The Chess Mind

Lee Smolin is a well-known physicist and the author of The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next. The book strongly contrasts with recent efforts by Brian Greene (see 1, 2 and 3) and other advocates of string theory, as Smolin thinks that (a) string theory is, if not a dead end, a far less promising approach than its friends think, and (b) the community of string theorists wield an almost punitive influence over those pursuing alternative approaches to a theory of quantum gravity.

On page 284, Smolin offers a summary list of seven "unusual" aspects of the string community:

1. Tremendous self-confidence, leading to a sense of entitlement and of belonging to an elite community of experts.

2. An unusually monolithic community, with a strong sense of consensus, whether driven by the evidence or not, and an unusual uniformity of views on open questions. These views seem related to the existence of a hierarchical structure in which the ideas of a few leaders dictate the viewpoint, strategy, and direction of the field.

3. In some cases, a sense of identification with the group, akin to identification with a religious faith or political platform.

4. A strong sense of the boundary between the group and other experts.

5. A disregard for and disinterest in the ideas, opinions, and work of experts who are not part of the group, and a preference for talking only with other members of the community.

6. A tendency to interpret evidence optimistically, to believe exaggerated or incorrect statements of results, and to disregard the possibility that the theory might be wrong. This is coupled with a tendency to believe results are true because they are "widely believed," even if one has not checked (or even seen) the proof oneself.

7. A lack of appreciation for the extent to which a research program ought to involve risk.

Not being a physicist, I can't directly assess the accuracy of his claims about string theorists. It does largely square with my understanding of the history of scientific revolutions and, in general, battles between the "in" party in an academic dispute and their rivals. And to tie this in to a recent post, it's also largely descriptive of conspiracy theorists as well.

So practice good intellectual hygiene and beware if you find yourself exemplifying too many of 1-7 on a given issue. Some of these points aren't problematic in themselves: a sense of self-confidence is helpful in doing intellectual work, and it's often useful to be part of a cohesive group working on a shared set of problems - that's often how real progress is made! But when one is part of a group that's wholly immune to outside critique, whose core beliefs rest on assumptions one will not so much as consider, problems of an at least equal magnitude will result.

Have a look here, and have a look at his related posts and the Feser link too, while you're at it.

What accounts for people believing such wild conspiracy claims with such fervor? Is it the almost complete absence of critical thinking skills? A blind hatred of authority in general and Bush in particular? Even Noam Chomsky, as prominent a foe of the Bush administration as can be found in the U.S., has critiqued these theories as completely unrealistic.

Perhaps there will always be purveyors of conspiracy theories, but hopefully most people just need a little fine-tuning for their common sense. To that end, I hope the links above are helpful.

Have a look here. Those familiar with game theory might not find anything new here, but it's worth reflecting on the information as it applies to chess.

One obvious application. John Cassidy notes that if given a 50-50 chance to win $150 at the risk of losing $100, most refuse the gamble. Ceteris paribus, this is clearly irrational, as one's expected value is a $25 profit. The chess equivalent comes in many last rounds, where a quick draw guarantees a nice prize, a loss little to nothing, and a win a very big prize. Rationally, the right decision, assuming one is playing a peer, is to play for the win. Yes, it's a risk, but it's the financially correct decision. If you're among the risk-averse, inclined to avoid the $150/$100 bet or inclined to take the quick draw, a practical strategy is to realize this and to steel yourself ahead of time to fight the full game. (Use self-talk, tell friends so you'll be embarrassed if you change your mind, maintain a self-confident posture - even if it's not a reflection on how you feel, etc.)

Cheating in chess has been an occasional subject for this blog, but the focus has generally been on the dangers present in Swiss system events.

Tennis star Lindsay Davenport, however, has expressed concerns concerning the Association of Tennis Professionals' plan to introduce round-robin events in the 2007 men's season.

Perhaps it's worth visiting the question on here: should professional chess revert to the knockout system, at least for most events? That would take care of all the BAP business, if nothing else! (No more BAP comments, please.) Four arguments in favor of the round-robin come to mind, which I'll present and respond to - not equally persuasively in each case.

(1) I imagine that one historical consideration was the worry that the two best players might face in an early round, causing someone who might easily have come in second or at least a high place to finish near the bottom.

Reply: With the rating system, it's easy enough to create a seeding system that will render such a result unlikely.

(2) There's an argument from the fan's perspective: it's a lot more interesting to watch many games than just a few at the end of the event - especially if the leading fan favorites have been eliminated.

Reply: One nice way of avoiding this problem is to use the system employed earlier this year at the World Cup (and elsewhere), which is to keep all the players, or all the players after a certain number of rounds in the event, playing further knockout matches for their particular placement. Thus in a 16-player event, the 8 first-round losers will have their own knockout sub-event competing for 9th-16th places, those in lose in the second round as well compete for 13th-16th, etc. As many players as the organizers want will continue to play!

(3) The round-robin system allows one to overcome an "accident". Mikhail Tal was famous for his first-round losses, including most notably the USSR Championship that got him into his first, and ultimately successful, world championship cycle; and in the Candidates' Tournament that was the final stepping stone on the way to playing Mikhail Botvinnik for the title.

Reply: First, the seeding system makes it unlikely, though not impossible, that such an upset will take place. Second, there will be color equalization, so if a Tal loses to an unknown, he'll have a second chance, and that will give him a reasonable opportunity to overcome the "accident".

(4) The knockout system doesn't correlate as well as a double-round robin when it comes to matching up the winner with highest rated player. In other words, if the goal of an event is to reward the best player, and the best player is most likely the player with the highest rating, then the best system is the one that is most likely to see the highest-rated player win.

(By fair means, of course. This would rule out a pairing system that puts the top seed into the final, where he awaits the winner of, for example, a very long knockout tournament, and forces that player to change locations for the final match. It goes without saying that this could never happen, especially not for a world championship event in the late 1990s. Perish the thought.)

Reply: Hmm...one possibility is just not to worry about it, on the grounds that the other advantages of the knockout system outweigh this problem. A supplementary suggestion is to avoid knockouts for really major events, like national and world championship contests. Another possibility is to use a double-elimination system, but I leave it up to the statisticians to say just how effective that is.

At any rate, I'll finish here and open the floor to discussion. Should we listen to Davenport, or is the ATP properly following the chess world?