  From the beginning if the history of AI, there has been interest in games as
a platform of research. As the field developed, human-level competence in
complex games became a target researchers worked to reach. Only relatively
recently has this target been finally met for traditional tabletop games such
as Backgammon, Chess and Go. Current research focus has shifted to electronic
games, which provide unique challenges. As is often the case with AI research,
these results are liable to be exaggerated or misrepresented by either authors
or third parties. The extent to which these games benchmark consist of fair
competition between human and AI is also a matter of debate. In this work, we
review the statements made by authors and third parties in the general media
and academic circle about these game benchmark results and discuss factors that
can impact the perception of fairness in the contest between humans and
machines
