The Rise of Machines: Go Masters Unfazed as Chess Grandmaster Falls

Garry Kasparov's loss to IBM's Deep Blue chess computer was met with a collective yawn from the Go community, who saw it as a natural progression of technology.

Published on Feb. 23, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

When chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov lost to IBM's Deep Blue computer in 1997, it sent shockwaves through the Western world. However, the Go players in the Eastern world were largely unfazed by this development, seeing it as an inevitable consequence of the rapid advancement of technology. The article explores the key differences between chess and Go, highlighting how Go's virtually limitless possibilities make it a far more sophisticated game that cannot be conquered by brute force calculation alone, unlike chess. The author argues that while chess is viewed as the pinnacle of human intellect in the West, the Go community saw Kasparov's loss as a mere warm-up, setting the stage for the eventual clash between man and machine in the game of Go.

Why it matters

This story highlights the contrasting perspectives between the Western and Eastern worlds when it comes to the relationship between humans and machines in the realm of strategic games. It sheds light on how the Go community, with its deep appreciation for the game's complexity and the role of intuition and creativity, viewed the chess grandmaster's loss as a natural progression rather than a cause for alarm. This story offers insights into the cultural differences in how technological advancements are perceived and the implications for the future of human-machine interactions.

The details

The article delves into the key differences between chess and Go, explaining how the latter's virtually limitless possibilities, with an estimated 10^170 sensible moves, far exceed the number of atoms in the observable universe. This makes Go a game that cannot be conquered solely through brute force calculation, unlike chess, where machines like Deep Blue were able to outperform human grandmasters. The author argues that while chess is revered in the West as a symbol of human intellect, the Go community in the East saw Kasparov's loss as a mere warm-up, setting the stage for the eventual clash between man and machine in the game of Go.

  • In 1997, Garry Kasparov lost to IBM's Deep Blue chess computer.
  • In 2016, Lee Sedol, one of the greatest Go masters, played his first game against AlphaGo, the first deep learning machine to challenge a professional Go player.

The players

Garry Kasparov

A chess grandmaster who was considered the greatest chess player of his time, but lost to IBM's Deep Blue computer in 1997.

Deep Blue

A chess computer developed by IBM that defeated Garry Kasparov in 1997, marking a significant milestone in the advancement of artificial intelligence.

Lee Sedol

One of the greatest Go masters in history, who played against the deep learning machine AlphaGo in 2016.

AlphaGo

The first deep learning machine to challenge and defeat a professional Go player, marking a significant milestone in the advancement of artificial intelligence in the game of Go.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“We are sharing our world with another species, one that gets smarter and more independent every year. Though some people scoff at the idea that machines could become autonomous, remember it wasn't long ago that almost no one thought a computer would ever beat a human chess champion. Could we ever face anything akin to the horrendous sci-fi nightmares that we see in 'Terminator 3'?”

— Steven Levy, Journalist (Newsweek)

“While all artists are not chess players, all chess players are artists.”

— Marcel Duchamp (Medium)

What’s next

The article does not mention any specific future newsworthy moments related to the story.

The takeaway

This story highlights the cultural differences in how technological advancements are perceived, with the Go community in the East viewing the chess grandmaster's loss to a machine as a natural progression, while the Western world was left in shock. It underscores the importance of understanding the nuances and complexities of different strategic games, and how they can shape our perspectives on the relationship between humans and machines.