Oza

Posts: 2652

Liked others: 16

Was liked: 3805

Quote: What are you classifying as "that play". The AlphaGo-ism is to play the attachment when there are no other stones in that quadrant (so generally quiet positions e.g. this move 35), rather than in response to a pincer (e.g. 48 in same game) as Chang Hao mentioned (doing so in response to a 2-space pincer is particularly common in recent human pro games); are there 1000 of those?



I don't entirely follow you and you don't seem to follow me, so I infer we are on different wavelengths My fault, no doubt.



I did use a different quadrant from you, but my purpose was not to show one thing is better/bigger than another. All I want to show is that there is a lot of human data out there that can be mined. At the risk of inducing groans, let me say again that what was special about the 1930S and the Shin Fuseki period was not just the similarity of ideas with the AIs but that pros then commented copiously on their moves. Their new ideas were never really repudiated. Although the onset of komi had a major effect, they basically gave up because it was too hard. Since the AIs have shown that it is not, however, impossible, my suggestion is that we revisit what the old pros said in the light of what the AIs now show.



In passing, I might add that another special aspect of the 1930s theorising was that it was abstract, almost geometric. It was not concerned (as much of the discussion of the AIs moves seems to be) with josekis. There are some current pros who are trying to see the big picture, of course, and Chang Hao seems to be one of them. A very good example is Ohashi Hirofumi who has a brand new book on the AIs just out which doesn't really touch on josekis at all. The sort of thing he is pursuing is reclassifying shoulder hits not as erasures but as an attacking tool. (I think Go Seigen made the same point but in perhaps a better way by focusing more on the follow-up move.)



At some point, if modern pros are going to benefit from AIs they are going to have to learn how it plays the middle game, not the josekis, surely? The josekis at best are just signposts on a map. The AIs' win-rate numbers may give us grid points and contour lines but what the humans have said before in words might tell us more, in a Rough Guide or Lonely Planet way, about where to start and what is worth seeing.



To revert to a specific example in the current discussion, I recall the slide being criticised by a human pro (I think it was Takagawa). His point was that if the opponent ignores it (which is usually easy to do because there is room to extend along the other side), the only sensible follow up for the slider is to take the 3-3 point. But then the slide itself, in tewari terms, is not on a point the player would have chosen if he had the kakari and the 3-3 in place first. The point being made wasn't about the joseki per se but about efficiency. I don't entirely follow you and you don't seem to follow me, so I infer we are on different wavelengthsMy fault, no doubt.I did use a different quadrant from you, but my purpose was not to show one thing is better/bigger than another. All I want to show is that there is a lot of human data out there that can be mined. At the risk of inducing groans, let me say again that what was special about the 1930S and the Shin Fuseki period was not just the similarity of ideas with the AIs but that pros then commented copiously on their moves. Their new ideas were never really repudiated. Although the onset of komi had a major effect, they basically gave up because it was too hard. Since the AIs have shown that it is not, however, impossible, my suggestion is that we revisit what the old pros said in the light of what the AIs now show.In passing, I might add that another special aspect of the 1930s theorising was that it was abstract, almost geometric. It was not concerned (as much of the discussion of the AIs moves seems to be) with josekis. There are some current pros who are trying to see the big picture, of course, and Chang Hao seems to be one of them. A very good example is Ohashi Hirofumi who has a brand new book on the AIs just out which doesn't really touch on josekis at all. The sort of thing he is pursuing is reclassifying shoulder hits not as erasures but as an attacking tool. (I think Go Seigen made the same point but in perhaps a better way by focusing more on the follow-up move.)At some point, if modern pros are going to benefit from AIs they are going to have to learn how it plays the middle game, not the josekis, surely? The josekis at best are just signposts on a map. The AIs' win-rate numbers may give us grid points and contour lines but what the humans have said before in words might tell us more, in a Rough Guide or Lonely Planet way, about where to start and what is worth seeing.To revert to a specific example in the current discussion, I recall the slide being criticised by a human pro (I think it was Takagawa). His point was that if the opponent ignores it (which is usually easy to do because there is room to extend along the other side), the only sensible follow up for the slider is to take the 3-3 point. But then the slide itself, in tewari terms, is not on a point the player would have chosen if he had the kakari and the 3-3 in place first. The point being made wasn't about the joseki per se but about efficiency.

