John Fairbairn wrote: And when we think we are learning from bots, are we learning mistakes?
Sans doute. The very idea of winrates is predicated on mistakes by the bots.
Quote: I do notice that the fuseki moves that pros use after studying with bots have changed quite radically over the past couple of years, and the bots have themselves change their "opinions."
This is why, IMO, the concept of margin of error for winrate estimates is important. Our preliminary results for the concordance of different bots is on the order of 80%. So if we want a single answer to what to play, I don't think we can get it for most positions. What I do think we can get is a good idea where not to play. It would help to know where the threshold is, though.
John Fairbairn wrote: But what it all adds up to, it seems to me, and not just with ladders/nets and L&D but with very much else, is that you just can't trust the bots. They are fickle and mysterious. We can all agree they are stronger than humans, but is that just because they make fewer mistakes, or mistakes with fewer bad consequences, and not because their actual moves are actually correct even most of the time?
I think if we could find a good way to restrict or focus the search of bots, with maybe some refinement of conditions, they could beat humans at life and death, semeai, and so on, normally finding the correct moves. I still hope that bots can be trained to play difference games on separate boards and reliably compare two different moves. But I don't think I can get to that this year.  And that is a more modest objective than finding the correct play. You have to make the correct play one of the moves to be compared.
Many thanks for this example.  Not too long ago I ran across an example where a bot recommended a tenuki instead of saving a sufficiently large group that saving would gain around 14 pts., comparable in size to the opening move. In addition, the possible kill was of the kind that Baduk Doctor had recently shown as a kyu level problem, adding a stone to take away a half eye. Even with global reading, it seems unlikely that a top bot would miss the kill. So either the other play was quite hot, which I seriously doubt, or the bot somehow misread the local L&D, which is possible, or the bot reckoned that is was behind and was playing for a mistake, which I think is most likely. OC, a dan level human, and many kyu players, would save the group, except perhaps in a handicap game, because we would expect our human opponent to see the kill.
Given the way that bots are trained, it is not easy to get them to make technically correct plays, or to be sure that they have done so.
|
immediately following the 1-2-3 principle." However, this is the AI's preference. Why?
here right away. 
to 
force a capture, while enlarging the corner, but moreover White's shape becomes compromised. She has outside influence and sente but her group is not very strong, despite the ponnuki. Black has safe territory and a potential to harass White's group in the center.
and 
to get some more resilience for his group before taking sente with 
