So by this reasoning a computer like Deep Blue -- or software such as Deep Fritz, which can now pretty much run on any computer and which has a nice record of beating or tying any human chess player it has taken on -- isn't really more intelligent than the person it beats at chess. Some contend that such an argument involves moving the goalposts on what we mean by "intelligence." So we have a situation where a computer beating a human being at chess is a good indicator of intelligence until it happens. At that point, the ability to win at chess not longer indicates intelligence at all, but something else.

So a true test of intelligence would be something else. Some have said that if a machine can beat a person at poker, then we're dealing with an intelligent machine. Interestingly, one of the difference might be that poker is not -- as far as I understand the concept -- a solvable game the way chess is. It would seem that there is too much randomness and too much psychology involved.

But solvable or not, get ready: the goalposts are likely to take another step back in the next few days:

Professional poker player Phil Laak thought he knew how to create the ultimate poker face. When tens of thousands of dollars lie in the pot during a poker hand, Laak doesn’t rely only on the trademark dark sunglasses and hooded sweatshirt, which earned him the nickname “The Unabomber,” to obscure his expression. He pulls the strings on his hooded sweatshirt closed entirely, reducing his face to a tiny “O.”

But in a high-stakes tournament a year ago, Laak didn’t even bother to wear the sweatshirt. This time, he knew, his antics were useless. His opponent had nerves of silicon, electron-quick responses and perfect calculation. This opponent was the dreaded Polaris—a computer.

Laak and his partner, Ali “Prince Ali” Eslami, managed to prevail in the tournament, but just barely. The win was so narrow that it could have been only chance that saved the day for them. And now, July 3 though 6 in Las Vegas, across the street from the World Series of Poker, man and machine meet again in a rematch. Only this time, Polaris has a few new tricks up its sleeve.

I've watched Laak ply his craft on the World Series of Poker and the World Poker Tour several times. He appears to be good at reading other players and not being read himself. But as he observes above, that element of the game is completely removed when playing a computer. If the computer can beat him, it will probably not say that much about whether intelligence has been achieved by a machine. (Those inclined to move the goalposts will probably do so anyway.) But maybe it does say something about the solvability of poker.

Even if poker is not solvable in the game theory sense, what does it say if a computer can completely own a human being in a field of endeavor that would normally involve behavior -- misdirection, subterfuge, bravado, distraction -- that we think of as distinctly human? Maybe there are mathematical shortcuts and workarounds for human interaction. That's an interesting notion. Does that mean that the whole possibility space of human interaction could be "solved" by a computer that is no more sentient -- although clearly much more intelligent -- than Deep Blue? Is there a "brute force" solution to humanity?

And if so, is that a good thing or a bad thing?