Deep Blue or the

Computer's Melancholia

T h e clash b e t w e e n a h u m a n b e i n g a n d a n ' i n t e l l i g e n t ' artefact (Kasparov against

D e e p Blue) is highly symbolic, n o t only on a c c o u n t of the prestige of the g a m e of
chess, b u t b e c a u s e i t s u m s u p t h e d i l e m m a o f h u m a n b e i n g s w h e r e all o u r c o n t e m p o r a r y m a c h i n e s are c o n c e r n e d : c o m p u t e r s , v i r t u a l o r c y b e r n e t i c d e v i c e s ,
n e t w o r k s , etc. B e h i n d t h e i n s t r u m e n t a l , creative o r interactive use w e m a k e o f s u c h
m a c h i n e s , t h e r e is, at b o t t o m , always a clash, a c h a l l e n g e , a m a t c h , a d u e l , in w h i c h
o n e o f t h e parties m a y b e c h e c k m a t e d o r lose face. T h e r e i s n o i n t e r a c t i v i t y w i t h
m a c h i n e s (any m o r e , i n fact, t h a n t h e r e i s w i t h h u m a n b e i n g s : t h a t i s t h e illusion o f
c o m m u n i c a t i o n ) . T h e interface d o e s n o t exist. T h e r e i s always, b e h i n d t h e a p p a r e n t i n n o c e n c e o f t h e t e c h n o l o g y , a n issue o f rivalry a n d c o n t r o l . T h e g a m e o f chess
m e r e l y carries this s i t u a t i o n t o e x t r e m e s .
So, i n t h e e n d , Kasparov b e a t t h e c o m p u t e r , a n d e v e r y o n e was greatly relieved,
since in a w a y t h e h o n o u r of t h e species was at stake. E v e n if h u m a n intelligence will
o n e day have to a d m i t defeat, that m o m e n t m u s t be p o s t p o n e d for as l o n g as possible.
A n d this is w h a t makes this v i c t o r y s o m e w h a t a m b i g u o u s , for e v e n if it was n o t rigged
(and it certainly wasn't), Kasparov c o u l d n o t - at all costs - n o t w i n . M a n dreams w i t h

160

S C R E E N E D

O U T

all his m i g h t of i n v e n t i n g a m a c h i n e w h i c h is s u p e r i o r to himself, w h i l e at t h e same

t i m e h e c a n n o t c o n c e i v e o f n o t r e m a i n i n g master o f his creations. H e can n o m o r e d o
this t h a n G o d c o u l d . C o u l d G o d have envisaged creating m a n s u p e r i o r t o himself a n d
confronting h i m in a decisive c o m b a t (with D e e p Blue, Kasparov was m o r e or less p i t t i n g h i m s e l f against a technical divinity, a technical s u p e r e g o divine in essence)? Yet
that i s w h a t w e d o w i t h o u r c y b e r n e t i c creations, a n d w e offer t h e m a c h a n c e t o b e a t
us. O r , rather, it is o u r d r e a m that t h e y s h o u l d surpass us - a n d do this, of c o u r s e , as
a m a r k of o u r p o w e r , t h o u g h we c a n n o t b e a r this either. So, m a n is t r a p p e d in t h e
Utopian aspiration of h a v i n g a d o u b l e s u p e r i o r to himself, b u t o n e he n o n e t h e l e s s has
t o b e a t t o save face. G o d himself, defeated b y his o w n creature, w o u l d have c o m m i t t e d suicide. M o r e o v e r , o n t h e o n l y occasion o n w h i c h h u m a n b e i n g s really s t o o d u p
t o h i m , i n t h e T o w e r o f Babel episode, h e i m m e d i a t e l y cut t h e i r supply lines, i n t h e
form of language and mutual understanding. If computers were in danger of gaining
t h e u p p e r h a n d , s h o u l d w e n o t spread t h e s a m e confusion a m o n g artificial languages
a s G o d d i d a m o n g natural ones? B u t w e k n o w that t h e diversity o f l a n g u a g e e v e n t u ally b e c a m e man's privilege a n d his absolute w e a p o n . It is, in a way, t h a n k s to that
diversity that h u m a n beings g o t t h e b e t t e r o f G o d b y i n v e n t i n g m u l t i p l e w o r l d s a n d
divinities, each in t h e i m a g e of t h e i r respective languages.
B u t , t o c o m e b a c k t o Kasparov, i f h e w o n , i t was surely b e c a u s e h e i s ( m e t a p h o r ically) c a p a b l e o f s p e a k i n g m o r e t h a n o n e l a n g u a g e : t h a t o f t h e e m o t i o n s , o f
i n t u i t i o n , o f t h e s t r a t a g e m , i n a w o r d , t h e l a n g u a g e o f play - n o t t o m e n t i o n t h e
l a n g u a g e o f c a l c u l a t i o n . W h e r e a s D e e p B l u e speaks o n l y t h e l a n g u a g e o f c a l c u l a t i o n . T h e day this latter l a n g u a g e prevails, i n w h a t e v e r f o r m , K a s p a r o v will b e
b e a t e n . T h e day m a n h i m s e l f speaks o n l y t h a t single l a n g u a g e - t h e l a n g u a g e o f
c o m p u t e r s - h e will b e b e a t e n .
I n t e r m s o f play, m a n i s n e i t h e r i n f e r i o r n o r s u p e r i o r t o G o d : h e has m a n a g e d t o
k e e p u p a k i n d o f rivalry a n d o p e n g a m e . T h i s i s w h a t w e can best h o p e for.

161

S C R E E N E D

O U T

B a l t h a z a r G r a c i a n said t h a t G o d ' s strategy i s t o k e e p m a n e t e r n a l l y i n suspense. B u t

t h e p r o p o s i t i o n i s reversible a n d w e t o o k e e p H i m i n suspense. I t i s t h e s a m e i n t h e
c o n f r o n t a t i o n b e t w e e n n a t u r a l a n d artificial i n t e l l i g e n c e : t h e rivalry i s u l t i m a t e l y
irresolvable, a n d t h e best t h i n g i s for t h e m a t c h t o b e e t e r n a l l y p o s t p o n e d .
T h e possible v i c t o r y o f t h e c o m p u t e r p o s e s n o p r o b l e m : w e k n o w i t c a n b e d u e
o n l y t o c a l c u l a t i n g p o w e r . T h e i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n is: w h a t m a k e s K a s p a r o v w i n ?
T h e f i r s t a n s w e r i s g i v e n b y K a s p a r o v h i m s e l f w h e n h e says, ' I play w i t h o u t t h i n k i n g . M y h a n d s m o v e faster t h a n m y t h i n k i n g . ' Clearly, D e e p B l u e has n o h a n d s t o
m o v e faster t h a n its t h i n k i n g . It c a n o n l y t h i n k fast. N o w , it is a feature of h u m a n
b e i n g s t h a t t h e y m o v e faster t h a n t h e i r t h i n k i n g , t h a n k s t o s o m e t h i n g relating t o
t h e i r b o d i e s , t h e i r sex, a n d w h i c h , i n a way, d o e s n o t e v e n pass t h r o u g h t h e b l a c k
b o x of t h e b r a i n . Y o u can call it affect, i n t u i t i o n , strategy. Y o u c a n call it ' p s y c h o l o g y ' . B u t i t isn't s o m u c h a q u e s t i o n o f any ' p s y c h i c a l ' faculties w h i c h m a n
m i g h t possess i n a d d i t i o n t o his m e n t a l faculties o f c a l c u l a t i o n . T h e basic difference
is that, for Kasparov, t h e r e is an o p p o n e n t , a n o t h e r party. F o r D e e p B l u e , t h e r e is
n o t h i n g o u t t h e r e - n o o t h e r , n o o p p o n e n t . I t m o v e s w i t h i n t h e confines o f its o w n
p r o g r a m m e . T h e s a m e applies h e r e , relatively s p e a k i n g , a s w i t h ' D e s e r t S t o r m ' : for
t h e G u l f W a r c o m p u t e r s , t h e r e w e r e n o o t h e r s , n o Iraqis, n o e n e m i e s ( n o t even any
A m e r i c a n s , i n t h e e n d ) ; t h e w h o l e t h i n g was played o u t i n a c l o s e d c i r c u i t o n t h e
basis of c a l c u l a t i o n .
N o w , it is precisely at this p o i n t , b e y o n d t h e m e n t a l p o w e r of calculation, that t h e
h u m a n b e i n g can e x p e c t t o b e definitively s u p e r i o r i n t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p o f o t h e r ness w h i c h i s b a s e d o n r e l i n q u i s h m e n t o f his o w n t h o u g h t . T h i s r e l i n q u i s h m e n t ,
w h i c h D e e p B l u e will n e v e r k n o w , i s t h e s u b t l e a s s u m p t i o n o f g a m e - p l a y i n g . I t i s
h e r e t h a t t h e h u m a n b e i n g c a n i m p o s e h i m s e l f t h r o u g h illusion, decoy, c h a l l e n g e ,
s e d u c t i o n a n d sacrifice. I t i s this strategy o f n o t g o i n g t h e full h o g , o f p l a y i n g
w i t h i n o n e ' s c a p a b i l i t i e s , t h a t t h e c o m p u t e r u n d e r s t a n d s least w e l l , s i n c e i t i s

162

S C R E E N E D

O U T

c o n d e m n e d t o play a t t h e h e i g h t o f its capabilities. T h i s s y n c o p a t i o n o r ellipsis o f

presence by w h i c h you provoke the e m e r g e n c e of the other - even in the f o r m of
t h e v i r t u a l e g o of t h e c o m p u t e r - is real g a m e - p l a y e r ' s t h i n k i n g . K a s p a r o v h i m s e l f
has s p o k e n (to ask that i t b e t a k e n a c c o u n t o f i n t h e t i m e o n t h e clocks) o f this ' d e a d
t i m e o f t h e real d u r i n g w h i c h h e really t h i n k s ' . T h a t i s t o say, d u r i n g w h i c h h e i s
m e n t a l l y a b s e n t , w h i l e t h e o t h e r party, D e e p B l u e , i s s u n k i n c a l c u l a t i o n . T h e
h u m a n b e i n g takes this distraction o f t h o u g h t , this ' d e a d t i m e ' , f r o m his available
t i m e , w h e r e a s t h e c o m p u t e r d o e s n o t d i v e r t a single s e c o n d f r o m its o w n c a l c u l a t i n g t i m e . B u t , paradoxically, it is this w h i c h t u r n s r o u n d against it. K a s p a r o v insists
o n t h e fact t h a t after his f i r s t defeat (but d o u b t l e s s y o u have always t o k n o w t o lose
t h e f i r s t g a m e ) , h e played against his o w n n a t u r e , ' w i t h i n h i m s e l f , t o e n t r a p his
a d v e r s a r y (this is j u s t like Tire Diary of a Seducer). He l e a r n s to play w e a k m o v e s , to
simplify o r close u p t h e g a m e . Clearly, w i t h a s i m u l a c r u m , y o u h a v e t o play against
nature, to simulate better than it does and catch it out, catch it o u t by simulation
w h i c h , for it, i s m e r e l y t h e s i m u l a t i o n o f c a l c u l a t i o n , w h e r e a s for h u m a n b e i n g s i t
is an i r o n i c p o w e r .
W h e n u p against t h e m a c h i n e t h e y h a v e t h e m s e l v e s p r o g r a m m e d (let u s n o t
forget t h a t i t was m e n like Kasparov w h o p r o g r a m m e d D e e p B l u e ) , h u m a n b e i n g s
c a n o n l y s u b t l y d e - p r o g r a m m e t h e m s e l v e s , b e c o m e ' t e c h n i c a l l y i n c o r r e c t ' t o stay
a h e a d o f t h e g a m e . T h e y m a y e v e n have t o take o v e r t h e m a c h i n e ' s o w n place. L i k e
t h e illusionist w h o h a d i n v e n t e d a n a u t o m a t o n w h i c h i m i t a t e d h u m a n b e i n g s o well
that, o n stage, h e was h i m s e l f forced t o b e c o m e m e c h a n i c a l a n d m i m i c t h e a u t o m a t o n t o m a i n t a i n t h e d i s t i n c t i o n . T h i s i s t h e o n l y possible strategy: i f y o u b e c o m e
t e c h n i c a l l y c o r r e c t , y o u are unfailingly b e a t e n b y t h e m a c h i n e .
T h e r e i s a n o t h e r factor f a v o u r i n g h u m a n s u p r e m a c y h e r e : this i s t h e basic s y m b o l i c r u l e w h i c h states that n o player c a n b e b i g g e r t h a n t h e g a m e itself. T h e
player m u s t n o t b e u n b e a t a b l e , o r t h e g a m e m a y die. T h e player i s m o r t a l ; t h e rules
163

S C R E E N E D

O U T

a l o n e are i m m o r t a l . N o w t h e a b s o l u t e a i m o f t h e m a c h i n e (its secret a m b i t i o n p e r haps?) i s t o b e perfect, u n b e a t a b l e a n d i m m o r t a l . W h i c h s h o w s i t has u n d e r s t o o d

n o t h i n g o f t h e v e r y essence o f g a m e - p l a y i n g , a n d for that r e a s o n i t will always b e
b e a t e n i n t h e e n d , i f n o t b y t h e o p p o n e n t , a t least b y t h e g a m e itself.
S o t h e r e i s little sense i n p r e d i c t i n g t h e c e r t a i n v i c t o r y o f t h e m a c h i n e i n 2 0 0 5 ,
o n t h e g r o u n d s that m a n has o n l y c u m u l a t i v e k n o w l e d g e , w h e r e a s t h e m a c h i n e has
e x p o n e n t i a l k n o w l e d g e . F o r i f t h e c o m p u t e r ' s k n o w l e d g e i s e x p o n e n t i a l , its t h i n k i n g is n o t w h i c h c o n d e m n s it to a k i n d of e x p o n e n t i a l stability: at e a c h m o v e , it
goes b a c k t o zero a n d goes t h r o u g h all t h e o p e r a t i o n s again. W h e r e a s m a n , w h o f i l ters t h e data, a n d actively c o n s i d e r s o n l y a few of w h a t is actually an i m m e n s e
n u m b e r of possibilities, is capable of e x t r a p o l a t i n g the data in a single d i r e c t i o n ,
w i t h o u t regard for t h e initial state. H e t h u s has t r u l y e x p o n e n t i a l t h o u g h t a t his
c o m m a n d , t h o u g h t w h i c h i s creative o f u n p r e c e d e n t e d , u n p r e d i c t a b l e c o n s t e l l a t i o n s - a k i n d of c h a o t i c strategy w h i c h e v e n a c o m p u t e r a t h o u s a n d t i m e s m o r e
p o w e r f u l t h a n D e e p B l u e c o u l d n o t m a t c h u p to. Against t h e c o m p u t e r , m a n p e r sonifies, a s i t w e r e , t h e i n f i n i t y o f c o m p l e x i t y , w h i c h i s n o t t h e i n f i n i t y o f
c a l c u l a t i o n , a n d w h i c h i s p e r h a p s closer t o t h e infinity o f c h a n c e (it w o u l d i n fact
b e i n t e r e s t i n g t o c o n f r o n t t h e c o m p u t e r w i t h a g a m e o f c h a n c e or, i n o t h e r w o r d s ,
a probabilistic disorder, w h i c h is different f r o m h u m a n disorder. W h e r e w o u l d it
find a w i n n i n g formula?)
T h e m a c h i n e may, t h e n , b e u n b e a t a b l e a t all k i n d s o f o p e r a t i o n s , b u t , w h e r e t h e
essence of play is c o n c e r n e d , it is forever d i s a d v a n t a g e d forever o u t of t h e g a m e .
T o have access t o t h a t essence, t h e m a c h i n e w o u l d have h a d t o have i n v e n t e d it,
w o u l d h a v e h a d t o h a v e b e e n able t o i n v e n t t h e very arbitrariness o f t h e rules,
w h i c h is u n i m a g i n a b l e . A n d it is t o o late for this. M o r e g e n e r a l l y to be a m a t c h for
m a n , t h e m a c h i n e w o u l d h a v e h a d t o h a v e i n v e n t e d h i m - a n d i t i s t o o late for t h a t
t o o . I n a d e s p e r a t e effort t o l o o k like h i m , o r c o m p e t e w i t h h i m , t h e o n l y r e m a i n -

164

S C R E E N E D

O U T

i n g possibility is a c c i d e n t : an a c c i d e n t of c a l c u l a t i o n - a n d m a k i n g a strategy o u t of
that. O r suicide.
M a n has i n v e n t e d m a c h i n e s w h i c h w o r k , m o v e a n d t h i n k b e t t e r t h a n h i m , o r
t h i n k for h i m . H e has n e v e r i n v e n t e d a n y w h i c h c o u l d take pleasure o r suffer i n his
stead. N o r e v e n w h i c h c a n play b e t t e r t h a n h e c a n . W h i c h p e r h a p s e x p l a i n s w h y
c o m p u t e r s get s u c h d e e p b l u e s .
1 April

165

1996