I’ll do you one better: Wittgenstein said that computers don’t even really do calculations, they only appear to. That “appearance” is key though: what the computer does gains the status of “a calculation” once the result is interpreted by a human.

Numbers, (and checkers moves), don’t actually mean anything to the computer, after all.

as i look at this, a computer doesn’t really play checkers. it does something which resembles checker playing, even to the extent that a human could play checkers against a computer sorta playing checkers, but it just reminds me once again of the differences between the computer and real worlds.

i’d say that there is still a future for checkers, partly in trying to get a computer to think about checkers in a more human way. i bet you as a student of AI has a thing or two in the back of yoir head about computer logic and how it differs from our own…