In chess, machines have long surpassed humans. Yet, human tournaments continue to attract attention—not because players are technically superior, but because their efforts carry cultural, social, and emotional value.

This raises a broader question: as AI technologies increasingly outperform humans in cognitive and creative tasks, what can chess teach us about the persistence (or disappearance) of human roles in other fields?

• Do humans continue to matter because of the process (struggle, creativity, context) rather than the outcome?
• Are there historical parallels (for example in art, music, or science) that can help us anticipate how AI will reshape work and value?
• Could this perspective inform debates on the future of labor and creativity in the age of AI?

I would be especially interested in perspectives from sociology of work, cultural sociology, and philosophy of technology.

This question was inspired by Tom Stafford’s article “Superhuman intelligence already exists. And how it has affected the game of chess tells us something” (Aug 20, 2025).