That is, don’t beat the game, beat the opponent, understand why, and then model an adaptation strategy for the opponent (teach).
I know a lot of people felt that way even before it happened. It feels like an accounting problem rather than intelligence. But, it's fun to remember when it was thought by some very smart people that chess required more accounting than was ever possible by a machine, so beating a grand master would have to be a demonstration of intelligence.
> don’t beat the game, beat the opponent, understand why, and then model an adaptation strategy for the opponent (teach).
Yeah that would be closer. My favorite Turing test, if you will, is whether the AI can tell you you're asking it the wrong question. If Watson got bored of beating grand masters at chess and started refusing to play, maybe then a case could be made it was reasoning.
That's when you reboot it, if that doesn't fix it good old persuasive maintenance techniques can also come into play
People knew about the main algorithms that Deep Blue used (alpha-beta minimax with heuristic evaluation) for decades before Deep Blue existed. It was simply a matter of waiting until IBM found marketing value in dedicating a top 300 world super computer to beating Gary Kasparov