What if… climate change was a game of chess?

Some people do believe that chess is a kind of art; the game fight is able to broach feelings, captivate beauty and tell stories. I think that almost every chess player must have got asked several times – or maybe must have thought about it themselves at least – whether they can see a parallel between chess and life – or chess and anything else in general. Such questions is always not easy to answer; but yes, there are some rules that work in a chess game as well as in life.

Climate change translated into …a game of chess… through the tools of AI?

For once, I decided not to think about the answer myself but to challenge the tools of collective knowledge. How smart is AI – can it also translate abstract ideas? I asked AI based chatbot ChatGPT on life endangering phenomena climate change in the context of chess, and examine through that what it could implicate about AI’s opinion on fighting with climate change.

“The effects of human-caused global warming are happening now, are irreversible for people alive today, and will worsen as long as humans add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.” (NASA Global Climate Change)

So, if climate change was a game of chess, which one would that be?

ChatGPT (green blocks): If climate change were represented by a particular chess game, it would resemble the famous “Game of the Century” played between Donald Byrne and Bobby Fischer in 1956. This game is renowned for Fischer’s brilliant sacrifices and strategic moves that ultimately led to his victory.

In this metaphorical chess game, climate change would be portrayed as the opponent, a formidable and complex adversary. The players would represent humanity and nature, locked in a battle for the future of our planet. Humanity, embodied by Fischer, represents our collective actions and their impact on the environment. Nature, personified by Byrne, symbolizes the delicate balance and interconnectedness of ecosystems, fighting to maintain its resilience.

The game would unfold with tension and high stakes, with both sides making strategic moves. Fischer’s sacrifices would mirror the need for transformative actions to mitigate climate change, such as transitioning to renewable energy, implementing sustainable practices, and adopting eco-friendly policies.

Byrne’s defensive maneuvers and counterattacks would represent the challenges posed by nature, as it responds to human-induced disruptions through phenomena like extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and the loss of biodiversity.

The outcome of this game would remain uncertain, much like the current state of the climate crisis. It would serve as a reminder that the decisions and actions we take now will determine the course of our planet’s future.

Just as Fischer’s victory in the “Game of the Century” showcased his brilliance and ability to navigate a complex board, representing climate change as a similar game highlights the importance of strategic thinking, collaboration, and long-term planning in addressing this global challenge.

So…What does it say?

What does it indicate? I would say that AI can recognize the ongoing “fight” between humanity and nature: both sides have its dynamics; however, in reality Bobby Fischer ended up winning the game – the outcome of the game was not uncertain as AI proposed; therefore I find final paragraphs misleading.

Moreover, it’s interesting that AI picked a game with an uneven result (no draw=one won and the other lost). Do you want to say, AI, that we’ve already lost the fight?! Talking about climate change, I don’t think that this is “the match” where a winner and looser should be defined, as the AI somehow proposed by the game choice; humanity and nature are in search for balance, therefore I think that picking a game which would result in a draw would be more meaningful in this context. It seems like such nuances can be only perceived by us humans.

In my opinion, this example demonstrates quite nicely that we should still not rely on artificial intelligence completely. ChatGPT showed the ability to see some parallels between the challenges of climate change and a chess fight, but could not build deeper abstract connections itself. Working with AI softwares can be inspiring and helpful for identifying some key informations, but it is necessary to stay aware of the fact that AI outcomes are only based on the quality of the data it was taught on – and that in fact it actually can’t think.