I would agree with GP that having “beats” in the title when omitting that a key part of the game (sweeping) wasn’t included kinda makes it nonsense. It’s still neat though for sure.

Next up “robot beats F1 drivers” (on straightaway).

The video seems to show it "beating" the team without either using brooms, but both still playing a game. I.e. they all have stones in play at once and therefore there is theoretically strategy not just accuracy. Am I wrong? I don't know anything about curling. It seems fair to call this "beating" - just not fair to call it curling.

Technically sure, the robot won 3 out of 4 matches against world class curlers at something sort of like, but not really curling.

The implications from the title is that it beats them at curling. You certainly wouldn’t expect the article to be about a robot beating world class curlers at chess.

If sweeping wasn’t such an important part of the game (literally changing shots, which world class curlers would rely on as part of their throw technique) then the article would be fine.

But why is is not curling?

It was played on a curling ring, with a curling stone, using the curling rules against curling players.

The robot just chose to play without a sweep, which I'm sure is still legal.

The humans weren't allowed to sweep either, so it wasn't curling.

>It’s still neat though for sure.

Exactly. I've stopped getting riled up about a catchy misleading headline. Life's too short. The interesting part is afer that.