When reading such news I always get the feeling that the game is stacked in favor of the computer. Not in the sense of rules, but in the sense of media coverage and interpreting the results. It seems like a lot of people in AI and IT are pretty desperate for validation of their notions about human (un)intelligence.<p>Watch &#x27;Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine&#x27; for a good description of what I mean. And yes, I bet many people here hate that movie. That&#x27;s exactly what I&#x27;m talking about.<p>There are a lot of relatively simple chess programs that can beat most amateur players. Personally, I cannot beat the Go program I have on my cellphone. (I am pretty horrible at the game.) None of that seems newsworthy. And yet after 5 wins against a pretty strong (but not world&#x27;s best) Go player, and it&#x27;s suddenly a &quot;breakthrough&quot; that changes everything.<p>If some new chess player have beat Deep Blue 4 to 2, would we revert the perceived status of AI to what it was before that match with Kasparov?<p>I&#x27;m not saying this advance in AI is unimpressive. I just don&#x27;t see a fair evaluation of what it means. There is too much one-directional hype.