Kasparov: Chess Computers Beatable…For Now 
      Humans will continue to beat computers for years, but the machines are likely to dominate in matches played over several games, according to the world’s top chess player. 
      “We will not see a machine replacing a human being in our lifetime. Man will be able to beat a computer in at least one game for a very long time,” Kasparov told a press conference in Moscow a week after setting for a draw in a six-game match with the computer Deep Junior in New York. But while human intuition can provide an advantage in individual games, “Man will never be able to play 8 or 10 games in a row to an equal level,” Kasparov said. He gradually declines for a variety or external factors: the weather, a headache, a headache, family strains or whatever. 
      In his Man vs. Machine contest in the United States, Kasparov won the first game, but lost the third after committing a mid-game blunder. He then adopted a safety-first strategy, and in the sixth game passed up a chance to win by accepting a draw in a position some analysts said was favourable. 
      Kasparov-watchers believe he was determined above all not to lose to Deep Junior because he was still smarting from a defeat to another computer, Deep Blue, in 1997. That loss clearly rankled Kasparov, and he said at the time that the computer had been receiving assistance from its human operators. 
      The Russian, who has reigned undisputed as the world’s top player since 1985, said he was “satisfied overall” with his result against Deep Junior, although “if I’d been in better shape and had more time to prepare the result might have been different.” He stressed the importance of psychology in chess between one human player and another, and described the “psychological discomfort” involved in adapting to a confrontation with a machine. In chess with humans, “you’re always attempting to impose your decisions on the personality of your rival. A game is always an exchange of errors, of imprecision. It’s psychology. There’s never complete exactitude or purity in a game of chess,” he said. “But playing against a machine, beyond a certain point, to win or even to save the game you have to play with absolute exactitude, which is not human quality. Knowing this specificity of your rival creates a psychological discomfort which is very difficult to overcome.” 
      Kasparov was at pains to stress that his 1997 defeat was an aberration: “The main thing was to show that what happened then nothing to do with the fight between man and machine. Any impartial specialist can see that Deep Junior is much stronger that Deep Blue. The real battle begins now.”

1. According to Kasparov,
  A. humans can beat computers in individual games.
  B. computers will never take the place of human beings in games.
  C. human beings can never beat computers in individual or series games.
  D. human intuition plays an important role in games.

2. In the contest with Deep Junior in the United States, Kasparov
  A. lost the game.
  B. won the game.
  C. settled for a draw.
  D. left the game unfinished.

3. Which of the following statements is true about Kasparov’s contest with Deep Blue in 1997?
  A. He made up his mind to win Deep Blue.
  B.  He was smart enough to have beaten Deep Blue.
  C. Deep Blue received human assistance.
  D. Kasparov was unwilling to admit his defeat by Deep Blue.

4. According to Kasparov, a human vs machine chess game may involve all the following qualities EXCEPT that
  A. it involves psychological discomfort in the mind of the human player.
  B. it demands the human player of absolute exactitude.
  C. it creates an exchange of errors between man and machine.
  D. it is difficult to overcome psychological discomfort.

5. Kasparov’s remarks on his 1997 defeat imply that
  A. man was no match to computer in intelligence.
  B. Deep Blue was unbeatable.
  C. Deep Blue also made blunders.
  D. if he had made no blunders, he should have beaten Deep Blue.