Chess is a game with fairly simple rules, but it poses the definitive test of human intelligence. Throughout history, the greatest chess players were deemed the sharpest of human beings — and rightly so, considering that smart minds tend to grasp chess more easily. But the chess player faces a brand new rivalry today, from an opponent that has no mercy, makes no mistakes and certainly hates losing (even if it hardly ever loses) — artificial intelligence.
 
It would be misleading, at this point, to assert that the A.I. has outdone human intelligence. At the same time, it has the potential to set potent standards for defining aptitude. The world’s greatest chess player, Garry Kasparov, described his loss to IBM’s Deep Blue supercomputer five years ago as “the end of the mythological era” of man vs. machine matches, according to Newsweek.
 
The new era, he promised, beginning with his contest last month against new opponent Deep Junior, will be ruled by more serious ideals, like sport and science. Surely, sport and science sound like fascinating ideals to strive for, but what is going to happen to the integrity of human intelligence?
 
Let’s face it — when pitting humans against forces of either nature or technology, myth is what it is all about. To a computer, it doesn’t matter who you are. Whether you are Kasparov or a rookie, the computer will always give its best performance. In other words, the human race has to confront a rough, tough challenge against the machine, if it wants to preserve its integrity as the creator.
 
When Kasparov went back to New York for a second chance to face up to the computer — and, hopefully, redeem his earlier loss — he appeared much less stubborn and much more humble than the first time around. In this sense, the 2003 version of man vs. machine was the one that would really count. It was another shot at the machine by the one guy who deserved it.
 
Kasparov was also happy with the rules this time around; he has been preparing against an early version of Deep Junior — a luxury he turned down in 1997. Besides, Deep Junior only ran through a measly three million moves a second, while Kasparov’s previous opponent Deep Blue pondered 200 million with every tick. This meant that he would have more room for error.
 
The result — Kasparov accepted the computer’s invitation in game six to draw the game, hence the match, even though he was clearly at a superior position to win with almost no chances of losing. The critics were overly disappointed by his conservative decision, but Kasparov appeared firm, saying that “the machine will never collapse, but a human can never be so sure.” His argument was a gambit worthy of a grandmaster, although it didn’t change the fact that humankind missed a great opportunity to redeem its integrity against the computer.
 
In the end, however, myth was not denied. The aging chess genius, once again, represented his entire species in a fight against the future. Before the game, Kasparov said, “I’d like to prove that human players are not hopeless.” Though he felt short of proving his point, Kasparov was able to show that human players (only the best) are up for the challenge — at least for now. But how long will it be before the A.I. crushes our good old human intelligence?
 
Kasparov knows that it won’t be long before even the grandest of human masters will fade in a multi-game computer contest. Within a generation or two, he says, “any single victory over the computer will be a victory for humanity.” Personally, I’d like to be around for that moment: the time — way past what anyone thought possible — when a daring human being brings a supposedly invincible silicon champion to its virtual knees, if only for one game. That would really be the stuff of myth.
 
But the computer, poor soul, would have no idea.
 
Barlas F. Esin is a journalism major and a philosophy minor at Cal State Long Beach. He can be reached at besin@csulb.edu.

Calendar

Display Ads