Chessbase has a report but I think Chess24 was one of the first ones to report. Their report seems to suggest Stockfish was not too disadvantaged except perhaps in opening books. Caveat: I have yet to read the academic paper. In modern computer chess, opening book is important but bear in mind that int he TCEC, the first two rounds, the openings are fixed by an independent 3P and the contestants have to play form a certain position 4 moves deep.
Dana Mackenzie also has a report and he has some interesting thoughts on the (in)famous Table 2 (my prediction on it future fame). He seems to have read the academic paper and being a professional mathematician, will probably understand more than me. There is no explanation as why AlphaGZ gave up on Caro Kann or the French nor why it seemed to have avoided the Indian Defences or the Sicilian. It seems the QGB was favoured (again without any explanation but good news for the sale of recently published book from QC
). Indeed, one of DM's comment was that the computer programmes are yet unable to articulate "why" which he thinks is crucially a human skill and therefore, ergo, AI is not human yet! (caveat: Also at the same time publicising his later co-authored book on Causation and effect!!).
Personally, I am impressed and think this is an important step.
Two curious question for those with the expertise: Is this so-called deep neural net viable for the future AI?
How does this compare to the modest effort of a single postgrad paper last year on similar undertaking (one with Giraffe in the title)?
BTW, DM seems to think the current method of programming chess engine will become obsolete.