Joe Boomer, Fall 2009
Occasionally, something happens that challenges us to reconsider our relationship with technology, and question whether our own technological advancements will eventually replace us as the dominant force on Earth. Once such instance took place with a simple game of chess in New York City in 1997 between the world’s greatest chess player at the time (Gary Kasparov) and a computer designed by a team of IBM engineers (Deep Blue). When Kasparov lost to Deep Blue (a seemingly impossible feat at the time) it ignited the idea that developments in technology could surpass our on human intelligence. By examining how the result of that game affected Kasparov personally, as well as how technology has advanced since, I will show how the chess game between Kasparov and Deep Blue forever changed our relationship with technology, and the heavy toll it has taken on our sense of humanity. The advancement of technology has become uncontrollable, and I draw on Neil Postman’s Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology to highlight some of the ill effects it has on society.
Prior to the chess match in 1997, Kasparov played IBM’s supercomputer “Deep Blue” in 1996, resulting in a convincing victory for him: winning three games, drawing in two, and losing only one game. After their 1996 defeat, the IBM programming team regrouped to modify the machine and challenged Kasparov to the infamous rematch a year later. Initially IBM told Kasparov that the match was purely for experimental purposes and was a chance to test the latest advancement of computer technology. When Kasparov showed up in New York he soon realized, however, that this so called experiment had turned into a bitter competition between him and the team of engineers. IBM billed the rematch as the most important game of chess in history, with the cutting edge of technological advancement in one corner, and humanity in the other. The game turned into a media spectacle.
Ironically, in an interview for Business Week magazine prior to the 1997 match, Kasparov was quoted as saying “mistakes come when you’re in a fury or nervous” (Coy 2) and this ultimately became his downfall. This was IBM’s biggest advantage; they capitalized on Kasparov’s humanness he would get hungry, tired, and frustrated. Deep Blue never felt any of these things, never felt any pressure, in fact it never “felt” anything. Nobody was allowed near the computer (even Kasparov). It was placed in a room behind the stage where the chess match was to be played, constantly surrounded by an army of guards. News media were everywhere. The circus atmosphere and top-secret climate around Deep Blue placed Kasparov in a high pressure environment with the weight of playing for humanity.
The first game went very well for Kasparov, resulting in a win. The second game was played the day after and it is this game that would become the most significant and controversial. Kasparov’s strategy was simple: play the computer like it was a computer. From his experience, Kasparov figured the computer would do what it was instructed to do (like keep the king safe) and would be unable to adjust its programmed priorities during the game. This is how Kasparov won the first game, however, in the second game the computer did something very strange. Kasparov sacrificially left a game piece open for the computer to take, which would have resulted in a defensive weakness for Deep Blue. Kasparov figured the computer was unable to see the strategy behind the move and would go for the game piece. But Deep Blue somehow saw through this strategy and stunned Kasparov by ignoring the piece and instead went for strong offensive position that ultimately resulted in a win for the IBM team. The commentators at the match were quoted as being very “impressed at the smooth, uncomputer-like victory” (Fedorowicz 3) and lead Kasparov to accuse IBM of cheating.
In the documentary film Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine, Kasparov explained that he saw “deep intelligence and creativity” behind the computer’s moves on the chess board, which suggested to him human intervention during chess play. IBM denied these accusations but refused to yield to Kasparov’s request to have a copy of the computer’s printouts of the log files, which further perturbed Kasparov. Unable to get over this loss Kasparov did not play to his potential. The computer eventually beat Kasparov in game six after games three, four, and five resulted in draws. After the loss, Kasparov was visibly upset and demanded a rematch, which IBM refused. The company instead dismantled Deep Blue immediately after the match, further supporting Kasparov’s suspicions that the actions of IBM and their highly promoted victory were all a ploy to boost IBM stock, which in reality did happen.
The noteworthy aspect of this moment is to demonstrate our own frailty compared to computer technology. Perhaps Kasparov was beaten by Deep Blue, but it was not due to a higher level of intelligence or human-like abilities, but to its in-human qualities. Kasparov was caught up in a situation beyond his control, feeling the pressures of possibly losing to a computer in front of a world-wide television audience. This pressure, along with other aspects like sleep deprivation left Kasparov physically and mentally weak. The computer, on the other hand, had none of these setbacks. Computers do not feel the pressure of the media or spectator scrutiny, or the effects of a sleepless night. In the end, it was the in-human nature of the computer that resulted in victory, and human nature that lead to Kasparov’s public defeat.
Technology has advance rapidly since the match in 1997. So much so that the power of the Deep Blue computer that stood about six feet tall and looked like two high school lockers standing next to each other today could fit in a cell phone. This advancement in technology has impacted our society dramatically because we now have the power of the speed and efficiency of Deep Blue for our own personal use. The amount and rate of information has dramatically changed our culture. We now accept what the computer tells us as fact, without inquiring as to where the information came from and if it even makes sense.
This disruption is outlined in Neil Postman’s book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. Postman claims that humans evolve through three stages of technological development: tool using, Technocracy, and finally Technopoly. In a tool using culture, the use of tools is not self-directed, but instead is “subject to the jurisdiction of some binding social or religious system” (Postman 24). Postman gives the example of Pope Innocent II who in the twelfth century banned the use of crossbows against fellow Christians because their lethal nature as an affront to morality. This type of moral policing of technology does not exist today. There is no authority over technology. Our culture has high-speed access to the internet, which offers limitless amounts of information for virtually anything we can think of. We can use our personal computers to shop, keep up with the current sporting news, and even to socialize or find a date. We are losing valuable social skills and our interactions with other human beings are quickly diminishing. Instead, we depend on the keyboard of a computer to interact with the world outside.
Postman marks the emergence of Technocracy with the publishing of Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, in which Smith suggested and encouraged the “transformation from small-scale, personalized, skilled labor to large scale, impersonal, mechanized production (Postman 41). In Technocracy people developed technology to produce goods on a large scale (the cotton machine for example) in order to increase production and aid society. In Technocracy, the population is able to hold onto their culture and the beliefs of their ancestors. This ideal is mainly extinct today.
Technopoly is the third and current age of our culture and is based on efficiency. Postman argues that Technopoly destroys our society’s collective traditions by allowing technology to dictate our daily life. In other words, through technologies like the computer, internet, and television we allow these new entities to rationalize our behavior. In turn, new morals are established while we lose ones that were passed down from previous generations. Instead of looking at other human beings or religion for meaning in our life we look to technology for the answers, and blindly accept these answers as fact. Due to the rapid production and advancement of technology we are becoming completely dependent on technology for survival. We depend on the technical advances of insemination, breeding, and transportation for the food we eat. We rely on our cars for transportation, cell phones for communication, and the Internet for all of our answers ranging from where to eat to how the earth was formed.
There is no question that technology is advancing at an astounding rate and it is unclear how this will affect our society. Deep Blue defeated the world’s greatest chess player Gary Kasparov and caused us to realize that, at some point, computers could be more intelligent than human beings. The significance of the chess match put into perspective the issue of humans versus computers and which has (or will have) superiority.
Humans have feelings and these feelings affect us and our actions. Computers lack these emotions and, some argue, will never be able to acquire them no matter how much a programmer can try to simulate them. We may lose a chess game to a computer, but the computer will never feel joy or a sense of accomplishment, nor has an understanding of the significance or insignificance of any particular outcome. People may feel that progress is beneficial, and that the new technology will assist us and make our lives easier, but at what cost? Postman feels that we will lose our morality and identity to the new technology.
There are undeniably positive aspects to technology, however, we should not blindly accept technology for technology’s sake. Technology can have troubling effects on our society, and we should be aware of how new technologies can negatively influence our culture.
Works Cited
Coy, Peter. “IBM vs. Kasparov: Your Move Deep Blue.” Business Week 19 February 1996.
Fedorowicz, John. “Kasparov vs. Deep Blue 1997: Deep Blue Comes Back to Win Game 2.”
USA Today 12 May 1997.
Postman, Neil. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Random
Random House, 1992.