bit of a generous description, don't you think? After all, there was no mention of the word "evolution" or "evolve", and only one instance of "selection" that had nothing to do with what could be inferred as a "rule of evolution". But hey, if you want to say that, I'll give that to ya.
Parody analogy wins again.
And yet with that sort of description, the results end up being totally within the parameters of a designed system and show nothing akin to the claims of biological evolution being able to accomplish. I'm curious what you think "evolved" in the system.
The winning Strategy.
The search space of moves is immense and could not fully be searched in detail with modern technology. And yet that space all falls within the parameters of the rules of chess. The programmers gave the chess program a way to heuristically search through the space, find patterns and apply weights to what it searched to build a statistically more-likely-to-win method to playing the game. It was intelligently designed all the way down, and in the end, no matter how well the program performed it's job (surviving in analogy), it still was just 'playing' chess.... as designed. It didn't learn or develop anything new on it's own.
It was not programmed with the winning strategy. So no it was not intelligently designed all the way down it had to develop that strategy through trial and error. It learned how to win using an algorithm that was not part of the programming.
... But I disagree with the title of the PT article, in that there was no complex information created, ...
Which is meaningless, as (A) this is not a defined biological term, (B) it is not quantifiable by any means I know, and (C) evolution does not have to do anything but evolution.
You know ID fails when it makes up sciency sounding word and provides no means to quantify them. That’s pseudoscience.
Enjoy
™ Version 4.2
(1)