Answers.Body: <p>I could find nothing that would support that statement beyond that it taught itself in a day. This is speculation, but I believe it explains that line in the article.</p>
  
  <p>After researching the author, I found that he is a technology writer, who got a Bachelor of Science from the University of Kent, and later a degree in journalism from University of the Arts London. He currently writes for "Wired", and previously wrote for the MIT Technology Review. Despite that, I could not find a FIDE rating from when he lived in Europe, nor a USCF rating now that he lives in Cambridge Massachusetts.</p>
  
  <p>I get the sense that it could be a "civilian", meaning a guy, who likes chess, but plays chess very casually, who is trying to write an article, and not really understanding the subject fully. It is akin to watching people on TV try to sound like they know about chess.</p>
  
  <p>I think he was simply using his own words to regurgitate the amazement that we chess players all felt when we heard that AlphaZero taught itself in a day, and already could beat the best program, Stockfish.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-02-21T22:59:23.030Z
Answers.Text: possibly.  i upvoted your answer that some cowardly churl downvoted for daring to answer a question i posted.
Answers.UserDisplayName: edwina oliver
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-02-21T23:10:59.417Z
Answers.Text: I agree, it is based on some conjecture. Thanks for making up for the downvote.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-02-22T01:13:01.120Z
Answers.Text: rereading the question i am wondering if the experts being dazzled might be AI/Programmers not chess GMs. that could make your answer  more likely to be at least partially correct if not the answer.
Answers.UserDisplayName: edwina oliver
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-02-22T01:15:55.097Z
Answers.Text: I think the statement is clear that they meant chess players not programmers.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-02-22T01:40:38.450Z
Answers.Text: I am not sure what he meant as it could be read either way.
Answers.UserDisplayName: edwina oliver
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-02-21T22:11:18.350Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-02-21T22:11:18.350Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Body: <p>Wired magazine recently said</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>Most remarkably, AlphaZero uncovered new approaches to the game that
    dazzled chess experts.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>Just what was unique about alpha zero that was so dazzling?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-02-21T21:22:38.467Z
Comments.Text: Does this answer your question? [How is Alpha Zero "more human"?](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/19360/how-is-alpha-zero-more-human)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Ellie
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-02-21T21:27:40.177Z
Comments.Text: dont know.  Wired did not tell us what Kasparov mean by dazzling which I took to be more than super human.
Comments.UserDisplayName: edwina oliver
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-02-21T23:00:01.077Z
Comments.Text: again some coward downvotes a question just because *I* asked it
Comments.UserDisplayName: edwina oliver
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-02-21T23:32:33.990Z
Comments.Text: I'm downvoting your question because it's short on details. For example, right now, I could equally write an answer that says "because AlphaZero was the first strong NN-based engine".
Comments.UserDisplayName: Allure
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-02-22T01:03:10.583Z
Comments.Text: thanks for a reason even if it is not logical.  i gave the details I knew and the question asked for you to fill in the rest. i do not know why kasparov said 'more dazzling' and want to know what was more dazzling about alpha zero to experts as noted by kasparov.  note that he said expertS plural indicating it was other than him that was dazzled.
Comments.UserDisplayName: edwina oliver
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-02-22T01:23:23.257Z
Comments.Text: 1) You didn't link the Wired article 2) you didn't specify what experts they were, they could be chess-playing experts, or chess engine experts 3) with no context, "new approaches" can mean anything from openings to search algorithm. So yeah, -1.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Allure
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-06-14T11:06:32.637Z
Comments.Text: What kind of answer are you looking for? Experts are dazzled by AZ's attacking style, disregard for its own pawns (they stand in the way of the more powerful pieces), dominance with the bishop pair, and propendency to play moves such as h4.
Comments.UserDisplayName: user134593
Tags: <engines><software><alphazero>
Title: What was it that AlphaZero did that dazzled experts?
ThreadText: # What was it that AlphaZero did that dazzled experts?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2020-02-21)
  
  Wired magazine recently said
  
  > Most remarkably, AlphaZero uncovered new approaches to the game that
  > dazzled chess experts.
  
  Just what was unique about alpha zero that was so dazzling?
  
  **Tags:** engines, software, alphazero
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Does this answer your question? [How is Alpha Zero "more human"?](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/19360/how-is-alpha-zero-more-human)  
  > **username_0**: dont know.  Wired did not tell us what Kasparov mean by dazzling which I took to be more than super human.  
  > **username_0**: again some coward downvotes a question just because *I* asked it  
  > **username_2**: I'm downvoting your question because it's short on details. For example, right now, I could equally write an answer that says "because AlphaZero was the first strong NN-based engine".  
  > **username_0**: thanks for a reason even if it is not logical.  i gave the details I knew and the question asked for you to fill in the rest. i do not know why kasparov said 'more dazzling' and want to know what was more dazzling about alpha zero to experts as noted by kasparov.  note that he said expertS plural indicating it was other than him that was dazzled.  
  > **username_2**: 1) You didn't link the Wired article 2) you didn't specify what experts they were, they could be chess-playing experts, or chess engine experts 3) with no context, "new approaches" can mean anything from openings to search algorithm. So yeah, -1.  
  > **username_3**: What kind of answer are you looking for? Experts are dazzled by AZ's attacking style, disregard for its own pawns (they stand in the way of the more powerful pieces), dominance with the bishop pair, and propendency to play moves such as h4.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2020-02-21. Score: 4
  
  I could find nothing that would support that statement beyond that it taught itself in a day. This is speculation, but I believe it explains that line in the article.
  
  After researching the author, I found that he is a technology writer, who got a Bachelor of Science from the University of Kent, and later a degree in journalism from University of the Arts London. He currently writes for "Wired", and previously wrote for the MIT Technology Review. Despite that, I could not find a FIDE rating from when he lived in Europe, nor a USCF rating now that he lives in Cambridge Massachusetts.
  
  I get the sense that it could be a "civilian", meaning a guy, who likes chess, but plays chess very casually, who is trying to write an article, and not really understanding the subject fully. It is akin to watching people on TV try to sound like they know about chess.
  
  I think he was simply using his own words to regurgitate the amazement that we chess players all felt when we heard that AlphaZero taught itself in a day, and already could beat the best program, Stockfish.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: possibly.  i upvoted your answer that some cowardly churl downvoted for daring to answer a question i posted.  
  > **username_4**: I agree, it is based on some conjecture. Thanks for making up for the downvote.  
  > **username_0**: rereading the question i am wondering if the experts being dazzled might be AI/Programmers not chess GMs. that could make your answer  more likely to be at least partially correct if not the answer.  
  > **username_4**: I think the statement is clear that they meant chess players not programmers.  
  > **username_0**: I am not sure what he meant as it could be read either way.  
  
  ---
  
  