Yeah, well, hardwiring the AI to understand human desires wouldn't be goddamned trivial either, I just decided not to go down that particular road, mostly because I'd said it before and Holden had apparently read at least some of it.

Getting the light-square bishop out of danger as highest priority...

1) Do I assume the opponent assigns symmetric value to attacking the light-square bishop?

2) Or that the opponent actually values checkmates only, but knows that I value the light-square bishop myself and plan forks and skewers accordingly?

3) Or that the opponent has no idea why I'm doing what I'm doing?

4) Or that the opponent will figure it out eventually, but maybe not in the first game?

5) What about the complicated static-position evaluator? Do I have to retrain all of it, and possibly design new custom heuristics, now that the value of a position isn't "leads to checkmate" but rather "leads to checkmate + 25% leads to bishop being captured"?

Adding this to Deep Blue is not remotely as trivial as it sounds in English. Even to add it in a half-assed way, you have to at least answer question 1, because the entire non-brute-force search-tree pruning mechanism depends on guessing which branches the opponent will prune. Look up alpha-beta search to start seeing why everything becomes more interesting when position-values are no longer being determined symmetrically.