With respect to your very interesting comment (I genuinely appreciate your input), you appear to have mis-understood the comment you were replying to.
You've commented on the differences in the style of play that AlphaGo introduced, but the post you were replying to (by
aeleos) was going a step further and hypothesising about the potential for a newer, completely 'non-human' style that AlphaGo Zero may have created.
Your comments definitely contribute to the discussion but it was bugging me that there appeared to be a tangent forming about AlphaGo that was overlooking AlphaGo Zero which would be the more interesting area to explore.
Yes, aeleos was interested in that, and so am I, and it seems to be what this entire thread _should be about_. kndyry steered back towards AlphaGo. I'm not sure this merits any further disection.
You've commented on the differences in the style of play that AlphaGo introduced, but the post you were replying to (by aeleos) was going a step further and hypothesising about the potential for a newer, completely 'non-human' style that AlphaGo Zero may have created.
Your comments definitely contribute to the discussion but it was bugging me that there appeared to be a tangent forming about AlphaGo that was overlooking AlphaGo Zero which would be the more interesting area to explore.