[ska]

> An analogous situation

It really isn't though. Technical papers have conventions, and they following them reasonably. You expect the methods description to be specific, the abstract not to be hyperbolic, and conclusions to be balanced. The general discussion parts are just that, general.

In the methods area they discuss the exact versions and parameters used, and how they compared them.

In the conclusions:

  In the perfect information games of chess and Go,PoG performs at the level of human experts or professionals, but can be significantly weaker than specialized algorithms for this class of games, like AlphaZero, when given the same resources.

It would have perhaps been interesting to include a more recent stockfish, but it wouldn't really impact the paper.