You might be interested in the recent following great peace from Quanta magazine touching exactly on that subject.

Just a side remark - there is a difference between "how to prove" and "what to prove" when it comes to theorems - to some extent one of the beauties in math - is that there is a certain amount of inspiration or at least subjective aesthetic taste on what makes for an "interesting" theorem. In chess or go - you have a clear objective of winning a game with a fixed set of laws - but in math the objective itself - that is which theorems are worth while proving - is a huge part of the mathematical creative process.

You might be interested in the recent following great piece from Quanta magazine In Computers We Trust? touching exactly on that subject.

Just a side remark — there is a difference between "how to prove" and "what to prove" when it comes to theorems — to some extent one of the beauties in math — is that there is a certain amount of inspiration or at least subjective aesthetic taste on what makes for an "interesting" theorem. In chess or go — you have a clear objective of winning a game with a fixed set of laws — but in math the objective itself — that is which theorems are worth while proving — is a huge part of the mathematical creative process.

You might be interested in the recent following great peace from Quanta magazine touching exactly on that subject.

You might be interested in the recent following great peace from Quanta magazine touching exactly on that subject.

Just a side remark - there is a difference between "how to prove" and "what to prove" when it comes to theorems - to some extent one of the beauties in math - is that there is a certain amount of inspiration or at least subjective aesthetic taste on what makes for an "interesting" theorem. In chess or go - you have a clear objective of winning a game with a fixed set of laws - but in math the objective itself - that is which theorems are worth while proving - is a huge part of the mathematical creative process.