If I'm following the line of reasoning correctly, it's that chess players will migrate to a game like Go because it can't be reduced as easily to positional val

If I'm following the line of reasoning correctly, it's that chess players will migrate to a game like Go because it can't be reduced as easily to positional values and min/maxing of said values. While it's true that chess has an absurd amount of possible moves, combinations, and games, computers are showing us that chess strategy and theory are essentially meaningless in the face of brute calculational ability. From a poetic point of view, you could argue that computers are sucking the mysticism and romance out of the game. From a practical point of view, you could argue that computers are steadily making the game pointless for humans. Either way, it's a less exciting game now that it's been reduced. Kasparov seems to be an optimist, for what it's worth, and in several of his disquisitions on this topic, he argues that a computer program will never "solve" chess the way a program solved checkers a few years ago. There are too many numbers to crunch. Furthermore, there are too many weaknesses in AI's ability to form strategies or think creatively. Unfortunately, this line of reasoning assumes that creativity is necessary for success in chess. It might be in a human-vs-human game, but in absolute terms, evidently it's not.