Reinventment

October 31, 2024 was my last day employed at the University of Alberta. After over 40 years of research and teaching in academia, it was time for a change. This wasn't retirement; I was reinventing myself, or "reinventment". Today I have reinvented myself as an entrepreneur, having co-founded Synsira Software Solutions Inc. We built an AI application for your desktop that analyzes your desktop data in a private, accurate, safe and secure way. Check it out at synsira.com. Download the free or pro version and give it a try.

This will be my final blog post here at Academic (a)Musings. However, I will continue to blog through my company. If you are interested in my perspectives on AI, here is my latest post. You can see more posts here.

Thank you for reading my University of Alberta blog. I appreciated the many emails I received over the years from the readership.

Finally, FYI a few weeks ago my introductory book on AI was published. The Games that Computers (and Humans) Play. A Non-Technical Introduction to Artificial Intelligence was a multi-year effort to explain the core principles in AI in a way that would engage a general audience. It should come as no surprise that many of the examples use games to illustrate the concepts. Check it out here.

p.s. I was not involved in setting the price of the book.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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)

World Checkers Champion -- 25 years later

August 18, 2019, was the 25^th anniversary of a personal and professional milestone. On that day in 1994, the University of Alberta program Chinook won the World Man-Machine Checkers Championship. Chinook was the first program in any game to win a human world championship, a feat recognized by the Guinness Book of World Records.

Chess grandmaster Raymond Keene (left) speaking at the opening ceremony of the World Man-Machine Checkers Championship, with Jonathan Schaeffer (representing Chinook) and Marion Tinsley (World Champion)

The victory was bittersweet. After Chinook narrowly losing the Championship in 1992 to Marion Tinsley, I spent most of the next two years preparing for the rematch. Then, in Boston, after 6 games of a 20-game match, all draws, Tinsley uttered the words that haunt me to this day:

“I resign the match and the title to Chinook.”

There is no need to go into the details of what happened next and why; they are recounted in my book One Jump Ahead (Springer-Verlag, 1997 and 2009). Suffice to say that Tinsley felt ill, and it was unthinkable to continue playing against an opponent who could not perform at their highest level. Chinook was awarded the match on forfeit and subsequently defended the title twice. Along the way there was much animosity expressed by a few people external to the match, taking a bad situation and turning it into an awful mess. It didn't end there -- less than a year later, Tinsley passed away from the disease that manifested itself at the 1994 match.

Green Lawn Cemetery, Columbus, Ohio -- note the position on the checkerboard, taken from a Chinook-Tinsley game

In 1997 Chinook was retired, having vanquished all comers.

Rob Lake, a member of the Chinook team, reminded me of this milestone a month ago. So, why has it taken me so long for me to post something? I am immensely grateful to have been part of an amazing and historic adventure, and I treasure my memories of the amazing Marion Tinsley. However, the events of 1994 were painful. It took an enormous effort in 1996/1997 for me to put the 1994 story into words for One Jump Ahead. Time has done little to diminish the discomfort. I find it more comfortable to contemplate the future rather than dwell on the past.

Toward No Earthly Pole -- Preface

Here is the Preface of Toward No Earthly Pole: Letters from John Franklin's Last Expedition.  It will give you an idea of what I was trying to achieve with this book.


In May 1845, Sir John Franklin, his crew of 128 men, and his ships Erebus and Terror sailed north to seek the fabled North-west Passage. After their last contact with Europeans off the coast of Greenland in July, the expedition disappeared. It took a decade of searching through the labyrinth of islands that make up Canada's north to find evidence of what happened. The only relics of significance that were found included three marked graves, a trail of weathered bones, and a single piece of paper telling a sad tale (and, recently, the two ships, but they have yet to reveal their secrets). The mystery of what happened to Franklin and his men intrigues professional and armchair historians to this day. With global warming creating an increased interest in the Canadian Arctic and the future of the North-west Passage, the Franklin expedition is once again garnering public attention.

Why do we need yet another fictional account of the doomed Franklin expedition? The literature is rife with stories that stretch credibility and are inconsistent with historical fact (and, often, common sense). The truth, of course, is more prosaic and not as exciting. This book takes the factual record and fills in the gaps with events that are reflective of what may have happened. This is not new; books like John Wilson's excellent North With Franklin do a fine job of creating a believable tale of what may have happened. Given the vast literature on and relating to Franklin, an author who wants to tackle this subject needs to find a new angle for presenting an old story.

This book differs from what others have done in several ways.

• Fiction with Fact. This book intertwines historical fiction with historical fact. The fiction part comes from the "recent discovery" in the Arctic of documents (mostly letters) written by James Thompson, Acting Engineer 1st Class on the Terror. They tell of his experiences on the voyage. The fact comes from sidebars detailing information from contemporary sources (books, newspapers, etc.) allowing the reader to understand what was known at the time, and see how the historical record motivates the story. The fiction has been done before (e.g., Wilson); combining it with the contemporary historical documents is new.
• Maps. I find most exploration literature frustrating to read because in an expedition of discovery, the maps usually reveal all the answers in advance. Hence, I have the Thompson letters include maps that are reflective of what he knows at the time. The initial map shows the world at the start of the expedition (1845). As the story progresses, the map is updated by Thompson with the new discoveries.

• Excitement. The reader needs to experience the emotions of James Thompson. Hence a discovery for him has to also be a discovery for the reader.

• Life. I want to show the reality of a 19th century Arctic expedition -- things like life on ship,

• man-hauling sledges, extreme cold, the long polar night, and starvation. Since I have not experienced these things myself, I will base them, in part, on the written records of those who have.

• Realism. I have read books with fictional letters before, but they often lack realism. Frequently the letters become information dumps to the reader; no real participant of those events would write like that. Thus I try to avoid including in the letters information that one would normally not see. The sidebars present much of this information using the original sources.

• Emotion. Historical journals (real and fabrications) are almost always emotionally muted. I want to try to bring out the emotion, good and bad, that the men of the Erebus and Terror experienced.

• Conversation. Fiction-based journals that contain detailed conversations do not resonate with me. Who would possibly remember a conversation word for word and transcribe it in a letter? Hence, there are few conversations in this book.

• Tragedy. I want to recount the tragedy as it likely unfolded based on the historical record.

Because the story is based on the facts, it will have similarities to other works of fiction about the Franklin expedition. This is unavoidable, as in some cases the evidence points to a single likely scenario; everyone agrees what probably happened and hence the perceived duplication occurs.

To make the book seem more believable, it is presented as an edited book. The fictional editor, Bill Counter, gives the letters in an edited form complete with the historical context. This is a convenient way to interject information at appropriate places to give "glue" to the story. Again, I am trying to make the book appear believable. Any set of letters that contain enough detail so that glue is not needed lacks plausibility.

======

Sometime before the age of twelve, I become fascinated by the history of geographic discovery. For some unknown reason, perhaps because I lived in Canada, I focused in on the exploration of the polar regions -- Arctic and Antarctic. I have a picture of myself at the age of thirteen proudly holding my first polar-related possession: a modern reprint of John Franklin's book on his first expedition (1819-22) to the Canadian Arctic coast, a gift from my parents. I devoured that book, and every other polar history book I could get from the school library.

I have been a fan of polar history for four decades now and have always wanted to turn my passion into something tangible. As a university professor of computing science, there was no easy way to combine my hobby with my profession. After mulling over many possible ideas, I decided to stretch my abilities and try my hand at writing fiction. This is my first attempt at such an endeavour, and no doubt some of my amateurism shines through. However, writing this book fulfills a dream of mine. If this book instills the excitement of discovery in some readers -- in this case geographic, but it could as easily be scientific -- then the book will have been a success.

I tried to be true to the historic record and the body of evidence with respect to the important events that (likely) happened to the expedition. All the crew member names and their positions in the expedition are accurate. However, the personalities and interactions of the crew members are fictional. Franklin purists will undoubtedly point out factual errors in this regard. This book is telling a story, and my priority was to get the story right. Doing the research to ensure that all characters are represented in the correct historical light is peripheral to the goal of the book. However, there may be living descendants of people mentioned in this book that are cast in an unfavourable light. This was done for purposes of building an interesting story, and does not reflect who these people were in real life. For any difficulties that this causes, I truly am sorry.

All the "discovered" documents reported in this book are fictional. The sidebar content is factual and is mostly taken from contemporary sources. The story is intended to be true to what is known about the expedition, but the places where I deviated are given in Appendix A.

Although I have tried to be true to the historic record, undoubtedly some mistakes or omissions will have occurred. For this, I accept full responsibility.

Toward No Earthly Pole

I am delighted to announce that after eight years, I have finally finished my book on Sir John Franklin's last (spoiler alert: and fatal) expedition. It is now available for sale from Amazon. Treat yourself and buy a copy. Better yet, treat your friends and family too!

Since I was young, I have been fascinated with tales of geographic exploration. Early on, my interests focussed in on the Polar regions, likely because of the Canadian connection. I read every book in my local library on the subject. Around the age of 12, I received my first Polar book as a present, a modern reprint of John Franklin's first expedition to chart the Canadian North (Narrative of a Journey to the Shores of the Polar Sea in the Years 1819, 20, 21, and 22, Hurtig, 1969). From that day on I started collecting modern books on the exploration of the Polar regions.

For my birthday in 1985, my parents gave me the book: The Polar Regions by John Richardson. Not a reprint; the original edition from 1861! It is not a rare book, but no matter. It was over 100 years old. I could "touch" history. John Richardson was on Franklin's first (and second) expedition and parlayed this into an amazing scientific career. This book was from the time when Richardson was alive. Perhaps he even held this book. It made history come alive for me.

For the last 34 years I have been building a library of antiquarian and modern Polar literature and ephemera. In 2010 I decided it was time to use it. I had a dream of contributing in a meaningful way to the vast Polar exploration literature. I wanted to write a book and, as a true academic, have it be cited. I did not see a good way of writing an interesting book through the use of my computer science background. A history book would be better, but I quickly realized that I would either have to write a popular mass-market book (of which there are hundreds) or an academic history book (for which I was not qualified). I put my dream on hold.

A couple of months later I hit on the idea of writing a historical fiction book. Take an expedition and create a story around it that educated and entertained the readers (once a teacher, always a teacher). But I wanted this to be a serious effort, so I decided to intertwine the historical record with fictionalized events. What expedition should I choose? The choice was obvious: John Franklin's third and final command. In 1845, he and his crew sailed into the Canadian Arctic to find a path through the labyrinth of islands seeking the fabled North-west Passage. They were never seen alive by Europeans again. There are few facts as to what happened and lots of speculation. It was the perfect opportunity for me to achieve my goals.

With huge efforts in 2011 and 2016, the book was completed. Now all I needed to find was a publisher. I have published several books before that have been well received (in particular, One Jump Ahead, 1997 and 2008 -- another great opportunity to treat yourself). They were computer science related books and I have the professional credibility that appeals to publishers. But when it comes to historical fiction, well, quite frankly, I am a nobody. After over two years of trying to find a publisher, I gave up. Toward No Earthly Pole is self published through Amazon.

I am thrilled that I have finally completed this project. I really do not care if it sells 10, 100 or 1,000 copies. All that matters is that I have now contributed -- yes, in a small way -- to the literature that I so enjoy reading.

There is one thing left to do. Will someone please cite the book, hopefully in a positive way?

Margaret-Ann Armour

Margaret-Ann Armour was a member of the Department of Chemistry at the University of Alberta for over 30 years -- so starts a summary of her career. Such a succinct statement may suffice for academic purposes, but as the lead-in to an amazing biography, it does not do justice. How about... Margaret-Ann Armour is one of those rare human beings who is best described as a force of Nature, infecting everyone she met with a passion for making this world a better place to be. Meeting Margaret-Ann was an experience few could forget.

When you first met Margaret-Ann, you are immediately struck by her smile, the glint in her eye, and her excitement. Life is an adventure, and she aimed to have an impact-filled journey. There seemed to be no such thing as negativity in her life. Even when she was dealing with serious health issues, it was never about what was wrong with her; it was always about what she would do once she got better. Life was something to be enjoyed to the fullest. Ever the optimist, there was no time to waste on pessimism. She -- and by extension, we -- could accomplish anything, if we just set our minds to it.

Margaret-Ann Armour doing what she loved best -- teaching! (Folio.ca)

I only got to know Margaret-Ann well when she was in her 70s. The energy she exuded put many of my colleagues to shame. She worked tirelessly for the Faculty of Science (despite having only a half-time contract), gave many dozens of talks a year, zigzagged across the county promoting women in science, and spent as much time as possible with the group that gave her the most satisfaction: K-12 learners. Her annual report of activities left me shaking my head: how could she possibly find time for everything she did? One can measure academic impact using the traditional metrics such as number of papers, citations, and research dollars. Or one can measure impact in terms of a non-traditional metric: number of lives touched.  Which one has the more long-term benefits to society?

Over the past three decades, Margaret-Ann has been a champion for women in general, but more specifically for women in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics). She co-started WISEST (Women in Scholarship, Engineering, Science, & Technology) as a way to empower women in the male-dominated technology fields. In particular, WISEST reaches into the high schools and helps young women discover education and career pathways for themselves. Margaret-Ann's greatest love was working with students (young and old). She was always the teacher, and generations of students today will tell you their encounter with her was a turning point in their lives.

I have many stories of Margaret-Ann, but perhaps the following is the most impactful and appreciated of them all. I became Dean in 2012 and it did not take long before I realized we had a serious diversity problem in the Faculty: only 14% of the professoriate were female. Further, in the next two years there were a disproportionate number of female professors retiring, pushing our percentage down even further -- to an even-more embarrassing 11%. Something had to change. Margaret-Ann, age 75, started serving on every hiring committee. She made sure that committee members were aware of their biases (especially unconscious biases). She was proactive at getting qualified women to apply. No women earned a position because they were a women; they were simply the best candidate. When I stepped down as Dean in 2018, I am proud that through Margaret-Ann's indefatigable efforts we rebounded to 18%. Of the last 50 faculty hires made in Science prior to my departure, 25 were women -- exactly 50%. It will still take many years before Science has proper female representation in the professoriate, but Margaret-Ann turned things around for us.

In my academic career, I have interacted with many amazing people around the world. Some are notable for their brilliance. Others earn respect for their wisdom. Many are appreciated for their kindness. Margaret-Ann is in a class by herself -- she stands out and is outstanding for the positive energy she exuded every day towards her goal of making this a better place for everyone.

Margaret-Ann Armour quietly passed away at the age of 79 this past weekend. I have lost a valued colleague, the Faculty of Science has lost a tireless champion, the University of Alberta has lost a treasured ambassador -- and the world has lost an amazing role model. 

Man vs Machine: Challenging Human Supremacy at Chess

In the fall of 1977, I stumbled across a book on the shelf of the University of Toronto bookstore: Computer Chess by Monty Newborn. At the time I was in the third year of my undergraduate computer science program, and the thought of writing a program to play chess fired my imagination. As a chess player, I knew I was not good enough to be the world champion. But as a computer scientist, maybe I could write a program to become the world champion.

It did not take long before I realized my dream was much harder than I thought. Computer access was limited (it cost money), software development was laborious (University of Toronto was still using punched cards), and my time was at a premium (full-time student, part-time job, never enough time for my girlfriend). That is when I made the fateful decision to apply to graduate school. Until then I had no aspirations for graduate work, but I quickly realized that working on an M.Sc. thesis would give me the time to write a chess program.

I did my Masters and Ph.D. degrees on artificial intelligence applied to chess. In 1986, my chess program Phoenix tied for first place in the World Computer Chess Championship, so in some sense I realized by goal of becoming a world champion. But in the next world championship (1989) Phoenix crashed and burned (and did not rise from the ashes). I realized that I could not compete with the deep pockets of IBM's Deep Thought project, soon to become Deep Blue. That is when I moved on to checkers, but that is another story.

For most of the 1980s I was obsessed with computer chess programs. My research has taken me on to many other projects, but computer chess has always been my first love. So in 2016 when out of the blue an opportunity arose to work on a computer chess book, I jumped at the chance.

On November 5, the book comes out. Man vs Machine: Challenging Human Supremacy at Chess is co-authored with chess Grandmaster Karsten Müller. The book tells the human side of man playing machine at chess -- the chess players who wanted to defend humankind's honour and the scientists and hobbyists that wanted to advance technology. Karsten provided the insightful annotations to the key chess games, while I supplied the history and stories.

One of the highlights of the project was having a long phone call with Vladimir Kramnik, world chess champion from 2000-2008. He kindly agreed to write the foreword for the book. How cool is that???

You can order a copy here. It makes a great Christmas present!

Thank you to Hanon Russell for approaching me about doing the book, Karsten Müller for his excellent chess analysis, and Vladimir Kramnik for the foreword. It is a highlight of my academic career to work with such a talented team of people.

Resigning as Dean of Science

This evening I emailed to the Provost my letter of resignation as the Dean of the Faculty of Science.

Needless to say, this was a difficult decision. The University of Alberta has changed a lot in the last three years. The University's leadership has made decisions and taken actions that I cannot support. Therefore, the Faculty of Science would be better served by a different leader, one who is more in line with the expectations of the President and Provost.

My resignation takes effect October 1. I will use the next two months to tie up loose ends, complete my FEC evaluations, and assist the Interim Dean get up to speed (whoever that may be).

I have been at the University of Alberta for almost 35 years and am proud of the teaching, research, and administrative projects that I have been part of. I believe we accomplished much in Science over the past six years.

What am I going to do when my Deanship ends? I will continue to promote AI in the city/province/country, hope to restart my research program, and anticipate working on exciting new projects (on or off campus). I look forward to normal length working days, free time on the weekends, worry-free sleep, and receiving less than 100 emails a day.

It has been a pleasure being part of the excitement in the Faculty of Science. Great students, staff, instructors, and faculty translates to excellent undergraduate and graduate programs, and superb research. Thank you for the privilege of working with you and for you.

Pilgramage to Iceland

A few weeks ago I attended the International Joint Conference in Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) in Stockholm. It is one of the premier AI research conferences, and one that I have published in many times.

We traveled to Stockholm via Iceland, where I was delighted to get together with UAlberta alumni Yngvi Bjornsson, Bjorn Bjornsson, and Marius Olafsson.  Yngvi kindly toured us around, including helping me make a pilgrimage to the grave of Robert James Fischer -- Bobby Fisher, world chess champion 1972-1975. We do not need to go into the sad story of his life post his winning the world championship. However, to a young impressionable chess player in the early 1970s, Bobby was electrifying. He had to win every game, eschewing the easy draw. He played bold creative chess, resulting in numerous games of incredible beauty. He challenged the Soviet chess juggernaut -- and won. He was inspirational. I studied his games and dreamed of becoming the world chess champion.

Yngvi Bjornsson and Jonathan Schaeffer at the grave of Robert J. Fischer

I never came close to being world champion (although I am a ranked master). However, it motivated me to go into artificial intelligence research. If I could not be the world champion, then maybe I could build a program to be the world champion. I did not achieve that goal either (although my program Phoenix tied for first in the 1986 World Computer Chess Championship). Deep Blue came along and, well, the rest is history.

In the end I did become world champion: at checkers! Our checkers-playing program Chinook became the first program in any game to win a human world championship. And that would not have happened had I not been inspired by Bobby Fischer.

Not Even Bones

My daughter, Rebecca, decided at an early age (before 10 years old) that she would become a writer. As you might expect, I smiled at the thought that such a young person could know what she wanted to do in life.

Rebecca wrote her first full-length novel while still in high school. I was impressed with the story and the quality of her writing. She wasn't. She could do better, or so she said.

Over the years, Rebecca continued to refine her craft, including getting a writing degree from the University of British Columbia. Along the way she had a few short stories published and won a couple of awards. Great, so I thought, but how do you make a living from that?

In the Fall of 2016 she struck gold (figuratively, but I also hope literally): she attracted the interest of a major US book agent, and a few weeks later signed her first major publishing contract (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt). You can read about it here.

On September 4, the first book of Rebecca Schaeffer's trilogy appears. Last week the cover art was revealed. Not Even Bones is for young adults with an interest in fantasy and horror:

Nita doesn’t murder supernatural beings and sell their body parts on the internet—her mother does that. Nita just dissects the bodies after they’ve been “acquired.” Until her mom brings home a live specimen and orders Nita to start cutting off pieces. Dissecting a teenage boy who won’t stop begging for help is a step too far. Nita wants out. But when she decides to save her mother’s victim, she ends up sold in his place—because Nita herself isn’t exactly “human.”  She has the ability to alter her biology, an ability that is priceless on the black market. Locked in a cage of her own, she struggles to escape. And to do that, Nita must ask herself if she’s willing to become the worst kind of monster.

It makes for a great Christmas present... for you, your family, and your friends! Preorder your copy now on Amazon.ca.

Cover art for Not Even Bones

Alberta is Realizing the Value from Two Long-range Research Investments

In 2000, the Government of Alberta created Alberta Ingenuity, an organization to stimulate research in science and engineering (today it is called Alberta Innovates). One of their first initiatives was to create a program to fund research centers, areas where there was critical mass of world-class expertise in Alberta. In 2002, they announced their first two centers – in glycomics (studying the affects of sugar on the body’s chemistry) and machine learning (turning data into knowledge). These two centers, both housed in the Faculty of Science at the University of Alberta, continue to this day under the names of the Alberta Glycomics Centre (AGC, www.glycomicscentre.ca) and the Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute (Amii, www.amii.ca).

From 2002 to the present – 15 years – the Government of Alberta has continued to invest in both centers. This has happened despite many vicissitudes, including difficult financial times and changes in political direction.  This type of long-term support is unusual in academia. Far more common is one-time term-limited funding. Alberta Ingenuity/Innovates had faith in the quality of the people involved, and in the progress the centers were making towards achieving important new results and then turning this new technology into economic value.

Now in 2017 we can take stock of what has been achieved. AGC researchers have numerous patents, technology licensing agreements, and local spinoff companies. Further, AGC was the catalyst that united all academic glycomics research in Canada into a national organization, GlycoNet. GlycoNet is funded by Ottawa at roughly the $5M per year level, excluding substantial funding from numerous provinces and companies. The University of Alberta leads this National Centre of Excellence and much of the money stays in Alberta. We are proud of the truly world-class stature that this group has.

Amii has been doing groundbreaking research for years. For over 25 years, the University of Alberta has ranked 2nd or 3rd in the world in artificial intelligence (AI) research and its prominent sub-area of machine learning (ML). In the past year AI has suddenly become “hot”. The global demand for AI/ML experts is huge. In their recent budget, Ottawa decided to create a national AI initiative, of which $25M is now coming to the University of Alberta to grow Amii. Further major Canadian and international companies are lined up to partner with Amii. In January the Royal Bank announced they are setting up a research office in Edmonton. Soon you will hear more announcements of major international companies doing the same. The economic impact for Edmonton will be huge, including attracting companies to town, retaining superb scientists in Edmonton, and creating new spinoff companies. The Government wants to diversity the economy. Amii’s world-class stature is going to help achieve that goal.

This is a perfect example of the importance of long-term fundamental research. All too often, we see governments investing in “get payback quick” schemes that look good in the short-term (i.e., in time for the next election) but do not necessarily have long-term impact. Both AGC and Amii started out doing fundamental (“basic”) research, but now we are seeing the benefits of this foundational work. By applying these ideas to solve industrial applications (“applied” research) and creating new products, Albertans will now realize a major economic return from the Government’s investment.

It is important to give credit where credit is due. As academics we sometimes are guilty of taking research funding for granted and not being suitably appreciative of the faith that the funders are putting in our ability to deliver value. On behalf of the Faculty of Science at the University of Alberta, I want to express my deepest heart-felt thank you to the Government of Alberta for their vision, initiative, and stick-with-it-ness – for believing in the AGC and Amii through thick and thin. In my 33 years of academic experience, this kind of investment is the exception. I am delighted that the AGC and Amii research programs are realizing the potential seen in 2002 and delivering major returns to the Alberta taxpayer.

Multitasking Taxi Driver

Last month I was in Hong Kong and had a unique taxi experience. The driver had the vehicle traveling at high speed, darting left and right through busy traffic. But that's not the whole story. Look closely at the picture below. Mounted on the dashboard in front of him are seven (!) cell phones. While the vehicle was in motion, the driver's hands would dart forward (leaving the steering wheel) to push a button or type some text on the phones. As well he had earphones on and was conducting a phone call. Extreme multitasking? Or foolhardy time management?

We arrived safe, sound, and early. Whew!

Canada Must Focus Its AI Vision If It Wants to Lead the World

The following appeared in the Globe and Mail newspaper on March 3, 2017. Although I do not have time to do much research and write academic papers, I seem to be finding time to write editorial and opinion pieces for newspapers.

In McKinsey & Company’s Disruptive Technology, technologies containing artificial intelligence (AI) are expected to create tens of trillions of dollars in economic impact by the year 2025. Similarly, Gartner, Inc. lists machine learning (a subset of AI) as one of the top 10 strategic technology trends for 2017. Yet another technology fad? Perhaps, but it is hard to imagine any industry that won’t be affected by software applications with “smart” capabilities.

For several decades, Canada has been a global powerhouse in artificial intelligence research. The Universities of Alberta and Toronto and the Université de Montréal have world-class AI research centers, and several other universities have strong programs. With all the media attention that AI is suddenly getting, it is critical that Canada leverage this enormous technology asset.

AI technology has been widely deployed for over 20 years – but it is invisible to most people. Whether it is being used for credit card fraud detection (banking), online product recommendations (sales), or in computer games (entertainment), AI is already impacting the world. But the potential of new machine learning technology is so much greater. Soon we will see safe driverless cars, life-saving medical advances, and the Internet of things  – all powered by AI technology. But unless we do something about it, foreign companies will supply most of this technology to Canadians, even though key parts of it will have been invented in Canada.

Whereas AI in Canadian academia is world class, what can we say about the role of AI in Canadian industry? My AI research colleagues and I are challenged to identify even a few Canadian companies that employ ten or more AI specialists, yet it is easy to name numerous international companies that have hundreds of such employees, many of them graduates of our excellent AI programs. What does the rest of the world know that Canadian companies do not?

Montreal-based Maluuba is a rare example of a commercially successful Canadian AI company. It was recently purchased by Microsoft. This is reflective of the current state of our high-tech economy and a warning as to where we are going.

I have graduated 75 Masters and PhD students in my 33 years as a Professor at the University of Alberta. Less than half remain in Canada; few are employed in jobs that take advantage of their AI background. My colleagues have similar statistics. We train the best and the brightest only to watch them leave our country to enrich the rest of the world, or stay in Canada and likely work in a non-AI field of computing.

Now is the time for Canada to think big and act boldly. Canada has few major high-tech success stories to brag about. With AI, we have most of the ingredients for changing the world; now we need the winning recipe:

• Retain and grow the academic expertise. Non-Canadian companies and universities are increasingly targeting Canada’s AI talent, and with them the most valuable asset – intellectual property (IP).
• Grow the AI workforce. Our universities can feed ideas and graduates to industry, but Canadian industry has limited capacity to exploit this and innovate. We must create a larger and strategic receptor capacity in industry for AI expertise. With few innovative companies and high-quality job opportunities, our graduates leave.
• Promote entrepreneurship. Create an environment that encourages faculty and students to turn their research into new companies of products and services. Critical to success in this area is putting in place the local support and early-stage funding necessary to maximize the chances of market success. Make it easier to quickly launch, acquire funding, and build a successful business.
• Diversify the economy. AI technology will touch almost every aspect of industry. We can develop new products and services and export them to the world, but we need existing Canadian companies to invest in R&D areas that employ our AI talent. By doing so, we can help erase the 20th century stigma of our economy as one of commodity extraction and exportation. Our highly skilled workforce is not a resource to be extracted and then exported to the world. Move our resource-based economy to an idea-based economy
• Aspire to be the global leader in the area of artificial intelligence. Such bravado may seem un-Canadian. There’s nothing wrong with having a bold vision, as long as the country follows through with a bold implementation that’s oriented towards capturing wealth from the AI expertise we create for Canada.

None of this is hard; it just takes time, a mind-set change, and focused funding to make this happen. There is nothing novel or specific to artificial intelligence in the above recipe. Commercializing IP is how the new wealth is created in the 21st century global economy. Canada needs to be doing that across all sectors and industries.

It is tempting to throw money at this Canadian AI opportunity and hope that everything works out. By all means, start the process of putting the necessary funding in place (through federal, provincial, and industrial initiatives). However, reflection is needed to come up with a vision that maximizes the chances of achieving major economic outcomes for Canada.

History tells us that it a top down political approach is unlikely to succeed. Conversely, a purely academic-led initiative will not produce the commercialization to scale or marketable products and services that will have economic impact. The solution has to be one that creates a continuum between pure research (solutions looking for problems; long-term view) and applied research (problems looking for solutions; short-/medium-term view), and introduces policy strategies that support our best companies who are aiming to scale up globally.

Experience also tells us that a single national initiative is unlikely to be effective (centralized). Conversely, a combination of purely local solutions will lack vision and coordination (decentralized). The solution must be to work together under a national umbrella but have hyperlocal organization.

The end result must be to create, grow, and scale up Canadian companies globally and in the process bring significant private and public wealth to Canada. With innovative ideas and excellent graduates coming from our universities, the opportunities for industry innovation in this area will multiply. We can reset Canada’s future in artificial intelligence technology from extraction to attraction.

Jonathan Schaeffer
Fellow of the Associate for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence
Dean, Faculty of Science, University of Alberta