> When a superhuman AI plays chess, the moves usually make sense to an expert. It's really interesting to look at very high level players analyzing specific AI

> When a superhuman AI plays chess, the moves usually make sense to an expert. It's really interesting to look at very high level players analyzing specific AI moves. Many they understand after a short while, others take longer - and some they don't understand directly, but might have an inkling as to why it's good. My feeling is that many high level analysts would rather just automatically defer to the AI's analysis rather than challenging it - so there is in some sense a lack of feedback to correct such situations. Even in the 1997 Deep Blue vs Kasparov match, game #1 Deep Blue apparently was a bugged position so it moved randomly (a legal random move) - but because Kasparov believed it was correct he felt the analysis was way beyond him so he conceded.