Posted 10:18 AM by Robert

The Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin

The Founders of this country came up with all sorts of surprising insights. For example, Benjamin Franklin penned an interesting little essay on The Morals of Chess. Franklin extracts lots of interesting lessons from chess play, but there is one such lesson that I think deserves to be mentioned but is not clearly articulated by Franklin: Even the most important decisions must be made with only imperfect information, and the associated risks cheerfully accepted - caution and consideration must end at a reasonable point. In any event, Franklin was much smarter than I am, and his thoughts are always worth the penny:

The Game of Chess is not merely an idle amusement; several very valuable qualities of the mind, useful in the course of human life, are to be acquired and strengthened by it, so as to become habits ready on all occasions; for life is a kind of Chess, in which we have often points to gain, and competitors or adversaries to contend with, and in which there is a vast variety of good and ill events, that are, in some degree, the effect of prudence, or the want of it. By playing at Chess then, we may learn:

1st, Foresight, which looks a little into futurity, and considers the consequences that may attend an action; for it is continually occurring to the player, "If I move this Piece, what will be the advantage or disadvantage of my new situation? What use can my adversary make of it to annoy me? What other moves can I make to support it, and to defend myself from his attacks?"

2d, Circumspection, which surveys the whole Chess-board, or scene of action: - the relation of the several Pieces, and their situations; the dangers they are repeatedly exposed to; the several possibilities of their aiding each other; the probabilities that the adversary may make this or that move, and attack this or that Piece; and what different means can be used to avoid his stroke, or turn its consequences against him.

3d, Caution, not to make our moves too hastily. This habit is best acquired by observing strictly the laws of the game; such as, if you touch a Piece, you must move it somewhere; if you set it down, you must let it stand.

Therefore, it would be the better way to observe these rules, as the game becomes thereby more the image of human life, and particularly of war; in which if you have incautiously put yourself into a bad and dangerous position, you cannot obtain your enemy's leave to withdraw your troops, and place them more securely, but you must abide by all the consequences of your rashness.

And lastly, We learn by Chess the habit of not being discouraged by present bad appearances in the state of our affairs; the habit of hoping for a favourable chance, and that of persevering in the search of resources. The game is so full of events, there is such a variety of turns init, the fortune of it is so subject to vicissitudes, and one so frequently, after contemplation, discovers the means of extricating one's self from a supposed insurmountable difficulty, that one is encouraged to continue the contest to the last, in hopes of victory from our skill; or, at least, from the negligence of our adversary: and whoever considers, what in Chess he often sees instances of, that success is apt to produce presumption and its consequent inattention, by which more is afterwards lost than was gained by the preceding advantage, while misfortunes produce more care and attention, by which the loss may be recovered, will learn not to be too much discouraged by any present successes of his adversary, nor to despair of final good fortune upon every little check he receives in the pursuit of it.

That we may therefore, be induced more frequently to choose this beneficial amusement in preference to others, which are not attended with the same advantages, every circumstance that may increase the pleasure of it should be regarded; and every action or word that is unfair, disrespectful, or that in any way may give uneasiness, should be avoided, as contrary to the immediate intention of both the parties, which is, to pass the time agreeable.

1st, Therefore, if it is agreed to play according to the strict rules, then those rules are to be strictly observed by both parties; and should not be insisted upon for one side, while deviated from by the other: for this is not equitable.

2d, If it is agreed not to observe the rules exactly, but one party demands indulgences, he should then be as willing to allow them to the other.

3d, No false move should ever be made to extricate yourself out of a difficulty, or to gain an advantage; for there can be no pleasure in playing with a man once detected in such unfair practice.

4th, If your adversary is long in playing, you ought not to hurry him, or express any uneasiness at his delay; not even by looking at your watch, or taking up a book to read: you should not sing, nor whistle, nor make a tapping with your feet on the floor, or with your fingers on the table, nor do anything that may distract his attention: for all these displease, and they do not prove your skill in playing, but your craftiness and your rudeness.

5th, You ought not to endeavour to amuse and deceive your adversary by pretending to have made bad moves; and saying you have now lost the game, in order to make him secure and careless, and inattentive to your schemes; for this is fraud and deceit, not skill in the game of Chess.

6th, You must not, when you have gained a victory, use any triumphing or insulting expressions, nor show too much of the pleasure you feel; but endeavour to console your adversary, and make him less dissatisfied with himself by every kind and civil expression that may be used with truth; such as, you understand the game better than I, but you are a little inattentive, or, you play too fast; or, you had the best of the game, but something happened to divert your thoughts, and that turned it in my favour.

7th, If you are a spectator, while others play, observe the most perfect silence: for if you give advice, you offend both the parties: him against whom you give it, because it may cause him to lose the game: him in whose favour you give it, because, though it be good, and he folllow it, he loses the pleasure he might have had, if you had permitted him to think till it occurred to himself. Even after a move or moves, you must not, by replacing the Pieces, show how they might have been placed better; for that displeases, and might occasion disputes or doubts about their true situation.

All talking to the players lessens or diverts their attention; and is, therefore, unpleasing; nor should you give the least hint to either party, by any kind of noise or motion; if you do, you are unworthy to be a spectator.

If you desire to exercise or show your judgment, do it in playing your own game, when you have an opportunity, not in criticising or meddling with, or counselling the play of others.

Lastly, If the game is not to be played rigorously, according to the rules before mentioned, then moderate your desire of victory over your adversary, and be pleased with one over yourself.

Snatch not eagerly at every advantage offered by his unskilfulness or inattention; but point out to him kindly, that by such a move he places or leaves a Piece en prise unsupported; that by another, he will put his King into a dangerous situation, &c.

By this general civility (so opposite to the unfairness before forbidden) you may happen indeed to lose the game; but you will win what is better, his esteem, his respect, and his affection; together with the silent approbation and the good will of the spectators.

When a vanquished player is guilty of an untruth to cover his disgrace, as "I have not played so long, - his method of opening the game confused me, - the men were of an unusual size," &c all such apologies, (to call them no worse) must lower him in a wise person's eyes, both as a man and a Chess-player; and who will not suspect that he who shelters himself under such untruths in trifling matters, is no very sturdy moralist in things of greater consequence, where his fame and honour are at stake? A man of proper pride would scorn to account for his being beaten by one of these excuses, even were it true; because they have all so much the appearance, at the moment, of being untrue.

Posted 1:45 PM by Robert

Bad Air Days In California

During the 2000 Presidential campaign and at many other times, Democrats, some self-annointed environmental activists and a good part of the liberal media have felt free to cite Texas' air pollution as evidence that Republicans and especially Geroge Bush are bad for the environment. Often, intimations of some form of "collusion" between the Republicans and "oil interests" or "energy interests" are implied.

So what does it say about Democratic and liberal environmental policies that the arch-liberal and arch-Democratic State of California consistently harbors the worst air pollution in the nation, with no fewer than four of the worst-offending cities? And will the liberal media be running articles suggesting "collusion" between some shadowy "energy interests" and the state's Democratic governor or the Democratic-controlled legislature?

Don't hold your breath.

Is there a connection between Democratic policies and bad air in California? Of course there is. A greatly disproportionate part of air pollution from automobiles is emitted by old cars and cars not properly maintained. Old cars and cars not properly maintained are, in turn, disproportionately owned and driven by people with less wealth - who tend to vote Democratic. If California air pollution laws required that all cars always be as non-polluting as new cars, air pollution in California would drop greatly and rapidly. But such a requirement would "disproportionately" burden core Democratic constituencies.

UPDATE: An astute reader writes:

[A] study for So Cal Edison on electric and hybrid cars and air quality... [examined] ... what percentage of large fleets should be required to be electric/hybrid in order to reach some required air quality level. The number turned out to be much higher than anyone ever expected it could be, and it would have been more expensive than buying everyone in LA who had a car built before 1982 a new Honda Civic, which would have achieved the air quality goal too.

Posted 12:45 PM by Robert

Ancient History At The New York Times

The New York Times has unleashed apparently countless many items regarding what the paper has presented as an apparently countless many art objects looted from Iraq museums. In addition to its own sanctimonious, lachrymose editorializing, the Times has run repetitious, presumptuous and accusing articles by Frank Rich, and Maureen Dowd (predictably, more than once) and Bernard Weinraub and Adam Goodheart and Alberto Manguel and John Tierney and Constance Lowenthal and Stephen Urice and William J. vanden Heuvel and Sam Dillion and Douglas Jehl and Elizabeth Becker and many, many more.

Many of the riper items from the Times have appeared since April 17 - the date the Wall Street Journal informed its readers that reports of Iraq museum looting were being hugely exaggerated. The Journal and others have also warned that the finer vanished pieces may well have been taken by Iraq officials - and not as a result of the too-well-publicized looting.

Today, the Times "waddles in" with its own version:

Col. Matthew F. Bogdanos, a Marine reservist who is investigating the looting and is stationed at the museum, said museum officials had given him a list of 29 artifacts that were definitely missing. But since then, 4 items — ivory objects from the eighth century B.C. — had been traced. "Twenty-five pieces is not the same as 170,000," said Colonel Bogdanos, who in civilian life is an assistant Manhattan district attorney.

Thank goodness the Times found someone to clear that up. Has it taken the Times since April 17 to figure out that 25 is not 170,000?

Posted 2:16 PM by Robert

Epstein Visits Michigan

Richard Epstein is a considerable intellectual force on what is often considered to be the conservative side of many political debates. But in the case of the Michigan affirmative action case now pending before the Supreme Court he seems to come down on the side of defending and allowing the existing affirmative action programs of that university - or something close to them.

I’m not convinced by Professor Epstein in this case. He argues that public universities should be treated as private universities - which enjoy "free association" rights which permit them to discriminate racially and in other ways far more questionable for public institutions.

But I don't exactly see why Professor Epstein's argument doesn't lead to the conclusion that the federal Constitution should be read as allowing the University of Mississippi, for example, to exclude African-Americans. Is the entire Civil Rights movement supposed to become a big "never mind" to the extent it involved the individual Constitutional rights of African Americans to attend public universities? Professor Epstein's argument seems to lead to that conclusion.

Worse, are public universities also to be allowed to suppress free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment? The Constitution does not prohibit Harvard from doing that - but the University of Michigan is bound by the First Amendment in ways a private university such as Harvard need not even consider - and that's a good thing.

A curiously weak showing from a general intellectual powerhouse.

Posted 10:30 AM by Robert

Lord of the Windbags

It's Chomsky & Zinn v. Tolkien & Bush - and this time it's for keeps and explains that equally authentic and frightening picture that's been going around!

Sample:

Chomsky: We should examine carefully what's being established here in the prologue. For one, the point is clearly made that the "master ring," the so-called "one ring to rule them all," is actually a rather elaborate justification for preemptive war on Mordor.

Talk about "connecting the dots!" These guys make Georges Seurat look like a piker.