Not really sure what point you're trying to make. Are you saying you disagree with the entire definition of artificial intelligence until it makes an achievement that meets your definition of intelligence? For me creating the game itself would be computation with the addition of creativity. And once we figure out exactly how creativity works in the brain, no doubt some won't consider conquering that as intelligence.
I guess I'm saying that the ability to learn Go isn't a sign of some overall intelligence.
There's a philosophical debate behind this (funnily enough, I did a couple of years of that as well at Uni, and one lecturer actually quit what was at the time the leading work in AI as she felt the whole concept was flawed to study just what intelligence is in the first place) - if intelligence is simply learning rules, consequences and what actions make for a better choice, computers have been doing that for years in various fields.
If that is the case as well, it has far, far reaching consequences for the notion of free will or decision making in general.
Or does it need to go beyond that? Is just recognising the best choice the sign of intelligence, which we've made computers do for years now, or is it about coming up with the choice that couldn't be seen except by them?
And yes, the latter would mean there's not many "intelligent" human beings either. That's a huge debate in itself.
My main point really is that intelligence is such a wooly, undefined concept in the first place. What they're using to measure it may not be completely valid.
All of this conversation has sparked an idea for a short story in my head mind you, I love this stuff!