek ideas. Across the centuries, medieval civilizations also adapted and modified the theories of rhetoric. Even today, many consider the study of rhetoric a central part of a liberal arts education.

One assumption implicit in the art of rhetoric is that people--even intelligent people--can disagree with each other. Sometimes they disagree with each other about deeply held beliefs. When such disagreements become pronounced, there are two typical results--either they begin to fight, or they engage in debate. The choice is up to every country and every citizen--do we solve our problems by using a bullet or by engaging in rational discourse? Mildethosor a military invasion?Pathosor plastique? Rhetoric removes disagreement from the arena of violence and turns it into debate--a healthy and necessary step in any democracy. For any headway to occur in a debate, wise participants should begin through figuring out what assumptions drive each group. Usually, when two groups disagree, it is because they do not share certain assumptions. The rhetor must assess her audience and then figure out what assumptions operate in her own argument and then what assumptions operate in the arguments made by others.

Aristotle, The Rhetoric of Aristotle 224, Bk I, Ch I 1355b, line 26 (Lane Cooper trans., D. Appleton & Co. 1932). The Rhetoric continues:

It is clear, then, that rhetoric is not bound up with a single definite class of subjects, but is as universal as dialectic; it is clear, also, that it is useful. It is clear, further, that its function is not simply to succeed in persuading, but rather to discover the means of coming as near such success as the circumstances of each particular case allow. In this it resembles all other arts. For example, it is not the function of medicine simply to make a man quite healthy, but to put him as far as may be on the road to health; it is possible to give excellent treatment even to those who can never enjoy sound health. Furthermore, it is plain that it is the function of one and the same art to discern the real and the apparent means of persuasion, just as it is the function of dialectic to discern the real and the apparent syllogism. What makes a man a "sophist" is not his faculty, but his moral purpose.

Discussing law and its differing interpretations is the way we constitute community: rhetoric is the central art by which community and culture are established, maintained, and transformed.

rhetorical alternatives may help prepare law students to move more effectively between the law and life, between the legal language of abstraction and their future clients words describing individual human conflicts and dilemmas. If law school pedagogy carries the message that the laws key task is effective translation of the human world using legal categories, law students may find themselves poorly prepared for the realities of legal practice. The language of law school may even distance law students from individual voices they will need to be able to hear.

I. Whats the place of rhetoric in legal education?

The answer to this question appears obvious: Simply put, lawyers are rhetors. They make arguments to convince other people. They deal in persuasion. Proposing that the law is a branch of rhetoric, James Boyd White wrote, Who, you may ask, could ever have thought it was anything else? Others give the equally obvious, contrary answer: simply put, rhetoric is not reality; it is based on emotion, not reason; on word tricks, not logic.

Why should legal educators see and teach the law as rhetoric? That is, why should we engage students in learning not only the art or craft of persuasion, but also the art of thought called for where scientific or mathematical forms of thought won't work, where we live in necessary uncertainty? First, we should do so because rhetoric reminds us that in hard cases, the legal language rarely fits and the legal rules rarely compel the result. Moreover, it may be the advocates role to make a case seem hard to avoid having it be categorized as falling within a well-settled legal principle. To read and to argue hard cases, students need to interpret, and interpretation is complex: [l]ike all human language, legal language is embedded in a particular setting, shaped by the social contexts and institutions surrounding it. It does not convey abstract meaning in a legally-created [sic] vacuum, and thus cannot be understood without systematic study of the contextual molding that gives it foundation in particular cultures and societies. Studying the law as rhetoric is essential to begin the complex task of legal interpretation.

Rhetoric also is essential for legal composition, perhaps even more naturally so because rhetoric is the historical site of the tools and implements of persuasion and argumentation. Moreover, the outcome of a legal argument is inherently rhetorical. That is, it is rhetorical because any agreement with the conclusion rests upon the ability of one proponent to persuade another, or to persuade an authoritative decision maker, to read a document or to understand a situation in a certain way.

Finally, studying the law as rhetoric immerses students in an imaginative human endeavor that may be capable of bringing about change. The rhetorical approach to imagining how things would look in different lights and from different angles offers the opportunity to effect change when reality favors the status quo. Looking into how reality is constructed makes it possible for the lawyer to shape arguments about individual circumstances that depart from the accepted narratives and existing frameworks. Recognizing that the law is constructed by human beings as they interpret, compose, and interact makes it possible for the law student to imagine a voice and a place to fit within the legal rhetorical community.

What would it mean to study and teach the law as rhetoric? I will mention a few general principles here; my version of the answer to the broader question is in the description and evaluation of the Law & Rhetoric course in Parts II and III. Rhetorical theorists agree that rather than being engaged in a search for truth, in the sense of a universal principle, rhetorics goal is the meaning that emerges from a contingent interaction among the reader and the writer, the speaker and the audience, the language and the context. From the rhetorical standpoint, words do not fit nor do they represent the world: instead, they are ways of interacting with it. Further affecting their stance toward persuasion and argumentation, rhetorical theorists also agree that law is not science, a discipline that assumes the ability to prove that a result is compelled by a reasoning process, either by logical demonstration or because of empirical data. Even though lawyers and judges claim otherwise in legal briefs and opinions, rhetoricians assume that the result of a lawsuit is not compelled by the application of the rules and that what advocates mean, and what they are understood to mean, is not fully revealed by the words that they choose. If we recognize that legal conclusions are not compelled by law, logic, or language alone, we are free as interpreters to consider historical, cultural, and social factors and to substitute the web of context for the ladder of the rules. As a result, rhetorical alternatives are able to accommodate diversity and imagine change, based in human experience, sensitive to middle grounds, and in opposition to all-or-nothing judgments. LAW AND CHESS; A LAWYER MUST POSSESS CHESS TRAITS

Considering how to become a lawyer requires an analysis of the lawyer personality for various reasons. You must answer the question of whether or not your personality matches with the lawyer personality and the lawyer character traits of the people who work in the legal field.

More specifically, in exploring how to become a lawyer it is important to understand the lawyer personality because of 3 main reasons:

A) The type of work demands a certain personality. -- To be successful at legal work requires a certain personality type depending on how closely you match the lawyer personality type, the more likely you are to not only enjoy the work but also be successful.

B) Co-workers may have quirks that offend you. -- Realize that the people you work with will most likely share certain similar personality traits, and it is important to know whether or not you really want to surround yourself with these specific types of people.

C) Your emotional health. -- To be happy and content on an emotional level with your legal work requires that you have the right personality that matches the lawyer personality.

So then what is the lawyer personality?

1) Tier Level Thinking The practice of any type of law requires advising the client regarding either a proper avenue to proceed with no liability to the client, or the least precarious route to take to minimize the clients exposure. To effectively achieve this end, lawyers must be able to see future possibilities. Also, litigation is adversarial in nature and you must be able to out think your opponent.

This is called multi-tier level thinking similar to a game of chess where a skilled chess player will not simply look at the next move, put actually plan out the next 4-10 moves (or possibly to the end of the game) mentally reviewing every move and counter move.

Hyper Skeptical/Critical Being skeptical and critical are other important traits of the lawyer personality. Lawyers are generally risk averse, and/or hired to minimize risk thus the ability to be highly critical and not take things at face value is a required skill that all lawyers possess. If a lawyer does not learn this skill it will be unlikely that he/she will ever be able to retain clients, because a client pays a lawyer for their ability to spot unknown issues/pitfalls to the client and advise of the best course of action.

Chess develops logical thinking. Chess requires some understanding of logical strategy. For example, you will know that it is important to bring your pieces out into the game at the beginning, to keep your king safe at all times, not to make big weaknesses in your position and not to blunder your pieces away for free. (Although you will find yourself doing that occasionally through your chess career. Mistakes are inevitable and chess, like life, is a never-ending learning process.)3) Independent Lawyers are generally pretty independent people. Once you become a lawyer you will be considered a professional, and thus you will be expected to do your work properly often without direct supervision. Therefore, especially as a young associate you will be spending a significant amount of time alone researching and writing.

You will be left to your own devices and expected to produce a useable work product (either memorandum summarizing research or written documentation to be submitted to the court). Though certain types of lawyers do work on larger teams, you will be given more room to work independently vs. another industry.

Chess teaches independence. You are forced to make important decisions influenced only by your own judgment.4) Tough Skin Lawyers operate often in adversarial proceedings, and therefore it is necessary for a successful lawyer to have a tough skin. As a lawyer you will be operating in a highly emotionally charged industry (from your client side), tough business pressures and demands (coming from your employer), and adversarial pressures (from other lawyers).

The ability to balance and manage unreasonable conflicts with opposing counsel, the emotional imbalances of your clients, and the billing demands of your employer can take a toll on those who are emotionally sensitive.

5) Disciplined The practice of law requires someone who possesses personality traits associated with discipline. Again, lawyers are given a lot of independence, and as a lawyer you will be expected to produce work product on your own.

Realize now while you are still researching how to become a lawyer that as a lawyer you will not have someone checking in with you every five minutes to make sure you are still working. You will be required to self-regulate, and if you do not possess this element of the lawyer personality, you may find it very difficult to keep a legal job.

6) Hard Working It goes without saying that the practice of law requires hard work (and as an aside you should be working hard right now collecting as much information as you can about how to become a lawyer).

As a lawyer, you will be required to decipher and master complex legal questions. Sometimes, some questions will not have clear answers, and finding the best avenue to proceed will take a great deal of time and energy to discover.

This element of the lawyer personality should be expected, and most likely you already possess this lawyer personality trait as otherwise you would not be researching how to become a lawyer.

Chess teaches the value of hard work, concentration and commitment.7) Good With Deadlines This character trait of lawyers is especially important to those types of lawyers who practice in the realm of litigation (i.e. filing and processing law suits).

All court rules (though varying state by state) require certain time limits to file certain papers with the court. If you miss those deadlines, your ability to file those documents may be barred by the court, and possibly end the litigation with your client losing because of your oversight. Then your firm would most likely be sued by the client for malpractice (a headache you dont want).

Law as Rhetoric

Our legal system is based on a firm belief in an ordered universe and objective truth. The trial is the process by which the impartial and wise judge guides us to the truth. Down the other path lies a Brave New World where words have no true meaning and judges are free to decide what facts they choose to see. In this world, a judge is free to push his or her own political and social agenda.Many lawyers lack a basic understanding of the structure and process of legal argumentation. Their limited understanding, which often leads to less than effective advocacy, stems from legal education's failure to make the structure and process of legal argument explicit and systematic. One approach to this problem is to explore the intrinsic relationship of law to rhetoric. Because law and rhetoric have a common cultural and historical heritage, classical and contemporary rhetorical theory offer conceptual frameworks for understanding and learning legal argumentation.2

This article discusses and applies heuristics from contemporary theories of argumentation to demonstrate how these models inform the study and practice of the law. My focus is on the practical nature and justificatory function of legal argument. Although theories of argumentation belong within the larger class of rhetorical theory, they are distinguished here because rhetorical theory lays the more general foundation for considering specific approaches to argument.

Traditionally, research on argument has followed two lines: normative and descriptive investigation. For the most part, normative theories of argument are treated in the area of formal logic and are concerned with internal correctness and validity. Instead, this article identifies the contributions of Stephen Toulmin and Chaim Perelman, two rhetoricians who explore argument not as norm-giving but as norm-descriptive.

Legal Argument as Practical Argumentation

Aristotle believed that most arguments in the real world were practical in nature and took place outside highly rigorous systems of logical and mathematical proof. Until recently, rhetorical theorists have paid little attention to practical argumentation and have concentrated on more formal models of reasoning. But contemporary theorists such as Toulmin and Perelman have returned to Aristotle's original concern with practical argumentation, believing that logic and mathematical models are inadequate to explain how people actually make arguments. Both Toulmin and Perelman use legal reasoning as the model for their theories because it is a form of practical argumentation. Practical arguments proceed informally; they are not concerned with formal demonstration, internal validity, and objective correctness. While logical arguments are specifically designed to produce conclusions that are universal and absolute in their proof, practical arguments are designed to establish one claim as more probable or reasonable than another. Likewise, legal argumentation is not concerned with proof of absolute truths, but acknowledges that it is always possible to argue for or against a particular claim.Arguments that support one claim never entirely exclude those supporting the opposing claim. Strict logical consequence and certainty are never the result, because arguments depend upon language, and language always admits of ambiguity, equivocality, and multiple interpretation. A legal argument is resolved when the audience, whether judge or jury, accepts one claim as more reasonable than another rather than as objectively and inherently valid. Similarly, the goal of practical argumentation is to gain the assent or adherence of the audience to a claim. The persuasiveness of an argument always depends upon what the relevant audience regards as persuasive. The audience decides when and to what extent a claim has been justified by the arguments.

Aristotle refers to practical argumentation as dialectical reasoning. I use the term "practical" because "dialectical" is used interchangeably with "logical" in many texts. Consider, for instance, that the literal interpretation of a statutory or common law rule may beat variance with notions of equity and fairness. Contrast this with a theorem of mathematics or an axiom of logic, which has a certain or conclusive meaning. Demonstration, by contrast, transcends its immediate social and cultural context and is therefore field invariant. The conclusions of demonstration are objectively valid independent of their acceptance by any audience whatsoever.

Justification

Justification, according to John Rawls, "seeks to convince others, or ourselves, of the reasonableness of the principles upon which our claims and judgments are founded. In practical argumentation, justification involves a heuristic search; that is, the arguer searches among the many available arguments to find those that will most likely persuade the audience to accept the claim. Justification provides reasons for accepting the claim. Similarly, a lawyer must justify a claim by generating arguments based on the evidence and available legal authority. Because law is a rhetorical activity and because legal argumentation is a form of practical argumentation.

Presence

In justifying a claim, the arguer must determine how to give significance to the premises and relationships expressed in the argument. Choosing to single out or to emphasize certain characteristics in an argument draws the attention of the audience to those characteristics and thereby gives them a presence that prevents them from being overlooked. Presence acts directly on the sensibility of the audience through the selection of features for both inclusion and exclusion in an argument. Presence has a positive as well as a negative dimension: the deemphasis of information can also be used strategically. In the context of the law, presence can be exhibited in the forms of proof introduced into evidence at trial and in the statement-of-facts section of a brief. The material facts in the trial of a lawsuit are determined by various forms of proof presented to the trier of fact. One form of proof, known as real proof, is specifically directed to the senses and perceptions of the fact finder as a basis for reaching a conclusion. For instance, the exhibition of a photograph of the victim's body in a murder prosecution, or the child in a paternity suit, or the plaintiffs disfigured limb in a personal injury action, can effectively create a presence that moves the finder of fact. Similarly, the techniques of presentation can be used to create presence in the statement of the facts in a brief to the court. Although the court will ultimately decide the case on the basis of the law, the statement of the facts can engender a sense of fairness or sympathy about which party ought to prevail. The careful choice of descriptive terms, the arrangement of words and dependent clauses, the use of active and passive voice, and the degree of detail and abstraction can lend presence to facts that are favorable to a client's position.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Legal argument is a practical argumentation which takes place within the context of a legal dispute and which depends on the evidence and available legal authority to justify the acceptance of a claim by the judge or jury.The theories of Stephen Toulmin and Chaim Perelman suggest heuristics for use in legal argumentation. Their heuristics are field-invariant: they can be used in any area of doctrinal law. Toulmin's layout of argument incorporates the components of a complete argument and provides a basic structure on which to build a legal argument. Perelman's new rhetoric furnishes a set of tools and a taxonomy for use in building the argument. Together, their theories may be particularly useful in clinical and advanced courses in trial and appellate advocacy, where the focus is on case building, fact analysis, and the construction and use of proof. Most important, however, the theories of Toulmin and Perelman offer a conceptual framework for making the study of legal argumentation explicit and systematic to students.

(Lasker, 1949, pp. 3-5).

(Schmidt, 1982; Rifner, 1997)

Artise (1993)

(Hall, 1983)

(Graham, 1985)

(Hall, pp. 4-5).

(Horgan, 1988)

(Horgan, 1988, p. 3)

(Schmidt, p. 6).

(Milat, 1997)

(Ferguson, 1995, p. 11).

(Ferguson, 1995, p. 2).

Elizabeth Mertz, Inside the Law School Classroom: Toward a New Legal Realist Pedagogy, 60 Vanderbilt L. Rev. 483 (2007) [hereinafter Mertz, Inside the Law School Classroom].

Jack M. Balkin & Sanford Levinson, Law and the Humanities: An Uneasy Relationship, 18 Yale J. of Law & Hum. 155, 177 (2006).

White, Law as Rhetoric, supra note __, at 684.

See Steven L. Winter, A Clearing in the Forest: Law, Life, and Mind 6-12 (2001) (discussing the ideology of rationalism).

White, Roundtable Discussion, supra note __, at 1089.

This concept that it is sometimes the lawyers job to make a case hard derives from Douglas M. Coulson, Sophistic Historiography and Advocacy: Making Hard Cases and Bad Law, presentation to Association for the Study of Law, Culture, and Humanities, Boston, MA (April 2009) (copy on file with author).

Mertz, Inside the Law School Classroom, supra note __, at 513.

For example, Richard Rorty differentiates between two ways of thinking: The first [what Stanley Fish labels as foundationalist] . . . thinks of truth as a vertical relationship between representations and what is represented. The second is the rhetorical view, which thinks of truth horizontallyas the culminating reinterpretation of our predecessors reinterpretation of their predecessors reinterpretation. . . . [I]t is the difference between regarding truth, goodness, and beauty as eternal objects which we try to locate and reveal, and regarding them as artifacts whose fundamental design we often have to alter. Rorty, supra note __, at 92.

Winter, supra note __, at 88-89.

Science, many argue, is not science either, at least not in the sense of perfect knowledge and absolute certainty. See White, Law as Rhetoric, supra note __, at 687-88; see also Winter, supra note __, at 9.

Amsterdam and Bruner describe this idea as follows:

Our objective, then, has been to increase awareness, to intensify consciousness, about what people are doing when they do law. We have emphasized that the framing and adjudication of legal issues necessarily rest upon interpretation. Results cannot be arrived at entirely by deductive, analytic reasoning or by the rules of induction. . . . There always remains the wild card of all interpretationthe consideration of context, that ineradicable element in meaning making. And the deepest, most impenetrable feature of context lies in the minds and culture of those involved in fashioning an interpretation.

Amsterdam & Bruner, supra note __, at 287. See Paul J. Spiegelman, Integrating Doctrine, Theory and Practice in the Law School Curriculum: The Logic of Jake's Ladder in the Context of Amy's Web, 38 J. Legal Educ. 243 (1988) (re-telling Carol Gilligans description in the law school context).