ERPLI
Evaluate chess software for schools as a teaching and programme-management purchase. The school needs to know who runs sessions, how accounts are controlled, what teachers can review and whether the proposed timetable works on its devices. A large library of puzzles is useful only when the programme can be delivered consistently.
This guide is for principals, activity coordinators, school groups and coaching providers preparing a school proposal. ERPLI publishes it and offers Chess LMS. The pilot framework and scorecard are editorial planning tools, not evidence that a school has already achieved the suggested outcomes. Use them to compare suppliers against your own requirements.
Cover image: original AI-generated editorial illustration, not a customer photograph or an ERPLI interface screenshot.
Write a one-page programme brief first
Specify the intended year groups, number of classes, session length, available devices and teaching responsibility. Decide whether chess is an elective, an after-school club or a service provided by an external academy. Those arrangements create different staffing and communication needs even when they use the same software.
For an illustrative pilot, choose one class of twenty-four learners, one facilitating teacher and one specialist-coach contact. These numbers describe a planning example, not a platform capacity statement. Identify where the teacher will seek help, how attendance will be recorded and which staff member will resolve access issues during the school day.
Compare a curriculum you can actually deliver
Ask for the first four lesson plans and the teaching instructions that accompany them. Check whether each lesson has a clear objective, an explanation, a suitable activity and a way to review understanding. A list of topic names does not establish that a teacher can run a session from it.
Ask how new learners join after the term begins and how a teacher accommodates different starting points. The ERPLI curriculum page describes level-based learning and configurable progression. Request a demonstration of the intended school sequence rather than assuming the academy default matches your timetable or assessment approach.
Software can help a classroom teacher facilitate structured beginner activities. It does not remove the need for preparation or a plan for questions beyond that teacher's chess knowledge. Confirm induction, example demonstrations and specialist support. Avoid procurement promises that every teacher can deliver every level with no preparation.
Ask who creates and controls the accounts
Find out whether learners need personal email addresses, how initial credentials are distributed and who can reset access. Ask what happens when a teacher changes role or a child leaves the school. Use named staff responsibility instead of an informal shared password whose owner is unclear.
Lichess Class documentation describes teacher-managed accounts, including accounts without student-controlled email addresses. ChessKid's school enterprise guide describes organisation, teacher and group administration. These are provider-specific examples reviewed on 9 November 2026, not claims that the same account model is available in every chess LMS.
Inspect communication and playing controls separately
Ask who a learner can message and who they can play. Those are different questions. A product can restrict messages while still allowing games with people outside the class. Also check teacher announcements, parent visibility and who can change the relevant settings. Use a learner account during the demonstration rather than relying on an adult dashboard.
For example, Lichess Kid Mode documentation distinguishes restricted communication from playing against other users. That is why “safe mode” or “private classroom” needs a practical explanation. For ERPLI, review peer-play controls and the school solution, then test the interaction boundaries your school requires.
Ask for the supplier's current privacy and data-handling information through your normal procurement process. Record what learner information is needed and who can access it. Do not treat a product's marketing description as the school's completed review or as a guarantee that no supervision is necessary.
Test the school devices before approving a licence
Run the actual lesson on the school network and intended hardware. Include shared computers, tablets or Chromebooks where relevant. Check login, board interaction, audio or video if used, and how a session resumes after a dropped connection. Ask the teacher to repeat the steps independently.
Confirm how the class works if devices are shared. If the plan pairs two learners at one board, decide how the teacher records participation and interprets individual progress. A group result should not automatically become an individual assessment. Keep a physical-board activity available when connectivity or equipment prevents the planned digital task.
Use a four-session pilot with observable decisions
| Session | Programme question | Evidence to collect |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Can staff and learners access the lesson? | Login issues, setup time and support needed |
| 2 | Can the teacher deliver the intended activity? | Instructions used, interruptions and completion |
| 3 | Can staff review work and adjust the next lesson? | A sample report and a documented follow-up |
| 4 | Is the programme practical to continue? | Staff feedback, recurring workload and unresolved requirements |
This pilot is a suggested operational review, not a research experiment. Decide the acceptance criteria with the school before it starts. Otherwise, a visually impressive demonstration can be called a success without answering whether staff can repeat it during a normal week.
For instance, the coordinator might require the facilitating teacher to start the activity without vendor assistance by the fourth session. A school with very young learners may instead prioritise clear login support and supervised use. Choose criteria that reflect the programme's actual purpose; there is no universal score every school must reach.
Request a report that a school can use
Ask for an example showing the lesson covered, participation, available practice evidence and the next teaching step. Establish which fields are observed automatically and which require a teacher note. A report should not imply that a learner mastered a concept simply because an activity was opened.
Keep internal practice measures distinct from official chess ratings and broader academic attainment. Do not promise improvements in school grades or intelligence from software adoption alone. A school can assess the programme's delivery and chess-learning objectives without making unsupported claims about every subject in the curriculum. Review ERPLI reporting against the information your teachers actually need.
Budget for the whole school arrangement
Request a written quote stating the number of learners, teachers, sites and permitted activities. Include onboarding, staff training, support, any devices, any external coaching and any separately required video service. Confirm renewal terms and what happens to access during holidays. Compare like-for-like scope rather than a per-user figure in isolation.
If an external academy provides the service, define which responsibilities belong to the school, the academy and the software supplier. For example, who answers a parent enquiry about access, who corrects the roster and who prepares the term report? A clear division prevents every small issue being passed among three teams.
Keep competition features proportionate
School clubs may want inter-house or inter-section events, but routine teaching should not depend on running a tournament every week. Ask how participants are selected, who supervises games and how results are reviewed. Demonstrate a small event with sample accounts before planning a whole-school competition.
The ERPLI academy-tournament page describes its tournament tools. Confirm the event format and reporting you need. An event managed by software is not automatically an officially rated competition; any such status requires its own appropriate arrangements.
A procurement checklist for the next meeting
Download the school chess software pilot checklist. Use it to record requirements, evidence, responsible staff and unresolved items. Invite the teacher who will run the lessons to the evaluation; they may notice friction that a management-only demonstration misses.
Choose a supplier after the pilot shows that the programme can operate within your timetable, equipment and staff capacity. For ERPLI, start with the K–12 school solution and bring your programme brief to the demonstration. The objective is a repeatable school service with clear responsibility and useful learning records.
