Monday 8 August 2022

Whydunit?

There are two keys to every good detective story: figuring out who perpetrated the crime and uncovering why they did it. Agatha Christie built a stellar career creating stories with a rich collection of suspects, each having a different motive for the crime. She was the quintessential master of the “whodunit” mystery.

Sometimes we know “whodunit” and the challenge is it to figure out why – what motivated the perpetrator. In 1969 Charles Manson and his “family” committed some horrible crimes. In the award-winning book Helter Skelter, Manson’s prosecutor devotes a considerable part of the detective story trying to figure out Manson’s motive. Without knowing the motive, it would be difficult to make the case against Manson. In this case, the key was figuring out not “whodunit,” but “whydunit.”

In Alberta politics, we have an egregious attack being committed against Athabasca University. We know whodunit: Alberta Minister for Higher Education, Demetrios Nicolaides, in support of Premier Jason Kenney. What we seek is their motivation, the “whydunit.”

[Full disclosure: My wife is an employee of Athabasca University. This posting reflects my opinion as an academic and a 38-year participant in and observer of post-secondary education politics in Alberta.]

The UCP party under Premier Jason Kenney has been attacking the Alberta post-secondary sector since the day he assumed office. Over the past three years, his government has slashed the budgets of universities and colleges at an unprecedented level. In particular, he seems to have an issue with the University of Alberta and singled them out for extreme financial punishment.

Whydunit? Although I disagree with what the government has done and continues to do, I can rationalize their reasoning. Oil prices are low, Alberta’s economy is overly dependent on the energy sector, the province is running massive deficits, and Alberta’s finances need to be balanced. A solution is to cut, cut, cut. Is it the right thing to do? No, in my opinion. But there is a logical reason for what the government of Alberta chose to do. It can be argued that their strategy is “good” for all Albertans. I can rationalize in my mind that their motive makes some sense.

This brings me to the current situation. The government of Alberta, fronted by Demetrios Nicolaides, has decided to rewrite the mandate of Athabasca University (AU). The mission of all of Alberta’s post-secondary institutions are to provide high-quality educational opportunities to Albertans (and Canadians). Apparently this is now a secondary consideration for AU. They have been instructed to prioritize economic growth for the town of Athabasca. Specifically, they are being asked to move a minimum of 65% of their workforce to Athabasca. Failure to do so results in a $3.5 million penalty per month to the University starting October 1. In other words, the education mission is secondary to growth of a rural Alberta town.

I can’t rationalize in my mind that whatever their motive is, that it makes some sense.

Why would the government want to single out AU for “special” treatment. The University is Canada’s only open and online research university. It serves all Albertans, but especially enables rural and non-traditional learners to get a high-quality education in the comfort of their own home. In 2015, the University was on the verge of bankruptcy. New management turned the University around. It has grown to over 42,000 learners, revamped its program offerings, modernized its support services and infrastructure, envisioned a strategic plan that puts the University at the global forefront of online learning, and is strengthening the international reputation for Alberta. In short, AU has emerged as an Alberta jewel, something to be proud of and supported.

As makes sense for an online university, AU supports having its employees working from anywhere they want. This “near virtual” strategy has been in place since before the pandemic. It is part of the University’s strategic plan which was most recently approved in July 2021 by – you guessed it – Demetrios Nicolaides. The near-virtual strategy allowed the University to emerge unscathed by the pandemic. While all other Alberta (and Canada) post-secondary institutions were scrambling to move courses online and staff off campus, AU just carried on business as usual.

The above leads to the obvious conclusion: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Nicolaides has bypassed all the AU governance processes and mandated his (Kenny’s) vision without the usual consultations and approval processes. It’s not clear that this is legal. Even if it is, as is already being seen in the media the approach is guaranteed to produce animosity from the faculty, staff, and students of AU whose right to inform/advise the AU Board of Directors on important decisions is being ignored. Trust is easily lost, but hard to gain.

The opposition to the Nicolaides edict is strong, growing, and vocal. As many people have voiced, the proposal makes no sense. Politicians aren’t stupid, so one wonders why the UCP is embracing this disruptive policy. Whatever the reason, it’s important to the UCP party: Nicolaides keeps doubling-down on his edict.

We need to figure out whydunit. Once that’s known, then appropriate strategies against – or even for – the government’s mandate can be formulated.

The first possible whydunit is that the government’s strategy will enhance the opportunities and experiences of the University’s learners. After all, the raison d’etre for AU is the students. But it’s hard to make the case that forcing over 500 employees (over 1,000+ people when you consider families) to move to Athabasca adds anything to the student experience. More generally, what benefits would accrue to the university, its students, or its staff? Will AU be better off because of the move? Nothing comes to mind.

The next place to look is at the money. Consistent with the UCP’s financial management of the post-secondary sector, surely this must be part of their strategy for balancing the books. Never mind that a tragedy halfway around the world has unexpectedly led to high oil prices and a windfall of cash to fill the government’s coffers. Unfortunately, a financial justification isn’t the whydunit we’re looking for. There’s no proposed change in the AU budget (other than the debilitating financial penalties being imposed for non-compliance).

Cynically, perhaps this is an attempt to “buy” votes. Surely the town of Athabasca supports the UCP initiative and will vote en masse for them in next year’s provincial election. But this possible justification rings hollow. The town of Athabasca is 2,800 people in a province of over 4,000,000. Rural Alberta historically strongly supports the UCP. The AU edict can’t be about an incremental gain of perhaps a few hundred new UCP supporters.

This brings us to the public whydunit reason given by the UCP for their decision: rural Alberta economic growth. While economic development for all locations in Alberta is important, one should ask whether it is appropriate for a university to be given this responsibility. Let’s look at the financial cost of doing this. There are several parts to this complex issue, some of which are given here:

* Costs to AU: employee relocation costs; employee contract buyouts; new buildings for the AU employees to work in. The money will have to come from the government.

* Rural development costs: building new housing in Athabasca; building new stores and services to accommodate an influx of over 1,000 people; providing rural high-speed Internet access. Presumably all this will come from the private sector.

* Government costs: enhancing government support services, including health care and schools.

* Community costs: growing city support capabilities, including utilities and services. The money will come from Athabasca.

* AU opportunity costs: reallocating resources towards realizing the government’s economic plans; high employee attrition (not everyone wants to move to Athabasca); the challenge of finding skilled employees who will move to Athabasca.

Looking at the above list, one can conclude that the AU edict will cost the government many tens of millions of dollars, if not over $100 million, and the edict does nothing to enhance AU, its programs, and its student experience. So, who benefits?

To figure out a whydunit, one always has to look at who has the most to gain. In the AU edict, it seems that private sector companies are the big winners. They are going to sell their land, build new housing, construct new workplace facilities, and create all the infrastructure needed to support these efforts. And all this must happen within three years, as per the Nicolaides edict.

How can this happen so quickly? If you’re starting from scratch, it will take at least a year of planning before you can even put the shovel into the ground: subdivision layouts, infrastructure expansion plans, re-zoning, competitive bidding process, negotiations, approval processes, etc. Only then comes the construction. In total, it’s worth conservatively upwards of half a billion dollars. Which individuals and companies are the winners in this process? We won’t know this until all the above public processes have been followed.

But... what if the plans are already in place? Is it possible that there’s something going on behind the scenes that makes this an attractive opportunity for the UCP party? Why is the UCP so focused on doing this to Athabasca?

This brings us to the crux of the matter. What makes Athabasca so special? Does the government of Alberta have a grand strategy for growing rural economic activity across the entire province and Athabasca is the first stage? No such initiative has come out publicly. Many other rural communities in Alberta have been proactive at making their communities attractive for investment. Why aren’t they getting the Athabasca treatment? If anything, they’ve earned the right to get government attention. In contrast, Athabasca’s lack of vision has meant that the town has stagnated for many years.

As a concerned taxpayer, I want reassurances that the government of Alberta has an appropriate rural strategy in place that has been approved by the legislature. As it turns out, there is a plan – it’s from 2014. Perhaps that’s their justification for the Nicolaides edict. From my reading of the plan, there’s nothing in it that would justify the edict, but much that would negate it. For example, Strategy 3.1 is to “Implement policies and programs that attract and retain families, skilled workers, new graduates, immigrants and Aboriginal people to rural Alberta.” Is the government’s method of “attracting” people to rural Alberta conscription? If so, for shame. No, this can’t be the whydunit.

We circle back to the question: What makes Athabasca so special? The whydunit analysis suggests that none of the usual reasons one might use to justify the Nicolaides edict make sense. Investing at least $100 million of taxpayer funds into Athabasca as part of a provincial strategy would only make sense if you make the same opportunity available to all similar rural communities. It keeps coming back to the unanswered question: who are the big financial beneficiaries from the Nicolaides/Kenny plan? Answer that question and everything will become crystal clear.

It’s hard not to be cynical here. All the obvious whydunit explanations don’t come close to justifying the Nicolaides edict. As Arthur Conan Doyle (through his character Sherlock Holmes) once famously wrote, “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” We have a whydunit question, and only one line of reasoning makes sense to explain the UCP preoccupation with AU – follow the money.

Albertans should be in support of rural development. There is a time, place, and process for doing this important work. The responsibility should not be placed on a university. Let’s let AU get back to doing what it does so well: educating Albertans to create economic wealth for Albertans.

Sunday 10 January 2021

Perhaps a Different Perspective on Online Teaching

In March last year, the pandemic dramatically struck close to home when universities across Canada (and probably in many places around the world) abruptly moved from delivering lectures in person to online. The suddenness with which it happened meant there was scant preparation, with huge impact on professors/instructors and students. In general, the move went well -- a testament to everyone working together to make the best of an unfortunate situation.

Come September, little had changed and many universities, including the University of Alberta, conducted most classes online. This continues for the term that is just starting.

I taught a course on Operating Systems twice last year: January-April (Winter 2020) and September-December (Fall 2020). My Winter 2020 term started off in the classroom with me using PowerPoint slides. This was supplemented with numerous interactive exercises that used the classroom whiteboard, as well as a "human animation" example. For Fall 2020, it was PowerPoint over Zoom, with no whiteboard tools. (Yes, there are whiteboard tools for online teaching, but they are a poor match for my needs.) 

Having been out of the classroom for more than a decade, in Winter 2020 I was disappointed to see that the trends emerging in the early 2000s had continued. I had seen class attendance slowly decline and students in class become distracted by their laptop and/or cell phone. The number of in-class questions kept dropping as compared to what I remember from the pre-social media days. Few students were willing to speak up in class and answer questions that I posed. In effect, the class was largely a one-way communication: I was a talking head at the front of the room.

I had more fun teaching my Fall 2000 course than I have had in many, many years (118 students).

It took a couple of weeks, but the students warmed to using chat. I ended up going more slowly through the material for each lecture because of the interesting questions being asked, often anonymously, through chat. I stayed online after class to continue a dialogue with engaged students (often over 40!) and that sometimes lasted 30 minutes. I've found that being online (and possibly being anonymous) has dramatically increased the willingness of students to interact with me. The students have made Operating Systems much more interactive than I ever imagined it would be, more engaging and educational for the students, and more fun for me. A winning situation for everyone!

The only downside is that I covered the course material slower than I anticipated (because of the in-class questions) and had to rush through the last few lectures to make sure all the material was presented.

Classes start on Monday for the Winter 2021 term. I am excited to be back in the (virtual) classroom and look forward to engaging with the students in a meaningful way to enhance their learning experience.

Details: Students could ask a question through chat by sending it to the entire class or privately to me. That meant that students afraid of asking questions publicly could still direct a question to me during the class. This was valuable because, quite frankly, these students often asked "I don't understand this. Can you re-explain it?" -- something they felt intimidated about doing in a public setting (but usually did after class when no one was around to witness their "ignorance"). I respected the student's privacy by reading the question asked out loud, but without the student's name. By verbalizing all the questions, there was no need to also publish the chat window -- the classroom video was self-contained.

Saturday 9 January 2021

The Longest Ongoing Experiment in Computing Science History

On August 31, 1970 a historic computer science event began. It happened in a downtown New York hotel as part of an academic conference. The event spanned three days, after which the participants returned home to various places in the United States. The event was billed as the First United States Computer Chess Championship, a seemingly futuristic competition that pitted computer against computer at the human game of chess. To some, it was humorous entertainment; to others it was a glimpse into the future potential for artificial intelligence (AI) technology.

The event attracted a smattering of media attention, but was novel enough that there was a quick decision to repeat it the following year. And the next year, and the year after that, and… The experiment that began in 1970 continues to this day.

Today, we can look retrospectively at fifty years of computer chess competitions and applaud the amazing progress that has been made. This includes advances in algorithms, hardware design, and software tools have allowed the AI community to make astonishing leaps forward, for chess in particular and games/puzzles (one-player games) in general. The work in using games for AI research had numerous benefits: ideas that propagated to non-game applications (such as transposition tables, iterative deepening, and Monte Carlo tree search); use as a pioneering experimental test-bed (e.g., for reinforcement learning, planning, and optimization); and as public demonstrations of the potential for superhuman performance (e.g., checkers, chess, go, and poker).

I was pleased to organize an effort to publish a special issue of the International Computer Chess Association Journal devoted to the first 50 years of computer chess tournaments, beginning with the first one in 1970 and continuing to the present day. Most of the contents are historical papers that help document the early days of computer chess. This is an important initiative to be doing now while many of the people who created the history are able to give their first-hand perspectives.

The papers in this issue are as follows:
  • I write about the 1st United States Computer Chess Championship, held in New York in 1970. Enjoy the story of this historic event.
  • David Slate co-authored Chess 3.0 (with Larry Atkin), the winner of the 1970 event. The Chess x.y series of programs dominated computer chess in the 1970s, including winning the 1977 World Championship. He tells us about the 1976 Paul Masson human chess tournament and the challenges he faced being the sole computer entry.
  • Tony Marsland relates stories and events in his long computer chess career, including the Marsland CP’s participation in the 1970 event (his program was later called Wita and then Awit).
  • Monty Newborn proposed the 1970 event to the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), organized the 1970 event, and was a frequent participant in the 1970s with Ostrich. His article analyzes the game results between the top programs over the past 50 years.
  • David Levy was guest commentator and a participant at many of the ACM computer chess tournaments. He tells us about the important role that Benjamin Mittman played in computer chess and the International Computer Chess Association.
  • Linda Scherzer reminisces about the chess machine Bebe, three-time runner-up in the World Computer Chess Championships (1983, 1986, 1989).
  • Robert Hyatt talks about the evolution of Blitz to Cray Blitz (adding a supercomputer) to Crafty (open source). Cray Blitz won the 1983 and 1986 World Computer Chess Championships.
  • Ulf Lorenz discusses the history of Hydra, a specially built chess machine that dominated computer chess in the early 2000s.
  • Ingo Althöfer provides the little known history of computer chess in East Germany – before the wall came down in 1989.
Members of the International Computer Games Association (ICGA), formerly the International Computer Chess Association (ICCA), should be proud of the role that this organization played in making artificial intelligence and computer science history. Our contribution was through organizing annual computer chess tournaments, computer Olympiads (for a wide variety of games), research conferences, and the flagshipInternational Computer Games Association Journal.

Wednesday 11 November 2020

Computer Olympiad 2020

In August 2019, I was proud to be appointed the President of the International Computer Games Association (ICGA). The ICGA started out in the late 1970s as the International Computer Chess Association (ICCA) to promote the development of AI in game-playing programs. The organization changed its name roughly 20 years ago to reflect the AI community's interest in a wide spectrum of games.

The ICCA/ICGA has three events to promote AI in games. Most are held annually.
1) The World Computer Chess Championship. First held in 1974, these events bring the strongest chess programs together to compete for the ultimate title. I co-organized the 1989 event in Edmonton -- Deep Thought (the predecessor of Deep Blue) was the winner.

2) The Computer Olympiad. Started in 1989, this event is the "Olympics" of computer games. In a given year there will be 10-20 tournaments in a wide variety of games. New games are continually added to the list, and some games drop off (once they are solved).

3) In alternating years, the Computers and Games and Advances in Computer Games conferences are held. The ICGA has been holding conferences/workshops for over 30 years.

In addition, the ICGA produces the quarterly ICGA Journal, containing refereed articles as well as tournament reports and news stories relating to games (over 35 years and counting).

For me, personally, the ICCA/ICGA has been tremendous for my career. Some of my earliest academic papers appeared in the ICCA Journal. Starting in 1980, I began competing in computer chess championships, including tying for first place in the 1986 World Championship. The checkers program Chinook's first tournament was in the 1989 Computer Olympiad (1st place and the gold medal). The success in this event was pivotal to the future of this important project.

Along the way, I have met many talented people in the computer games and AI world through my association with the ICCA and ICGA. Some of my fondest academic memories occurred at ICCA/ICGA events.

====

The pandemic disrupted this year's ICGA events. Our conference and the World Computer Chess Championship were cancelled. However, the Computer Olympiad is a go! November 23 is the deadline for registration. Here's your chance to compete for a gold medal. Check here for more information. Good luck!

Friday 11 September 2020

Market of Monsters -- Complete!

A proud father says congratulations to Rebecca Schaeffer! The final book in her Market of Monsters trilogy is now available. She started working on the project in the summer of 2015, landed a publishing deal in late 2016, and the first book (Not Even Bones) appeared in September 2018. Now this highly-rated young-adult horror series is complete (no spoilers). Not Even Bones will hook you with its originality and cleverness, and force you to compulsively devour the book because of the real/implied horror. If you liked the television series Dexter, you will love the Market of Monsters trilogy.

Book 1 (September 2018)

Book 2 (September 2019)

Book 3 (September 2020)