Sure, Mef. My point is that AlphaGo's analysis suggested that LSD's joseki move was wrong. I personally feel that some people have taken this to mean that the joseki was wrong.

I argue that AlphaGo's analysis is only meaningful taking into account the entire fuseki, and the analysis doesn't extend to the same shape in other board positions.

Much like it's important to choose the correct joseki based on global situations, AlphaGo's analysis of what the best move is is highly dependent on that particular board position.

_________________
be immersed

Personally I would simply say "AlphaGo would make a different joseki choice than LSD did". Whether or not it's better or worse we can't really know right now.

I think that the go world is just now encountering some issues that the chess world has had plenty of time to deal with...Namely that we have strong computers and that they can evaluate arbitrary positions to an arbitrary level, but that the analysis may have a bit of a false precision attached to it.

If we'll allow a chess analogue, I just let the shredder app on my phone do some soul-searching about how it felt 1) e4 should be handled. After a good bit of consideration (a depth of 15 ply!) it has decided that 1) ...e5 is a full tenth of a pawn better than 1) ... c5. While I am fairly confident that this app plays at or above a grandmaster level (especially on the timescales I allowed it to work), I'm not quite ready to declare the Sicilian defense dead.

Similarly, until we can know how AlphaGo evaluates it's preferred position vs. Lee's, it's hard to get much of a takeaway other than "Oh, this other joseki is also playable". If AlphaGo thinks that the tenuki variant wins 49.9% of the time, while Lee's "standard" follow-up variation wins only 49.6% of the time, I think most of us mere mortals would consider them both reasonable and move on. If the analysis said that Lee's move was only winning 30% of the time, then we might want to take a second look and find out if it had truly discovered something.

I kind of agree with you, except that I don't consider AlphaGo's analysis "joseki", per say, because I don't feel that AlphaGo thinks in terms of joseki. Joseki are these common patterns that we've come to know, which simplify the game for us. We can use them or modify them, because we've done some sort of local analysis and think that the result is close to even.

AlphaGo has its own method of evaluating the position, and doesn't care at all about joseki.

From this, we can learn that "non-joseki moves" like the ones that AlphaGo plays are possible. But I don't feel we can treat these new moves in the same way as we treat "joseki", since AlphaGo's intention was not to produce a locally even result. We already know that AlphaGo plays locally point-losing moves sometimes to somehow increase its confidence in winning. We can consider these moves as new ideas, but shouldn't directly apply them unless we identify for ourselves that we truly think they are appropriate.

_________________
be immersed

I think the same would be said about pros. Instead of playing the joseki, they always look for the best move. Taking a look at my (somewhat dated) version of GoGod, the shape made if B tenukis after drawing back appears over 100 times. Given that a joseki sequence was being played, AlphaGo didn't agree with a particular joseki move and was ultimately expecting a different joseki result...I would have a very hard time classifying this as something other than two strong players disagreeing on a joseki choice.

Pros think of joseki, research opening patterns, and come up with new moves. They are always looking for the best move, and can deviate from joseki, but the idea of joseki is a basis for their research. This is different than the way AlphaGo thinks.

Anyway, we know from previous discussions that when we disagree, neither of us changes our mind, so I'm not particularly interested in going around in circles about this with you.

I'll leave it at this: I disagree, and it's OK with me if you have a different opinion.

_________________
be immersed