Metal-Heads or Humans? Who's More Intelligent at Chess?

Let’s be honest. Computer chess programs are unbeatable. They can beat me, they can beat you, they beat Kasparov.

Did it mean Deep Blue was more intelligent than Kasparov?

Are computers and artificial “intelligence” really capable of something comparable to human intelligence. Can they ultimately become not just intelligent but more intelligent than us, humans. Can these machines and metal-heads become a threat to our intelligence? Are we creating the superior beings? Are we going to become pets, the dogs of the house?

Scary, uh?


Artificial intelligence pioneer John McCarthy in 1966, when he and his students programmed a computer to play chess with a computer in Russia

The Deep Blue-Kasparov chess war opened a new age: the age of metal-heads, in which men began developing the minds of machines.

 But does Fritz or any other "expert" really know or need to know anything about chess? Can they come up with any sort of sustained or deep strategy? The answer to all these questions is — NO!!!

“Inteligent” machines and computer programs are actually pretty stupid.

All they can do for us is mostly tasks like information retrieval, question answering, checking my spelling as I’m typing right now, speech recognition, diagnostics in medicine. They are the undisputed chess champions of the world, but they can’t understand a simple English conversation. Nor computer chess programs even attempt to imitate the strategic thinking of human players (isn’t that ironic for a game that considers itself as the supreme game of strategy?)

So what’s the secret of these dumb “experts”? 

Their strength lay entirely in almost limitless computer memory and rapid computation. In other words, brute force processing power. This approach let them produce dazzling performance using minimal application-dependent knowledge. 

More on this war underway here


  • 4 years ago


    MrMars, agree. The point is the metal-head is overrated and should be put in its proper place. Human mind is superior. Many people expect to much from dumb metal and too often delegate their decisions to it...

  • 4 years ago


    actually kasparov beat most of the computers. 1996, he beat deep blue. 1997 it was tied except he lost the last game. and he asked for a rematch.I am sure that he would have won!

    also, he beat fritz x3d.

  • 4 years ago


    Clivingston, thanks for mentioning the movie, I should defintely see it!

  • 4 years ago


    i agree iPlayooChess, GMs can easily beat computers. even when Kasparov lost to deep blue there was a lot of controversy about it. he easily DESTROYED deep blue in the first game of the last series he played against it but then he and a lot of other players said that the game 2 was sketchy, deep blue made a very human like move and there was a lot of shady activity by IBM during the last match. a good movie on this subject is "Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine" if anyone is interested. you can stream it on netflix if you have an account

  • 4 years ago


    Marvin Minsky, one of the AI pioneers, declared in

    1961: “We are on the threshold of an era that will be strongly influenced, and quite possibly dominated, by intelligent problem-solving machines.”

    Later, he corrected himself:
     “The bottom line is that we really haven’t progressed too far toward a truly intelligent machine. We have collections of dumb specialists in small domains; the true majesty of general intelligence still awaits our attack.” 
    Let me ask you: who would you prefer to teach you chess:
    1) Fritz ("expert"), or
    2) A GM (expert)?
  • 4 years ago


    ever see battlestar galactica? yup. its only a matter of time

Back to Top

Post your reply: