We don't know how much chimpanzees resemble our common ancestor, but we do know that H. sap. resembles it very little.
The most rational estimate would be that it was quite a lot like the chimpanzee today -- same environment, same brain size, same diet. So it cannot be far off the mark to suggest we evolved from something remarkably chimpanzee-like.
Sure, chimpanzee-like. But like common chimpanzees, or like bonobos?
The fact that bonobos split fairly recently, following habitat isolation, implies that the common ancestor was more like common chimpanzees. And that, as TFA argues, self-domestication occurred independently in the human and bonobo lines.
But I'm not aware of any paleontological support for that. And I can't quite imagine what such evidence would look like.
The enormously broader range of the common chimpanzee (until recently) argues for its more basal character. New evidence could overturn that, but I won't be holding my breath waiting on it.
The most rational estimate would be that it was quite a lot like the chimpanzee today -- same environment, same brain size, same diet. So it cannot be far off the mark to suggest we evolved from something remarkably chimpanzee-like.