> why the robot's front legs are so close together
I'm thinking there's some kind of efficiency gained, where, to us, it looks precarious and awkward, but to the machine-calculated algorithms, a trend is detected, where it's easier to stay continuously balanced on a small point while in motion, because it can use it's own inertia and apply smaller amounts of torque and pressure to it's actuators, and use smaller movements, when attempting to stay on it's feet.
When it's at rest, a wide stance is probably safest, but in motion, maybe it's a different story. Given that it's a somewhat rigid machine, with appendages that have alimited range of motion, maybe it targets, the smallest most effective movements?
I would also wonder: What is the net energy consumed from it's power source, to cycle one limb, moving it from fully contracted to fully extended and back again? You would need to test this unloaded in free air, and completely loaded under the weight of the entire robot at rest. And that test would not account for the amount of work it would take to safely absorb the full weight ofthe robot, while it's moving at 20MPH, to bring it to a full stop, with a single limb.
I'm not sure if those sorts of efficiencies are anything more than a simple practical concern in a prototype, given that the only goal is to run some quick, untethered tests in a parking lot, but it might be relevant to a small degree.
This is just my amateur guesswork, though.