It's certainly a point of contention, but I think it's the general tenor of comments by other players. Though in hindsight, I wouldn't call it inhuman per se. Humans do play strange moves. It's just a big deviation from pro orthodoxy.

In this games described here, the floating reduction of the wall looks very odd to me: http://lifein19x19.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=13929&p=21.... I also thought the first game against kiss88 featured a lot of very unorthodox moves: the double tenuki in the top right and the shoulder hit against the 44 + knight's move in the lower left especially seemed novel to me. The two space extension from the 34 point is also uncommon, but less surprising.

Another move that didn't seem familiar to me was the shoulder hit and large knight's reduction in the lower right, but that may just be a tactical variation that's unfamiliar.

P.S. I'm only 3k AGA, 4k OGS, so take my personal opinion with a grain of salt! I do think I have a decent feeling for what other people are thinking. Ke Jie made a comment about no human having scratched the surface of go.

Agreed, AlphaGo's moves are definitely unorthodox. And yes, humans with their "narrative" style of playing and "intuition" can barely scratch the surface of reading-heavy perfect-information zero-sum games like Go. No contention there.

But the question was whether these Master games look less human than the previously published self-play games by AlphaGo. And I just don't see it.

The first and third self-play games in particular look crazier (to me) than anything I've seen in this Master collection.

But again, just a measly 1d amateur commenting on unworldly 9p vs ?11?p battles :) People at my level can barely glimpse the tip of the iceberg.