Most real world business problems don't involve board positions and rules and winning moves as simple as chess or Go, and do involve a lot of people that need t

Most real world business problems don't involve board positions and rules and winning moves as simple as chess or Go, and do involve a lot of people that need to be persuaded. So the ability to answer "why's that the winning move?" or "what would change that conclusion?" or "how confident are you are data is reliable enough?" is a lot more useful than a slightly better [over]fit. Even with this example where it's analysing probabilities of heart attacks which can be [retrospectively] validated with precision, I absolutely do want the doctor who says "you're high risk, these are the main reasons why and how you mitigate them" than just a model with a lower false negative rate that can't tell me why.