I loved this piece, mostly because it really hits on an important aspect of the theoretical study of combinatorial games. There is a real "psychology" aspect to a lot of the strategies. I am not familiar with the Go terminology of the different move/structure types in the article (e.g. "tenuki", "extend at the bottom", and "peep"). These are human ways to describe different strategies and patterns.
As the article reiterates: "AlphaGo don't care." It doesn't lose universal focus to get stuck in local duels. Each turn, it reevaluates the gameboard as a whole. It doesn't care about the order of the previous plays, data that doesn't change the outcome of the game.
The same is true in CGT. The options from a position depend only on the information of that position, not the history of plays nor the psychological battle between the two players. The value of the game is irrelevant (though it may be very hard to calculate exactly).
From the article:
Lee Sedol threatens the territory at the top with 166? AlphaGo don’t care, it just secures points in the center instead. Points are points, it doesn’t matter where on the board they are.It doesn't matter that Lee Sedol last moved near the top, AlphaGo just goes wherever it thinks it can amass the most points, not where it thinks the other player is going to focus their efforts. The actual temperature of the regions is more important than which pieces were the most recent plays.
The third game is tonight!