There are a few points upon which the premise rests that I believe are fallacies.
everything is moral.
even what we do with our leisure time.
"Why is the sky blue?" "Because it doesn't care to be another color." Most of the things that we encounter in life have no morality. While our interactions may have moral implication or consequence, many just don't. I've been breathing since before I knew of microbes, but the moral implications of my microbial genocide has never given me pause. My blood has eradicated countless generations of bacteria and I've never lost a wink of sleep.
Morality is Duality
While the nature of treating morality on a series of scales bundles up the idea into digestible segments, I don't believe that real concepts are two sides of a coin. At worst, I still believe that the edge of the coin is a side. The side that is neither good nor evil, happy nor sad, pleased nor annoyed. It's the side that can't be bothered to be involved in being a side. It's the side often forgotten. Apathy.
Apathy isn't a moral decision, though it has moral implication. My position is such that merely existing is sufficient to interact.
question #1) is domination = winning?
Unless an author is a time traveler from the last moment of the universe's existence, or a mystic with laser accurate precognition, there really isn't a strong enough position to use words like "never." I'm not talking about absurd statements like "Chairs will never enslave the human race", I'm really talking about quantifiable and qualifiable ideas like this one. "Never" is the kind of word that tidies things up for the frightened or insecure. "Zombies will never break through this barrier." That's a fine sentiment, and it probably provides some solace, until zombies break through the barrier and eat your face.
note the origins of your replacement word, 'beat' - it is domination.
question #1) is domination = winning?
I believe domination can equate to winning. I also can see that losing has a moral victory. I don't believe in duality. If I sit down to play against a one armed vet with a heart of gold, I don't pack up my things right off the bat. If I've already lost, why would I play?
the game is not about overcoming your opponent.
it is about "overcoming" one's self.
First off all: This isn't a universally held belief. I can say that, because I don;t agree with it. But, since this has been posited: I don't see why an AI participating in a game would not find and improve self. What if the AI's Fluffy CSM army did beat a tournament Eldar army? That might be just the kind of miracle needed for the AI to find self and maybe even religion in the same second. If a learning AI plays every game out of a compulsion to learn, then at every turn it is striving to overcome the limitations of itself. You may not agree with the motivation or morality of it, but the consequence of its action is just that.
More on not agreeing below:
yeah, and in ancient greece older men said hello to young boys by reaching under their clothes and holding their penises for signs of shame or attraction.
maybe the guys at your tourney do that too?
I just don't see how this applies to tournaments not being won based on a player's life story.
Still, there can be a comparison drawn to why I actually do play games, that has nothing to do with overcoming self. When I engage in play at any level, it's a selfish want of pleasure. When my opponents are having a good time, I'm drawing pleasure from that. Playing games is a way to exchange pleasures without necessarily reaching under the table. It's primitive to reduce the nature of pleasure to one that is solely sexual.
"'It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game."
People have latched on to this phrase, and notice the "how" and not the "why". Why just isn't valued in beating, winning, losing, etc. Sure, the AI has to overcome the semantic hurdle that it may not actually be playing, but I don't think we're really looking at semantics here. If we were, the definition of robot would be called to the stand.
question #3) could you please describe your computer's motivation and how it came to have it?
Of course I can. I'll share that as soon as you describe how you came to "be."
Like it or not, the signal exchanges in your brain and the makeup of your physical form are all the result of a program. Your environment has set some of the variables, but at the core, your biology is just as much of a machine as my laptop is. Challenging the robot's origin of self is absurd when we can't even define our own.
you are training your embodied neural net to better inhabit a virtual niche with some translation to real world capacities.
congratulations for doing what all living things do.
not a necron yet, maybe.
It's not even that. I'm engaging in an activity to give myself pleasure when I oppose an AI or algorithm in a game. It's what play is. I just don't need consolation or validation as a human every time I fail against a machine.
question #2) is domination = winning?
Some would argue that submission is winning, but that's a topic for another type of thread altogether.
In any case, and for clarity, not to be pedantic, the're is an easy opportunity to be misunderstood with the "=" sign, as thus far we have not established what that operation really means. "Equal" The two are the same. "Equivalent" They are close enough for government work. My biggest issue with the "=" usage, is the implied absolute. I've already mentioned how I feel about duality, but as a general rule, when language uses more than one word to describe roughly the same idea, there's likely to be some difference in their definition. "Chest = container" is an unfair equivalency, because in some cases it may be a type of container, and in others we might just be talking about breasts.
From the beginning, and in the end, your definition of "beat" carried the baggage of morality. Neither my definition nor my philosophy are so burdened.