With respect, the wins you're describing are exploits that the next iteration of bots will fix. The "AI forget the Reaver exists", "AI doesn't understand how dark swarm works", "AI doesn't know what nukes are" are bugs that can be corrected, not big gaps in reasoning.
From what I've seen: the Pro's wins mostly rely on exploits, not superior gameplay. Those who fight without exploits lose pretty bad, just in the last few hours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xga636MBOns
This is an interesting hypothesis but I'm not sure it's proven.
Obviously chess bots can beat anyons but this involves a situation where you're making 1 move at a time in a highly constrained environment: exactly 64 squares and a set number of pieces and so in. You also have, relatively speaking, near infinite time to plan your next move and as a result AIs can use a combination of databases and simulation algorithms to derive the best next move.
Almost none of that applies to starcraft.
We can talk about "teaching" the bot to handle other situations but that word covers a gigantic realm of complexity, like how do we encode this information in a way that the ai can actually draw from to apply to its current situation? If people talk about "more chess positions than atoms in the universe" or whatever, this is so many orders of magnitude smaller than the number of valid starcraft positions that we need to invent new numeric notation to accurately describe it.