A nice introduction.

Here is his KGS rating chart: http://www.gokgs.com/graphPage.jsp?user=josephwilk

_________________
Regards,

Peter

It's interesting that this popular statement is becoming less and less true, and seems likely to totally cease being a selling point (to the extent that it ever has been) in the nearish future. Perhaps it will turn out to have been really important, and everyone will migrate to some large board arimaa variant

Such people will have to keep migrating every few years - at least, until we create an AI general enough that it beats humans at every game...

Although the perception that Go is impossible for computers will no doubt persist for a long time even after that. I keep seeing people refer to Go as the game where a beginner can crush the strongest programs!

I wouldn't be surprised if this puts a lot of early players off the game. GnuGo is no pushover on even its easiest level. I can imagine a lot of players play some 9x9, try against GnuGo on 19x19, get completely crushed, infer that they have no talent for the game, and don't bother again.

FWIW, I thought he understated how strong computers can be now, and overstated how easily a player will beat someone rated 1 or 2 stones below them.

_________________
Regards,

Peter

I don't know, I heard that statement when I first started, and was very frustrated playing Gnu Go, but I had the concept in my head that the computer was supposed to be easily beatable, and that I could defeat it if I learned a little more.

I agree that the improvement of Go programs seems more likely to put a beginner off, though. There seems no point to playing chess against the computer at all, knowing that programs can beat even the best players. It will be sad when Go reaches that same level, where you never get to believe that your own potential is greater than that of the machine. Especially considering how hard it is to find another human to play with without going online.

I don't think that is an issue; you can easily choose a weaker engine, or hobble your current one to give you an even game. Something like Lucas Chess has over 100 different computer opponents to choose from, gradually increasing in strength from 'monkey' to one that can outplay any human. Then after the game you have the option of having a strong engine analyse it at a level far above any human, and suggest master-level alternatives for any of your moves.

The point is that early Go-players are likely to hear that computers are useless at Go from any number of different places; say, a well-meaning website that has not been updated for a few years, or an experienced player who does not keep up with computer Go. Why wouldn't they believe them? Then when they play against a computer, they lose badly, and think they are not cut out for this game.

_________________
Regards,

Peter

I'm going to be blunt. This talk was got so much wrong it was hard to listen to.

For computer go, the most recent record for a pro loss to a computer is only 4 handicap stones. The strongest bot on KGS is 6d, a level that already the vast majority of human players will not reach.

He talks about problems ending the game and agreement, but seems ignorant of the easy solution using area scoring. He claims computers have a hard time ending the game or counting, but a computer will happily win by 1 point, something that used to be a pro trick.

At 16:10 he shows a supposedly ended position where Black can capture a single stone on the boundary of White's territory.

Which bot is 6d?

_________________
North Lecale

Zen19D

There's an actually excellent use for a strong engine even for a pretty weak chess player. Set up a "won" position for Black, give the computer White and see if you can hold onto the advantage even though you're playing an engine far too strong for you to beat on even terms. Especially handy for endgame training. This is better than the converse of setting up a won position and giving a weak AI Black and trying to turn the tables because of the kinds of errors computers aren't very "natural" when the engine is heavily tuned down.

I suppose what happens is when the engine gets far stronger than the human it stops being an just an opponent and becomes a training tool.

There is that. And there is a move worth 40 points.

To be exact, he said the players didn't believe they can score any more points, and then something weird about the psychology of passing. Perhaps this is a very clever joke?

Okay, people keep commenting on this, so I just want to share my opinion: don't watch it. Thanks to PeterHB for posting the link, but it's just a 10k giving a presentation on Go, with all the confusions, mistakes, and stammers you would expect therefrom. It doesn't reflect poorly on him at all, I'm surely plenty of 10k would have done a worse job; but no matter how long the discussion in this thread goes on for, do not click the link, it never gets interesting, you cannot get those minutes of your life back.

I'll admit i didn't watch the talk (since several here said to save the time), but for new comers (and relative to other games) ending the game is quite challenging regardless of ruleset. Go ends only when players agree the game is over...that's a little crazy when you think about it. Imagine if in chess your opponent kept making moves well after checkmate, or in backgammon if you kept rolling even though all of your opponents pieces were off of the board, simply because you didn't agree you had lost yet.

I'm interested in the background of the talk - can Peter tell us what the event was, or why Joseph was presenting the talk?

_________________
North Lecale

The event can be deduced from the URL: http://devslovebacon.com/

_________________
Offending ad removed

I hazard to guess that:

He was picked because he's a senior developer of a well known project. Knowing stuff about black and white pebbles would be of secondary concern.

It's particularly challenging in the Japanese (territory) rules, because you *have* to agree that certain stones are dead, because it costs points to remove them. Imagine in chess if you declared checkmate in 3, and refused to show the moves. Also, please spare me the demonstration board that it can be theoretically played out on, that nobody ever uses, and that doesn't cover cases like stones that originally weren't under dispute dying.

In area scoring rules it is a no-brainer, just keep on playing until it is obvious even for the beginner.

This has been hashed out numerous times in rec.games.go, on this forum, and elsewhere. I think this post from shapenaji does a marvelous job of explaining why territory rules are so hard for beginners, and area scoring rules not:

The game still ends by agreement under area scoring. Even under stone scoring, the game ends by agreement. Beginners are capable of making ridiculous mistakes about when to agree to end the game that have nothing to do with the difference between territory and area, so claiming that the answer is obvious under one rule set but not the others is hyperbole.

Technically, in area scoring you can continue playing until there are no more legal moves left. This would be akin to checkmate in chess. In practice, even beginners understand the concept of two eyes and the space required for it, and both players will pass when they are confident the game is truly over.



Its not hyperbole, but you don't see it that way because you are ignoring the evidence and trying to lump together issues that are vaguely similar but immensely different in practice. That beginners can make mistakes isn't the problem, it's that they are massively confused as to the logic of ending the game. In area scoring, "When in doubt, play it out." Under Japanese rules, they are told they don't have to play -- even worse, they are told if they do play to remove doubt, they lose points. That's when "the wheels in their head start spinning really fast, and then stall", as shapenaji so aptly put it. This logical difficulty has been documented countless times.

The end result is that two beginners who have just learned the rules will be in a state of confusion as to the rules and how to legally end a game. They will not be in a position to play other beginners without somebody holding their hand. They won't be able to teach the rules to other beginners. What should be a game with simple rules that takes a lifetime to master has been ruined by foisting advanced rules that assume knowledge of basic play onto beginners.