Why There Is No “Superintelligence”, and What Chess Has to Do With It

For decades, chess served as one of computer science’s favorite proving grounds. Then, in 1997, Deep Blue defeated world champion Garry Kasparov in a human-versus-machine match.

The defeat appeared to confirm the power of computers on the chessboard. But, the article argues, it also forced science to confront an uncomfortable question: was the machine’s success really a matter of intelligence?

Kasparov’s loss remains a defining image from the previous century, even as today’s media increasingly report on what artificial intelligence can almost do on its own, or what it may soon do completely autonomously.

That constant stream of predictions has helped create a strange moment, the article suggests. Chess remains central to the discussion, not because a machine won, but because the victory raised doubts about what such a win actually proves.