A casual remark by the distinguished2 scientist and logician3, Professor Augustus S. F. X. Van Dusen, provoked the discussion. He had, in the past, aroused bitter disputes by some chance remark; in fact had been once a sort of controversial centre of the sciences. It had been due to his modest announcement of a startling and unorthodox hypothesis that he had been invited to vacate the chair of Philosophy in a great university. Later that university had felt honoured when he accepted its degree of LL. D.
For a score of years, educational and scientific institutions of the world had amused themselves by crowding degrees upon him. He had initials that stood for things he couldn’t pronounce; degrees from France, England, Russia, Germany, Italy, Sweden and Spain. These were expressed recognition of the fact that his was the foremost brain in the sciences. The imprint5 of his crabbed6 personality lay heavily on half a dozen of its branches. Finally there came a time when argument was respectfully silent in the face of one of his conclusions.
The remark which had arrayed the chess masters of the world into so formidable and unanimous a dissent7 was made by Professor Van Dusen in the presence of three other gentlemen of note. One of these, Dr. Charles Elbert, happened to be a chess enthusiast8.
“Chess is a shameless perversion9 of the functions of the brain,” was Professor Van Dusen’s declaration in his perpetually irritated voice. “It is a sheer waste of effort, greater because it is possibly the most difficult of all fixed10 abstract problems. Of course logic4 will solve it. Logic will solve any problem — not most of them but any problem. A thorough understanding of its rules would enable anyone to defeat your greatest chess players. It would be inevitable11, just as inevitable as that two and two make four, not some times but all the time. I don’t know chess because I never do useless things, but I could take a few hours of competent instruction and defeat a man who has devoted12 his life to it. His mind is cramped13; bound down to the logic of chess. Mine is not; mine employs logic in its widest scope.”
Dr. Elbert shook his head vigorously. “It is impossible,” he asserted.
“Nothing is impossible,” snapped the scientist. “The human mind can do anything. It is all we have to lift us above the brute14 creation. For Heaven’s sake leave us that.”
The aggressive tone, the uncompromising egotism brought a flush to Dr. Elbert’s face. Professor Van Dusen affected15 many persons that way, particularly those fellow savants who, themselves men of distinction, had ideas of their own.
“Do you know the purposes of chess? Its countless16 combinations?” asked Dr. Elbert.
“No,” was the crabbed reply. “I know nothing whatever of the game beyond the general purpose which, I understand to be, to move certain pieces in certain directions to stop an opponent from moving his King. Is that correct?”
“Yes,” said Dr. Elbert slowly, “but I never heard it stated just that way before.”
“Then, if that is correct, I maintain that the true logician can defeat the chess expert by the pure mechanical rules of logic. I’ll take a few hours some time, acquaint myself with the moves of the pieces, and defeat you to convince you.”
Professor Van Dusen glared savagely17 into the eyes of Dr. Elbert.
“Not me,” said Dr. Elbert. “You say anyone — you for instance, might defeat the greatest chess player. Would you be willing to meet the greatest chess player after you ‘acquaint’ yourself with the game?”
“Certainly,” said the scientist. “I have frequently found it necessary to make a fool of myself to convince people. I’ll do it again.”
This, then, was the acrimonious18 beginning of the discussion which aroused chess masters and brought open dissent from eminent19 men who had not dared for years to dispute any assertion by the distinguished Professor Van Dusen. It was arranged that at the conclusion of the championships Professor Van Dusen should meet the winner. This happened to be Tschaikowsky, the Russian, who had been champion for half a dozen years.
After this expected result of the tournament Hillsbury, a noted20 American master, spent a morning with Professor Van Dusen in the latter’s modest apartments on Beacon21 Hill. He left there with a sadly puzzled face; that afternoon Professor Van Dusen met the Russian champion. The newspapers had said a great deal about the affair and hundreds were present to witness the game.
There was a little murmur22 of astonishment23 when Professor Van Dusen appeared. He was slight, almost childlike in body, and his thin shoulders seemed to droop24 beneath the weight of his enormous head. He wore a number eight hat. His brow rose straight and domelike and a heavy shock of long, yellow hair gave him almost a grotesque25 appearance. The eyes were narrow slits26 of blue squinting27 eternally through thick spectacles; the face was small, clean shaven, drawn28 and white with the pallor of the student. His lips made a perfectly29 straight line. His hands were remarkable30 for their whiteness, their flexibility31, and for the length of the slender fingers. One glance showed that physical development had never entered into the schedule of the scientist’s fifty years of life.
The Russian smiled as he sat down at the chess table. He felt that he was humouring a crank. The other masters were grouped near by, curiously32 expectant. Professor Van Dusen began the game, opening with a Queen’s gambit. At his fifth move, made without the slightest hesitation33, the smile left the Russian’s face. At the tenth, the masters grew intensely eager. The Russian champion was playing for honour now. Professor Van Dusen’s fourteenth move was King’s castle to Queen’s four.
“Check,” he announced.
After a long study of the board the Russian protected his King with a Knight34. Professor Van Dusen noted the play then leaned back in his chair with finger tips pressed together. His eyes left the board and dreamily studied the ceiling. For at least ten minutes there was no sound, no movement, then:
“Mate in fifteen moves,” he said quietly.
There was a quick gasp35 of astonishment. It took the practised eyes of the masters several minutes to verify the announcement. But the Russian champion saw and leaned back in his chair a little white and dazed. He was not astonished; he was helplessly floundering in a maze36 of incomprehensible things. Suddenly he arose and grasped the slender hand of his conqueror37.
“You have never played chess before?” he asked.
“Never.”
“Mon Dieu! You are not a man; you are a brain — a machine — a thinking machine.”
“It’s a child’s game,” said the scientist abruptly38. There was no note of exultation39 in his voice; it was still the irritable40, impersonal41 tone which was habitual42.
This, then, was Professor Augustus S. F. X. Van Dusen, Ph. D., LL. D., F. R. S., M. D., etc., etc., etc. This is how he came to be known to the world at large as The Thinking Machine. The Russian’s phrase had been applied43 to the scientist as a title by a newspaper reporter, Hutchinson Hatch. It had stuck.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
unanimity
|
|
| n.全体一致，一致同意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
logician
|
|
| n.逻辑学家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
logic
|
|
| n.逻辑(学)；逻辑性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
imprint
|
|
| n.印痕，痕迹；深刻的印象；vt.压印，牢记 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
crabbed
|
|
| adj.脾气坏的；易怒的；（指字迹）难辨认的；（字迹等）难辨认的v.捕蟹( crab的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
dissent
|
|
| n./v.不同意，持异议 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
enthusiast
|
|
| n.热心人，热衷者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
perversion
|
|
| n.曲解；堕落；反常 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
cramped
|
|
| a.狭窄的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
brute
|
|
| n.野兽，兽性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
affected
|
|
| adj.不自然的，假装的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
countless
|
|
| adj.无数的，多得不计其数的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
savagely
|
|
| adv. 野蛮地，残酷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
acrimonious
|
|
| adj.严厉的，辛辣的，刻毒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
eminent
|
|
| adj.显赫的，杰出的，有名的，优良的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
beacon
|
|
| n.烽火，（警告用的）闪火灯，灯塔 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
murmur
|
|
| n.低语，低声的怨言；v.低语，低声而言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
astonishment
|
|
| n.惊奇，惊异 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
droop
|
|
| v.低垂，下垂；凋萎，萎靡 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
grotesque
|
|
| adj.怪诞的，丑陋的；n.怪诞的图案，怪人（物） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
slits
|
|
| n.狭长的口子，裂缝( slit的名词复数 )v.切开，撕开( slit的第三人称单数 )；在…上开狭长口子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
squinting
|
|
| 斜视( squint的现在分词 )； 眯着眼睛； 瞟； 从小孔或缝隙里看 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
flexibility
|
|
| n.柔韧性，弹性，（光的）折射性，灵活性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
curiously
|
|
| adv.有求知欲地；好问地；奇特地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
hesitation
|
|
| n.犹豫，踌躇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
knight
|
|
| n.骑士，武士；爵士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
gasp
|
|
| n.喘息，气喘；v.喘息；气吁吁他说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
maze
|
|
| n.迷宫，八阵图，混乱，迷惑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
conqueror
|
|
| n.征服者，胜利者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
abruptly
|
|
| adv.突然地，出其不意地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
exultation
|
|
| n.狂喜，得意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
irritable
|
|
| adj.急躁的；过敏的；易怒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
impersonal
|
|
| adj.无个人感情的，与个人无关的，非人称的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
habitual
|
|
| adj.习惯性的；通常的，惯常的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |