modern chess programs are vastly superior to human players, regardless of one or 38 cores.
stockfish has a elo rating of ~3350 (probably a little higher when running on 38 cores, not sure). carlsen has 2850. that corresponds with a 95% winning probability per game (or to be more precise: stockfish is expected to win 95% of all possible points over several chess matches)
it's hard to say if that's close to "perfect analysis", because we don't know what a perfect game will look like (chess is not a solved game). but compared to human level, one could say it's close to perfect.
Your posts are not straightforward.
Here's the wiki quote: "By contrast, such a conclusion has been deemed unwarranted by medical experts and not confirmed by clinical research. For example, in one meta-analysis giving evidence opposite to Lustig's opinion, fructose consumption actually reduced blood glucose levels with no effect on body weight."
It's not "some people" but instead the clear majority of nutrition researchers / specialists. Your argument about "unproven" vs "disproven" is a straw man. Having extensive meta studies that show no support for Lustigs thesis is as close to disprove something as it is possible to do so in nutrition discussions (even though most nutrition studies have major problems in their quality and samplesize quantity).
Further, in your original comment you wrote "modern science has shown us that it's simply not true." and your only support for this was the linking of Lustigs youtube-video (which, to say it nicely, is at least heavily contested). I agree with you that there are many open nutrition questions (and that it is important to keep an open mind for new concepts / ideas), but to postulate that science has shown that "calories in, calories out" is wrong, is untrue.
I think this is definitely the wrong place to have an indepth discussion about the topic, but i just couldn't let your original statement stand by itself without a reply.
it's hard to say if that's close to "perfect analysis", because we don't know what a perfect game will look like (chess is not a solved game). but compared to human level, one could say it's close to perfect.