It's really difficult to pick my least favourite part of this article. Could be this; "But the game is about more than algorithms, according to Marc Barthelemy

It's really difficult to pick my least favourite part of this article. Could be this; "But the game is about more than algorithms, according to Marc Barthelemy, a physicist at the Paris-Saclay University in France, with layers of depth arising from the psychological complexity conferred by player strategies. Now, Barthelmey has taken things one step further..." At least AI systems can write slop fairly well. Why do I hate this so much? It just feels lazy, underdone, superficial, vaguely nonsensical. The magic of chess has little or nothing todo with the "psychological complexity conferred by player strategies". It has much more to do with aesthetic beauty, and many a great writer has illuminated that. It's utterly unsurprising that you can model the game as nodes interacting in a network graph (I mean essentially that's what it is), and even more unsurprising that the complexity of the interactions is higher in the tense and complicated positions that do indeed often decide the fate of individual games. Note, games not matches. If you can't get even the most basic domain terminology correct, you don't deserve anyone's attention. I'll probably calm down in an hour or two.