Editor:
We read with great interest the editorial by Michaelsen and Wasser1 highlighting the importance of implementing and evaluating care-focused interventions within forensic psychiatric settings. In line with this call for smaller, local, quality improvement initiatives, we describe a brief implementation of a structured chess activity within a secure forensic inpatient unit.
Over four weeks, eight inpatients detained under criminal and civil legislation participated in structured chess matches conducted within the ward environment. Sessions were integrated into routine ward activities and facilitated by staff taking on roles as trainers or officials. One patient even joined the event-planning committee. Participation was consistently high as participants engaged in repeated gameplay with peers in a shared activity not defined by illness, risk, or offending history. The sessions provided a consistent, structured avenue for interaction among patients and staff outside of the usual clinical encounters.
Interest persisted following the competition, and a monthly chess club was subsequently established. A second run of the competition was held, with two patients from outside the forensic ward also participating, reflecting growing reach across the inpatient setting with potential for cross-ward or inter-unit engagement. Informal feedback indicated overwhelmingly positive experiences, with most rating the activity as “excellent” in brief postsession satisfaction checks.
Chess uniquely requires anticipation of another person’s intentions, inhibition of impulsive moves, and consideration of downstream consequences, abilities that map well onto forensic rehabilitation’s target domains. Prosocial behavior is fundamentally promoted through a shared understanding of rules. Players learn that setbacks necessitate tenacity and thoughtful strategy. Aspirational goals in psychiatric rehabilitation can echo the balancing of immediate opportunities against downstream objectives, like the many steps a pawn takes for a game-changing promotion. Participants are guided to display resilience in defeat and humility in triumph.
Within clinical encounters, staff with knowledge of chess were able to use gameplay as a neutral anchor for brief reflective dialogue regarding decision-making patterns, risk-taking tendencies, and coping with setbacks. This provided a nonconfrontational platform for exploring personality and behavioral patterns, allowing inpatients to become involved in their own risk assessment, which has been found to have encouraging predictive validity.2 This would move the conversation about value from pieces on the board to the people across it. Although it would be inappropriate to infer any impact on recidivism or long-term clinical outcomes, the activity demonstrates feasibility as a low-cost, scalable adjunct to structured inpatient rehabilitation, with value in enhancing engagement, fostering social connection, and supporting positive identity formation.3
Looking ahead, we aim to expand the chess program by introducing Chinese chess alongside a dedicated competition, enabling online chess matches with prison inmates to bridge institutional boundaries, and recruiting volunteers to teach chess to inpatients. These steps reflect a broader commitment to developing recovery-oriented, community-connected rehabilitative initiatives that are purposeful, scalable, and meaningful to a population whose needs often receive limited public attention. The age-old game of contained, symbolic conflict exemplifies how tools facilitating human growth need not be clinical, only purposeful in application.
Acknowledgment of AI use: The authors declare that AI-assisted tools (ChatGPT and Pair, a government AI chatbot assistant for public officers) were used to support language editing and improve grammatical clarity. All intellectual content, interpretation, and final manuscript decisions were made by the authors. The authors have reviewed and take full responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the submitted work.
Footnotes
Disclosures of financial or other potential conflicts of interest: None.
- © 2026 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
References
