As AI increasingly bests human doctors, lawyers, and perhaps soon [even poets](https://www.thepierian.org/article/8482f7ddc33074614579b3a6c653e326/Rise\_of\_the\_Machines), it’s fair to ask “how could a device capable of nothing more than calculation…possibly beat a human with a lifetime of experience, instant pattern recognition, [and] unfathomable intuition”? This question was posed when a leading talent in his field was humiliated by AI, and he refused to accept it, claiming that if the test were repeated, “I personally guarantee you I will tear it to pieces.” But the results spoke for themselves. He, like John Henry, had become the last of his kind. One commentator noted darkly, “It had the impact of a Greek tragedy.” A more conciliatory colleague noted the “physiological and psychological aspects” of the challenge couldn’t be underestimated, and sadly, were hardly in humanity’s favor. These quotes were not written about ChatGPT’s latest conquest, but events that took place nearly thirty years ago. The first is from *Time *(“Kasparov: Deep Blue Funk, 2/26/1996), and the rest from *TheNew York Times *(“Swift and Slashing, Computer Topples Kasparov,” 5/12/1997). Both discuss the capitulation of Gary Kasparov to IBM’s purpose-built chess computer, Deep Blue. There are technical reasons why AI appears to have stumbled after its initial successes, but computer scientists have kept at it, chipping away at many fields, such as insurance, weather forecasting, and logistics. Most of us interact with a virtual tastemaker innumerable times per day in the form of Google search, streaming services, and social media algorithms. The critic has largely been superseded by the algorithm. Creative writing appears to be next. #@callout Ours is a kind of a game where creativity ought to beat computational might Poets may feel territorial about their human expertise, just as chess players once were. Ours is a kind of a game where creativity ought to beat computational might, where experience should triumph over knowledge, and emotions, in the hands of the veteran operator, aren’t a liability but a potential competitive advantage. In chess, the anticipated extinction event never happened. Instead, human chess play gained ground, with popularity today at an all-time high. Preparation often involves learning from the best ideas of the strongest computer chess engines, but fans expect their heroes to win the old-fashioned way—with no computerized help in the playing hall. Online tournaments focus on short time controls and use webcams to prevent temptation. In-person events employ careful supervision to keep players isolated from technology, even in the [bathrooms](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/16/sports/kirill-shevchenko-chess-expelled-phone.html). The “zero tolerance” approach to AI is working. US Chess membership broke 100,000 for the [first time in 2023](https://new.uschess.org/news/us-chess-membership-tops-100000), adding about 10k from its post-Kasparov peak in 2003, and the popularity of chess personalities and tournaments is breaking into the mainstream all around the world. Can poetry copy chess’s playbook? One approach is to offer poetry competitions where poets compete to pen certain occasional poems, formal verse, or other improvised challenges that would be difficult to prepare in advance. Poems could be written on paper or typed on inspected typewriters to prevent cheating, and challenges would have to be completed in a certain duration. Cooking competitions have raised the profile of chefs and made dining out more glamorous. The same factors could help raise the profile of serious poets, while making the act of poetic composition seem more dramatic, engaging, and yes, deeply human.