Brad, Chess is not a game for computers, but for humans.
It should be remembered that the score with one game to go, was Kasparov 1 - IBM - 1 - and 3 draws. Then IBM got the 6th game. So the programmers beat the Champion. (IBM points out the technology in the computer was used on many other serious projects. Chess was no doubt something to relieve the strain on the computer nerds. (You know.) I can barely remember, but didn't the programmers make adjustments to the computer during the match? If so, Kasparov was playing different opponents each game. Real chess was played by my No. 1 son Alan. His last win was the Southwestern Open, Then he hung up his spurs. I think too many young guns were coming into town. His over the board play was first class - but these 14 year old prodigies coming through the door in droves! He told me the other day that he had gone over the game which had won him the SW Championship and found his opponent could have won. But, the opponent didn't - he had missed the opportunity. Though chess is supposed to be an intellectual game - is an intellectual game - it's played on a board facing an opponent. The outcome is not decided by your intellectuality but by how you move the wood. (Perhaps following my economic admonition. Never mind what they say - watch what they do!) I think it likely that Kasparov could have drawn games for ever with IBM. But, to win, one must do something different and a tiny bit stronger - but which also may expose a tiny bit of weakness. If this happened in the 6th game, perhaps the computer jumped on it. So, why did the computer win? Perhaps by taking advantage of a human characteristic denied to it - hubris. Standardized testing sets out to fill a gap in modern American education - the fact that the usual high school graduate knows very little, and what little is known is not well organized. (You may recall my story of the talk show with four UCLA undergraduates. They were asked the capital of Canada. One knew.) Educators have adopted the thinking that: "This is what must be known." "Therefore this is what must be taught." "And therefore this is what must be tested." They appear to have forgotten the well-known thought that one can give a man a fish for his dinner, or you can teach him how to fish. The educators are giving fish, which leaves the kids with no time for learn how to fish. One of the casualties of standard testing will be my economics courses. They lean heavily on fierce competition and enlightened cooperation in the classroom, Socratic questioning, chains of reasoning, and suchlike. We don't "discuss" poverty, homelessness, unemployment, depression. We analyze them and I am often surprised at how well the kids pick things up. The teachers put them through hell - and they love it. Prodded by a Pollard without shame, the next day's lesson sheets will be given as homework. Next morning - immediately after class begins, they are tested on what they know. I should remind you the class is split into 5 Groups which compete, so they come up in Groups. However, they are not asked for answers. They get the answers with their lesson sheets (I'm just too nice). Each Group in turn comes up to hear a series of answers from the teacher. Then, they have to come up with questions that fit the answers.. Further, they are awarded a rising scale of points for their questions. While their first correct question gets them only 5 points, their fourth correct question earns them 20 points. They can take their time. They get a full 60 seconds to run through their four questions - so they can dawdle and still make a high score. I fear their is no room in the standardized testing regimen for such antics - and a dozen or two more. One thing I didn't manage because it simply isn't allowed. Just an idea - but it would probably require an extra hour a day of class time. The kids are given Friday off if they work consistently well for four days. Those who don't manage it come in on Friday where the teachers find themselves teaching classes of perhaps 5 to 10. They can therefore concentrate attention on those who need it. The kids who work hard and well get a three-day weekend. However, nothing can beat the improvement in academic excellence if compulsion were removed from education. If modern education were a voluntary exercise, quality would increase exponentially. Teachers would no longer need to spend perhaps 25%of their time on discipline as they confronted classes of youngsters who were there to learn. Harry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Brad wrote: >There's an interview in Suncay's NYT Magazine >with Gary Kasparov. > >He criticizes IBM for making such a big >thing of Deep Blue beating him in 1997, >instead of treating it as a scientific experiment. > >I'm sure there is some "sour grapes" in this, >and that, had Kasparov won, he might not have >been so dispassionate about it either, but, >nonetheless, I think he is basically >right that the sun had already set on IBM, >which no longer was interested in science >but only in the bottom line and bullsh-t >advertising. > >I think Kasparovb spells out clearly the >issue of man vs computer: > > "Either humans will be stronger in creativity, > or computers will win with brute force of calculation." > >This echoes Joseph Weizenbaum's still very fine book: >_Computer Power and Human Understanding: From judgment to >calculation_. > >Perhaps the only thing that Kasparov forgot is that >the world's Stalins and Curchills and Bushes et al. >will always boss both the creative people and the >computers around. (Please notice that I >exercised due diligence in not repeating the >recent error of a German government minister >and mentioning the two words Hitler and Bush in the same sentence >irrespective of the semantic relation between the two!). > >-- > >So I cite Kasparov's quote in favor of my ever stronger >conviction that education needs to be radically >restructured to be transparent: no more tests with >hidden answers. No more the student trying to guess >what the teacher has hidden from him or her. > >There remains only one criterion of human achievement >(as opposed, of course, to human sacrifice!): > > What have you come up with today that nobody > else in all human history has ever conceived of > to the best of our collected social knowledge? > >Unless you have a positive bottom line at the end of >the day, at the end of the week, at the end of each >month, year and decade of your life, then >you (OK, I -- others may not feel this is >an appropriate criterion of judgment, just like >some persons think Edmund Husserl was just another >Romantic, etc.) are at best a banausos [craftsperson >who makes the stuff that machines cannot >yet make to reproduce individual and species >life], and it's only a matter of time before >a computer obsoletes you (well, if you are a >neurosurgeon, it may be a fairly long time, >and obviously you will get a high hourly pay rate >in the interim). > >But this is only step one. Step two is to >evaluate each of these ideas in the >encompassing context of our shared social and >personal life. Creativity without good sense >is a loose cannon on the deck, and, the more >creative, the more the explosive potential. > >I wonder if AlQaeda uses standardized tests.... > >-- > >And, as long as my train of thought is gravitating >back to the free market: When will General Motors face up >to the challenge that the vehicle of choice for >the Taliban is the Toyota Land Cruiser (Mullah Omar >had 8 of them). How can we win market share away >from ther Japanese and get these people to buy >Cadillac Escalades instead? > >Cheers! > >\brad mccormick ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
