Generating information in a neural network playing chess

You can use whatever language you want, it doesn't matter.The result, and the facts, are the same.With brute-force ("normal") programming - the entire program/algorithm is written/known by the programmers and nothing is ever taught to the programmers except for the answer itself.
It is always known that the answer is "possible" - it's just not known what the answer actually is.With iterative-based learning ("AI") programming - the program/algorithm is capable of creating additional/new/more algorithms, and it's possible that these can be taught to the human programmers who were not aware they were possible until the AI did it and showed them.
It is not always known if the answer is possible or not - sometimes the AI can teach the programmers that the answer is possible.
It is not always known what the created algorithms will be - sometimes the AI can teach algorithms to the programmers, and sometimes the algorithms used by the program are unteachable to the programmers - (the programmers can't figure them out) - and the solution still works.Proven by the chess AI - that can beat the best "normal" program (which has beaten the best human players.)
Proven by the oscillator-building-AI - that can create an oscillator using an algorithm that is still not understood by the programmers.
Proven by any other AI doing amazing things - such is the power of "creating algorithms."You can't make this go away.Edited by Stile, : Just spelling stuffs.

I suppose it would for you, since you are making up your own facts. Except that is not what happened with either the chess program or the oscillator program.
For the chess app, there is no report that anyone was surprised at what the program did. It accomplished exactly what it was programmed to do, and the programmers know what process (algorithm) was going on with it. The results may have been a surprise to some, but coming up with different results than any other program was the point of the exercise.For the oscillator app, again, the developers didnt express any surprise at the process. The expressed surprise at some of the results, including the 'radio' version, but how the algorithm settled on that solution is understood.Name me any algorithm that any program has developed on its own that is not understood by the programmers! Basically the same statement as above, but please!!!, where has an algorithm been unteachable to the programmers? Never happened. With your definitions, where are you getting that it beat a "normal" program? The chess apps that AlphaZero beat were also considered chess AI programs. Your equivocating on your definitions. Sorry dude. The programmers know perfectly well the algorithm. You should look up their paper. If your going off of the newscientist.com article, you should reconsider it. They routinely embellish the information. Like?

Have fun!