I think that the context matters. While his actual statement is now false, he was really talking about a &quot;solution&quot; to Go, i.e. an algorithm that can compete with <i>any</i> opponent (and back then, Go programs couldn&#x27;t &quot;even&quot; beat humans). Google&#x27;s algorithm is (probably) nowhere near a &quot;solution&quot; to Go, but an algorithm that can beat currently-living <i>human</i> opponents. I.e. it is quite likely that a rather simple algorithm would still beat Google&#x27;s program, only that <i>people&#x27;s</i> minds don&#x27;t (or can&#x27;t) employ that algorithm when they play.