I've always been an adept chess player, but I never spent the required time to become truly competitive. I agree with you that skill and ability differences le

I've always been an adept chess player, but I never spent the required time to become truly competitive. I agree with you that skill and ability differences lead to predictable outcomes; functionally, how would an educator address this in using chess as a learning instrument? Speculating as a non-educator, dividing the class into skill subsections would lead to more equal and competitive play, most likely increasing both motivation and learning. My co-founder joined our start-up after spending a year traveling through Asia, and brought back with him Chinese Chess. The pieces are incredibly similar to traditional chess, with slight movement variations. We adopted the game as our 3am work-break for a while, and were able to build up a record over a few weeks. Unlike traditional chess in which my win rate would be near-absolute, he was able to win approximately 25% of Chinese games, with his win rate stable over time as we both developed our knowledge of the nuances of the game.