An online game of chess against a human opponent appears to be indistinguishable from a game against a machine: both happen on the screen. Yet, people prefer to play chess against other people despite the fact that machines surpass people in skill. When the philosophers of 1970’s and 1980’s argued that computers will never surpass us in chess, perhaps their intuitions were rather saying “Computers will never be favored as opponents”? In this paper we analyse through the introduced concepts of psychological affordances and psychological interplay, what are the mechanisms that make a human-human (HH) interaction more meaningful than a human-computer (HC) interaction. We claim that an HH chess game consists of two intertwined, but independent simultaneous games—only one of which is retained in the HC game. To help with the analysis we introduce the thought experiment of a Preferential Engagement Test (PET) which is inspired by, but non-equivalent to, the Standard Turing Test. We also explore how the PET can illuminate, and be illuminated by, various philosophies of mind reading: Theory Theory, Simulation Theory and Mind Minding. We propose that our analysis along with the concept of PET could illuminate in a new way the conditions and challenges a machine (or its designers) must face before it can replace humans in a given occupation.

中文翻译：

---

优先参与以及我们可以从在线国际象棋中学到什么？

与人类对手的在线国际象棋游戏似乎与与机器的游戏没有区别：两者都发生在屏幕上。然而，尽管机器在技能上超越了人，但人们更喜欢与他人下棋。当1970年代和1980年代的哲学家认为计算机永远不会在国际象棋上超越我们时，也许他们的直觉更像是在说“计算机永远不会被视为对手”？在本文中，我们通过引入的心理启示和心理相互作用的概念来分析使人与人（HH）交互比人机（HC）交互更有意义的机制是什么。我们声称 HH 国际象棋游戏由两个相互交织但独立的同时游戏组成——只有其中一个保留在 HC 游戏中。为了帮助分析，我们引入了优先参与测试 (PET) 的思想实验，该实验受到标准图灵测试的启发，但不等同于标准图灵测试。我们还探索了 PET 如何照亮并被各种读心哲学所照亮：理论理论、模拟理论和思维导图。我们建议，我们的分析以及 PET 的概念可以以一种新的方式阐明机器（或其设计者）在特定职业中取代人类之前必须面临的条件和挑战。