Turing’s imitation game confounds the difference between servile and non-servile activities. The machines that drill, weave, or run addition algorithms are doing the same sort of thing as the human beings who were tasked with the drudgery or swinging hammers, weaving, or computing sums, but a computer that beats grandmasters at chess isn’t doing what the grandmaster is doing. Deep Blue won by running n-possible outcomes ahead and picking the highest probability path while grandmasters win by abductive reasoning, taking risks, looking for strategies, playing the man, etc. The grandmaster isn’t compensating for an inability to visualize n-moves ahead either – he already knows that the overwhelming number of possible are foolish or pointless. For that matter, *I’d *already know not to sacrifice the queen on the third move, but if it’s a possible option the computer will faithfully spend a few nanoseconds computing its probability. Why not? So long as you can consider 10^{7} moves per second you can waste some time with all the idiotic ones.

So far as all we care about is winning the game, chess is quasi-servile and mechanical. In this sense, Deep Blue wins. But so far as we also marvel at the shrewdness of a grandmaster and his power to abductively hit on effective paths, as opposed to stumbling on them by the brute force of considering a hundred million possible paths, Deep Blue and the grandmaster aren’t even competing.

Why value shrewdness? Because we know that *actual* minds face an indefinite and infinite chaos that make shrewdness and wisdom necessary to find one’s way forward. Prudence is the heart of the human virtues and is dedicated to confronting just this undefined chaos. While the brute force of computing power can do marvels in defined circumstances, prudence does not have the luxury of objects that are well-enough defined to allow us to move forward by any amount of brute force.