On the other hand we have the game which is played on them, a symbiosis of strategy, anticipation, reason and chaos. In essence, Chess is a table game containing a definite set of rules and a limited amount of variables which the skilled player is able to predict, hence the competitive nature of the game: player versus player. When the player reaches an advanced level of game knowledge, of the preconceived tactics and movements, he is likely to consider it an Art, as mathematicians also claim there is art in the creation of formulas and complex equations. It is a superior level of human thought and reasoning. Chess is a game created to the human mind’s dimension, for its enjoyment and genius.

The issue with Deeper Blue, however, is more dubious. On the first hand the creation of a computer system that was able to play against a superior player, in this case Kasparov, providing strange and ambiguous signs of human traits such as passion. On the late 18th century there was a similar device, long before the silicon era, which became known as ‘The Turk’. This automaton toured around Europe and was able to win matches against celebrities, chess enthusiasts such as Napoleon as well as many others. This attraction was fascinating and intriguing: how could an automaton operated by cogs and wheels play the chess game, let alone win great players? Today it is almost certain the original plans for this machine included a small space below the table where a small person could hide and dictate the next moves. After all, the ‘Turk’ was never claimed to be invincible.

In the documentary ‘Game Over’, the same principle is suggested. Was in fact Deep Blue and Deeper Blue (the second version which actually defeated Kasparov) a marvel of technology or just another ‘Turk’, a seemingly autonomous mechanical system which was being aided on the backstage by a group of chess experts trying to defeat Kasparov? Unfortunately, there is no valid way of telling as the system was destroyed and there is basically nothing left of it. No further attempt to create another system of this kind was done by the creator IBM.

What remains is the vivid image of the Man defeat by the hand of the Computer. For this reason I cannot hold this example as relevant to the world of videogame, unless it is interpreted as a cautionary tale. After decades of videogame playing I’m happy to say that this medium is not about the supremacy of computer processing; it is about the player blending with computer for a shared experience. Games and gaming systems are conceived for the player’s pleasure, not for his personal frustration or as an example of the triumph of technology over Humanity.