The post-computer generation

[Paul Griffiths]

Playing devil's advocate just a touch here... how is it different having a chess computer help analyse a position to having your (very) strong chess friend/coach go through a game with you? The advantage of having a chess computer is that you can take this approach more often...

Big difference. The human coach explains in terms of ideas, leitmotifs, and plans. The engine churns out variations. The engine-generated lines can be translated into ideas and plans but it takes work. For example, see Nunn's book "Secrets of Minor Piece Endings," where he takes the 2B vs 2N ending, which is technically won for the side with 2Bs and tries to translate computer moves and variations into human insights and heuristics. A human chess player wants insight, wants wisdom, not just a torrent of variations. For example a few weeks ago at one of Adam Raoof's tournaments in Golders Green I saw a couple of under-BCF 100 players in a rook ending where one player had three pawns more than the other. All he had to do was to trade rooks, dropping a pawn in the process, and win the pawn ending automatically. But he didn't trade rooks and the chess engine would not have advised that plan either (involving as it did the loss of one of the three extra pawns). The game amazingly ended in a draw. A human coach would have have said in the post-mortem, "Why didn't you trade rooks, you nincompoop?" And the human player would have understood (I hope). But engine analysis would not shed insight on the situation.

A really good explanation Arshad but I don't really agree. People made a similar argument with the internet, said that all that extra information 'out there' would lead to some kind of overload, dumbing down and (due to ease of access) laziness ..... but in my view it just stimulates a different type of intelligence (not better or worse), the intelligence to be able to choose what information is most reliable and valuable.

In chess people will develop the skills to glean themes and ideas from the raw data of moves (pehaps not the players with the rook ending - but they are probably not part of the 'post-computer generation'. This is not better, nor worse - Just different.

As for the pot-shots at the education system.

What schools are becoming under late capitalism are puffed-up games of trivial pursuit; a collection of bits and pieces totally unrelated to each other or to anything that is relevant to a kid's life or to an adult's life.

The same applies to university education.

A well worded sentence but come on.... It's such a sweeping statement, why does the author feel that they have such a good understanding of what it relevant in our lives?

[Peter Rhodes]

This is an interesting thread, I enjoyed reading all of the posts - very thought provoking.

I agree with Paul that school's (and maybe Uni's) are engendering a different type of learning - neither better or worse. (EDIT: I think with reflection we are yet to see whether better or worse).

What I think matters is whether these students leave with good "problem-solving" skills, because that is what is going to be required for "good jobs" as previously mentioned.

I often work with overseas colleagues in collaborations that require extended problem-solving efforts and there is a huge cultural difference between us and India/China with those cultures rarely using lateral thinking to solve problems. They have quite a disciplinarian and "save face" culture, and will follow instructions to the letter often without thought for the consequences or problems that will be caused.

Creativity is really important in problem solving and I think I owe my own ability partly to my liason with chess at an early(ish) age.

[Arshad Ali]

I often work with overseas colleagues in collaborations that require extended problem-solving efforts and there is a huge cultural difference between us and India/China with those cultures rarely using lateral thinking to solve problems. They have quite a disciplinarian and "save face" culture, and will follow instructions to the letter often without thought for the consequences or problems that will be caused.

Some of the differences are cultural -- there is intense emphasis on conforming in these societies and the rewards (such as they are) go to those who play the social and conforming game best. Which means reproducing accepted answers to questions and not questioning authority (particularly elders). Eccentricity and individuality are looked at askance.

[Paul McKeown]

Some of the differences are probably operating at the race genetic level -- if I remember correctly, South Asian IQs are averaging at 82 and roughly the same holds in the Middle East as well. If you don't have basic intelligence to begin, how are you going to be creative?

I think you need to reference peer reviewed and widely accepted medical/psychological/biological literature to substantiate such claims; even if disparities in IQ were discovered by reputable researchers, such work also has to strip away cultural, economic, educational and other environmental factors before any evidence of genetic mechanisms could even be postulated. I rather doubt that that has ever taken place; there are of course lots of very dubious sources documenting racial variations in intelligence, including 19th century and early 20th European and North American tracts demonstrating "White" superiority, all have been shown to be bunkum or prejudice. As far as I'm aware, reputable biology shows that homo sapiens is unlike many higher species in that it really doesn't show many variations that could be attributed to distinct races having formed. What we see as race is to a great extent only skin deep.

I also feel that here is perhaps not the right place for such discussions, as they have no bearing on chess.

[Paul Griffiths]

Some of the differences are probably operating at the race genetic level -- if I remember correctly, South Asian IQs are averaging at 82 and roughly the same holds in the Middle East as well. If you don't have basic intelligence to begin, how are you going to be creative?

I think you need to reference peer reviewed and widely accepted medical/psychological/biological literature to substantiate such claims; even if disparities in IQ were discovered by reputable researchers, such work also has to strip away cultural, economic, educational and other environmental factors before any evidence of genetic mechanisms could even be postulated. I rather doubt that that has ever taken place; there are of course lots of very dubious sources documenting racial variations in intelligence, including 19th century and early 20th European and North American tracts demonstrating "White" superiority, all have been shown to be bunkum or prejudice. As far as I'm aware, reputable biology shows that homo sapiens is unlike many higher species in that it really doesn't show many variations that could be attributed to distinct races having formed. What we see as race is to a great extent only skin deep.

I also feel that here is perhaps not the right place for such discussions, as they have no bearing on chess.

I couldn't agree more with you Paul.

[Arshad Ali]

I also feel that here is perhaps not the right place for such discussions, as they have no bearing on chess.

As you say, it has nothing to do with chess.

[David Robertson]

...and nothing to do with the research evidence either. Even by the standards of the average internet discussion, this thread is full of dire nonsense in flat contradiction of the available evidence.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Post deleted because the post it was referencing no longer contains the message in question.

[Carl Hibbard]

Whoops, I have already asked Arshad to consider editing it to something more appropriate - two lots of moderation!!

[Simon Spivack]

The crassly insensitive post is much worse than anything that an already banned poster managed to come with.

An examination of, for instance, http://www.imo-official.org/results.aspx doesn't do much for those who believe in Western superiority.

[Arshad Ali]

I am in two minds as to whether to let this post stand. As a discussion has developed from it, I think I will let it be, but will warn Arshad not to make this sort of assertion in future without having some evidence to back it up.

First of all, I was responding to someone's else post on differing levels of creativity among different peoples. Secondly, any evidence I presented would be pounced on for various reasons. Thirdly, the subject is a keg of dynamite (witness what happened to Nobel-prize winning biologist Sir James Watson for some comments he made a year or two back). And finally, it has nothing to do with chess. In all the cases where the discussion has moved away from chess, I have been responding, not initiating.

Postscript: Got a message from Carl and have edited the controversial post.