Yes, and I already explained why: because we don’t calculate probabilities the classical way anymore. Classically to get a pattern like that, you’d need to have one of the probabilities be negative (at least some of the time), so it could cancel the other (to give you a sum of 0). But there is no such thing as negative probability, so this pattern is impossible classically. Luckily, we don’t live in a classical world, so this isn’t a problem. The classical description works pretty good when you have a huge number of objects; it gets worse and worse the smaller number of objects you work with; until eventually when you come to an experiment like this, where the predictions from classical logic conflict with measurements. That is why this experiment is so counter-intuitive; because it clashes violently with our naive assumptions about the world should work. But I assure you, the rules are simple (but weird). It isn’t magic.
PS:
Classically in a situation where a particle can pass through two paths to reach a certain location:
A)The probability of reaching the location from path A (through slit A)
B)The probability of reaching the location from path B (though slit B)
The following two relations will always be true classically:
A + B => A
A + B => B
Both of these relations are not true in general (in QM).