I know. I was responding to this overall thread, which started: > Unfortunately for the article's point, despite a brief moment of viability, even human+comput

I know. I was responding to this overall thread, which started: > Unfortunately for the article's point, despite a brief moment of viability, even human+computer chess teams are now far outclassed by computers alone. and it then continued: > The top Go player in the world retired saying that he thought he was almost perfect, but then a "superior being" showed him he wasn't even close. I doubt there is a human on the planet that can improve the strength of the best AI at Go. I was making the point that, even though there have been AI advances since the article was written about chess, defeating its immediate point about chess, these advances have also come with their own caveats. ("Oh this technique that beats chess perfectly can't hope to beat Go". "Oh this technique that beats Go perfectly can't hope to beat StarCraft".) These caveats serve to reinforce this article's broader point - that AI has limitations, that humans can complement, and vice versa.