I love how this is written from the perspective of an engineer exploring chess. This studying method is used by top chess players as well, where computers prepare variations for their opponent's most commonly played openings. Bobby Fischer had only one assistant to help calculate variations against Boris Spassky's team of Russian grandmasters in their famous match - nowadays, both amateur and professional players alike use computers to prepare against opponents.
The result of the final match from the post is actually a great example of why centipawn advantages don't matter as much in human play - humans don't always make the best moves, and there is a psychological element to chess which is hard to capture with a computer. The example that comes to mind is a famous match between Rashid Nezhmetdinov and Oleg Chernikov where Rashid sacrifices his queen for a brilliant attack: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1260278
I've just started playing again after dabbling as a youth (pre internet) and one thing I've noticed is that psychology against an inexperienced human is very different compared to playing an experienced human or a computer.
In a recent game I took a fair amount of time, and then when I noticed my time running out I made a move in a panic and left a rook hanging. A total blunder. All my opponent had to do was take it and I was ready to resign.
But because I'd taken a considerable length of time I assume my opponent thought it was a very deliberate move. A poisoned piece. He/she didn't take it and I went on to win the game.
The result of the final match from the post is actually a great example of why centipawn advantages don't matter as much in human play - humans don't always make the best moves, and there is a psychological element to chess which is hard to capture with a computer. The example that comes to mind is a famous match between Rashid Nezhmetdinov and Oleg Chernikov where Rashid sacrifices his queen for a brilliant attack: https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1260278