I think this is wrong. This idea comes from when humans first tried to program computers to do what we wanted them to do. We failed, and it turned out to be really hard. A grand master couldn&#x27;t explain the algorithm he used exactly. But that doesn&#x27;t mean he couldn&#x27;t give any useful information at all.<p>Think of it like describing a tiger. I have no idea how to describe complicated edge detection algorithms and exact shapes. But I can say something like &quot;an animal with orange stripes&quot;, and that would be useful information to <i>another human</i>.<p>Likewise a grandmaster can explain that pawns are valuable in situations like this, or that point to a certain position and say don&#x27;t do that, etc. To a computer that information is useless, but to a human that&#x27;s extremely useful. We already have some pattern recognition and intelligence, we just need some pointers. Not an exact description of the algorithm.