3 ms·
Weak human + machine + better process was superior to a strong computer alone and, more remarkably, superior to a strong human + machine + inferior process. I
by edw519 16y ago
Weak human + machine + better process was superior to a strong computer alone and, more remarkably, superior to a strong human + machine + inferior process.
I had to read this statement 3 times before it hit me: What's true in chess is also often true in business. A little background...
I recently wrote a forecasting system for a company that processes 7 million orders per year. Worse, this company was the merger of two other companies, each of which did forecasting differently. One had a very expensive Oracle based "strong comptuer" that calculated almost everything and told the planners exactly what to do. The other just dumped data into Excel files and teams of "strong humans" manipulated them until they intuitively worked out the best plan. Neither team could believe the way the other team worked.
The system I wrote using guidance from both teams turned out to be "weak human + machine + better process" which leveraged the strengths and minimized the weaknesses of the two extremes. But I didn't realize that until I read this article.
Thank you Garry Kasparov. As much as I love chess just for the sake of playing it, it's nice to understand how it's thinking applies to other stuff as well.
- nl 16y agoYes! I thought that was one of the key insights of the article too. A similar example that shows the strength of great organisation is a famous 1999 online chess match known as Kasparov versus the World. In that game Irina Krush organized the world team well enough to take Kasparov to 62 moves and nearly won the game. To quote him: It is the greatest game in the history of chess. The sheer number of ideas, the complexity, and the contribution it has made to chess make it the most important game ever played. http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/kasparov-versus-the-world/ http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/kasparov-versus-the-world/
- huherto 16y agoFascinating article. I was wandering what it means to democracy. Can we use those ideas in collaboration to have a better decision making in real governments?
- iwwr 16y agoLinear programming was hoped to have been a strong enough framework to replace the market-based resource allocation system. Unfortunately, no single centrally managed computer could outperform a network of autonomous free participants. Modern government is the realization that there can be no prosperity without free agents, and that propaganda can persuade these free agents to acquiesce to being governed.
- Jabbles 16y agoWhilst on the subject of distributed, collaborative efforts, I recommend this paper http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/Papers/lottery.pdf http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/Papers/lottery.pdf This describes an attempt by a Cambridge University professor to harness the power of many students to solve a problem. A very interesting read.