Passage Summary: If a computer can beat a human at chess, it means either computers can think or chess isn't a 'thinking' game. Either way, we'll have to change how we define intelligence.

Conclusion: The creation of a successful chess-playing computer would inevitably alter our understanding of human intelligence.

Reasoning: A computer that plays chess well would demonstrate either that machines are capable of thought or that the game of chess does not actually require thinking.

Analysis: The argument presents a false dichotomy, assuming that these are the only two possible interpretations of a computer's success at chess. It fails to consider that our current conception of intelligence might already be flexible enough to accommodate a machine playing chess without needing a total overhaul. When looking for the flaw, focus on the assumption that a change is 'surely' required. The argument ignores the possibility that we might already accept that machines can perform complex tasks without it redefining our view of human cognition.