The first group, positions requiring intuitive decisions, are said to be rare. T
his isn't true.
All of our left-brained thinking has to be chosen in some part by our right-brai
n. We scan the
board, look at weak spots, consider good outposts for our Knights, try to achiev
e more space,
take into account material, etc. before starting move one of the "if this then t
his" variety.
The second group, are positions resolvable by variations or logic.
Variations of logic worded such as to take this then take that, or if this then
that.
There Is No Satisfactory Alternative To Go
© 2002 Milton N. Bradley
As one of the world's great strategic board games, Chess shares certain importan
t characteristics with Go that also makes it a valuable
pedagogical adjunct to the standard curriculum, and it has often been used in th
at role outside the Orient in places where Go was
unknown. As Shelby Lyman noted in his nationally syndicated Chess column in Long
Island's premiere newspaper Newsday on Sept
10, 1991, "Chess works in an educational environment because ......it is a sport
....and it is played for fun." He continued "... children
playing Chess engage their full intellect, will and strength to a remarkable ext
ent. They alertly attend the chessboard: observing,
remembering, generating ideas, testing those ideas, making decisions and mistake
s and learning from those mistakes." He concluded
"Chess has an advantage over most school subjects: it combines both theory and p
ractice. Ideas are honed and tested in the crucible of
competitive play. Poor formulation or poor execution of ideas loses games. Carel
ess, faulty thinking is ruthlessly refuted on the
chessboard."
The validity of Lyman's contention that Chess can improve student performance wa
s recently abundantly demonstrated in New York
City's Mott Hall School, as reported by Brent Staples in the Sunday New York Tim
es of Dec 15, 2002, and described in considerable
detail in the section of this web page entitled "Teaching The New 'R' Of Reasoni
ng".
Go is far superior to Chess as a pedagogical tool because it not only fully shar
es all of these considerable assets, but also possesses
several others of transcendent importance that Chess lacks almost completely:
Most readily apparent is Go's far greater accessibility, especially by the very
young. It is free of all the artificial complexities
(e.g. different piece moves, promotion, castling, en passant capture, etc.) that
beset Chess. The structure of Go is as simple and
almost as easy to learn in rudimentary fashion as Checkers, so it is possible fo
r almost anyone to quickly and effortlessly begin
playing it.
The rigid starting setup of Chess vastly reduces the number of options available
, thereby inhibiting the free flow of the player's
imagination. In contrast, the Go board starts empty and the players create their
own unique structure in every game, thus
allowing full reign to their creativity and imagination.
The simplistic objective of Chess of catching the opposing King together with it
s small 8 x 8 square scale and constricting
starting lineup lead to a "quick kill" mentality in which the capture of some ma
terial or a successful "mating attack" on the
opposing King can lead to an instant win. The result is a game that is very stro
ngly biased toward the tactical, with very little
opportunity for the development of much more than elemental strategy. In contras
t, the 19 x 19 line Go board has enormous
scale. Coupled with the need to trade off short term profits and their costs aga
inst the possibility of later achieving greater long
term gain, this leads to incredibly profound strategy whose realization depends
upon the precise execution of tactics every bit as
incisive as those of Chess. This gives Go an entire dimension for intellectual d
evelopment almost entirely lacking in Chess.
Perhaps most important of all, the vast scale of the Go board makes it impossibl
e to precisely calculate anticipated outcomes
during the crucial opening stages of the game, and this requires the players to
rely entirely upon general strategic principles and
such right brain functions as pattern recognition and "instinct". This integrati
on of right and left brain function provided by Go
is crucial to the complete development of the brain, and is also almost complete
ly lacking in Chess (or any other known
human activity).
This unique integration of left and right brain function in playing Go was recen
tly directly demonstrated for the first time
by MRI brain scans, in experiments described in the report referenced in the sec
tion of this web page "Comparison
Between Chess and Go".
For these reasons, Go not only provides unlimited scope for even the most brilli
ant to exercise their mental capabilities to the
fullest, but an effectiveness in improving the brain function and academic perfo
rmance of even underachievers unmatched by any
other known pedagogical mechanism.
Caveats
There are some significant caveats that must be addressed in implementing a scho
ol Go program, especially in the US:
Most important is the realization that Go is not a form of magic wand, despite t
he enormous benefits that its participants
ultimately enjoy. Mere brief exposure to the elegant basic concepts of Go and oc
casional casual play may be pleasurable, but
will not result in substantive salutary changes in the student's thinking proces
ses or study habits!
The benefits Go provides can only be achieved over a period of months and years
during which the student actively
studies and plays Go, and progresses well into the advanced stages of skill. The
reason is that a deep understanding of and
ability to appropriately address the complex interactions between Go's strategy,
tactics, and elegant structural concepts are
what actually improve the student's intellectual capabilities. Coupled with Go's
subtle development and inculcation of
improved study habits, this then translates into improved academic performance.
It is this "rewiring" of the brain to enable it to efficiently engage in the kin
d of advanced REASONING essential to both playing
Go and solving real world problems that is most readily accomplished at about ag
e 4 or 5. As noted in some detail in the section
of this web page "Teaching The New 'R' Of Reasoning", the ideal learning method
for such young children is largely but not
wholly informal, supplemented by a small irreducible minimum of formal instructi
on. Unfortunately, the ideal combination of
conditions to permit using this preferred method does not routinely exist anywhe
re in the US today outside a very few Oriental
communities. Therefore there is no practical alternative to a more formal, intri
nsically less desirable (but still effective)
approach.
In Japan, Go is a well established and highly respected cultural/social activity
and almost every child is already aware of its
existence long before entering school, so participation in an in-school Go progr
am is fairly readily obtained and accepted. In the
US Go is almost completely unknown to all but a few students of Oriental extract
ion. Far worse, in our basically anti-intellectual
society, activities like playing Go are also often characterized by many student
s and parents as "nerdy", and are viewed
disapprovingly. Overcoming this erroneous negative preconception may constitute
a formidable challenge, at least until the
program is well established and its value demonstrated beyond question
Successful functioning, whether of the individual, groups and organizations, nat
ions, and even the world as a whole is almost entirely
dependent upon a single central meta-skill that I call Reasoning. This is the ab
ility to correctly appraise the problems confronted,
assemble the facts necessary, comprehend their interrelationships and implicatio
ns, and then devise and implement appropriate
solutions.
Unfortunately Reasoning is not now explicitly taught, and is at best only periph
erally addressed in very limited contexts in some
science, mathematics and graduate business school courses. To make matters worse
, even those few peripheral stabs at teaching this
vital meta-skill occur very late in the student's academic career, long after ma
ny bad thinking habits have long been established. The
result is that the desperately needed problem solving ability can only be acquir
ed by first breaking those long established defective
thinking habits - a process that's notoriously difficult for most and virtually
impossible for all too many!
In the essay that follows I discuss this problem, some of the partial solutions
now being implemented (primarily the teaching of
Critical Thinking), their limitations, my proposal for solution, and the role th
at Go can play in that solution. Also addressed are some
of the key impediments to juvenile learning, and how they affect the educational
process.
What Is CRITICAL THINKING?
In standard education texts, critical thinking is defined as consisting of the f
ollowing elements:
1. Estimating
2. Evaluating
3. Classifying
4. Assuming
5. Inferring Logically
6. Grasping principles
7. Noting Relationships
8. Hypothesizing
9. Offering Opinions With Reasons
10. Making Judgments With Criteria
1. Objectively assess the current status and its (often far from obvious) i
mplications. (= Critical Thinking).
2. Recall pertinent facts which potentially impact the outcome.
3. Visualize feasible/appropriate alternative courses of action.
4. Calculate/estimate the value and risks of each.
5. Prioritize them.
6. Make and implement action decisions.
7. Observe the outcome.
8. Repeat the entire cycle, as appropriate.