i don’t think either is better or worse, it’s just different strategies. a probably somewhat wrong but evocative way to think about it is that what AlphaZero d

i don’t think either is better or worse, it’s just different strategies. a probably somewhat wrong but evocative way to think about it is that what AlphaZero does is closer to “intuition”; it can look at a board and immediately tell very well how good it is. maybe you could argue this is more like how human grandmasters play. Stockfish, on the other hand, has much simpler guesses for how to evaluate a board, but they can be computed very quickly. Both of them employ a tree search: “if i do this move then they’ll have three countermoves and i can respond in 16 ways...”. (It’s Monte Carlo because they randomly sample, rather than exploring exhaustively.) But Stockfish is able to explore many more possible outcomes, whereas AlphaZero explores far fewer but is able to focus only on those that really are promising.