Brad, this had a date problem (my computer), so I'm resending it.
>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, or even during >the 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 to 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. >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. The questions they need to gain points cannot be found in any of their lesson material. They must make them up themselves from what they have learned. >I fear their is no room in the standardized testing regimen for such >antics - and a dozen or two more equally nasty tricks.. > >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 must 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. The ones who don't get >special attention. > >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, for they >would be facing classes of youngsters who were there to learn. I think everyone would like that. >Harry ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
