[baddox]

There's still a huge dearth of rigor in defining both the width of a range of environments, the degree of success in achieving goals, and the significance of various goals. I'll expound briefly on the first. Who is to say that the range of "environments" a chess supercomputer faces is narrower than the environments a human faces? Obviously, we intuit our range of environments to be wider, but can we explain why rigorously?

[lbenes]

It's more than intuition. Both chess and jeopardy are subsets of the human environment. Watson couldn't handle tic-tac-toe, never-mind chess. Change one rule of chess, and human could cope but Deep Blue would need to be rewritten.