I didn't hear of this myth before you mentioned it and I've been around (far too long) on go forums. So if anything, you revived it. Like Bill, I heard the claim for Lee ChangHo but not as an instrument for positional judgment, just that on some occasions he could and did read 100 moves deep. That's plausible to me - I know pros can do crazy stuff and I'm capable of some 20 moves myself if there are not too many branches.

I thought the best part of your post was "Cho Chikun and me". That's an instant classic.

But wait, since you started a discussion about Redmond's discussion of the AlphaGo game, the thread is already meta-discussion. Therefore, topazg's discussion of your reasons for discussing Redmond's discussion of the game should properly be considered meta-meta-discussion.

And by that token, my comment discussing topazg discussion of your discussion of Redmond's discussion of the game is thus meta-meta-meta-discussion. I sure hope people will refrain from starting a discussion about this comment, because I've started to doubt whether "discussion" is even a word...

I have to say that most threads involving RJ are not very interesting. But even though he is on my block list and I cannot see his posts I have had more chuckles over this one, just from everyone's responses, than I have had for quite a while.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

You sound ironic but, if so, you miss the point. I mention Cho because he is the predecessor of my very much more worked out theory of territorial positional judgement during the opening and middle game, which is more accurate for that purpose than any other theory mentioned by John's meticulous efforts over the years about books by Asian professionals, who make greater use of parameters or other approximations. (Note: endgame values are a different topic.)

Could Redmond have a shot at AlphaGo? How good is he still? At least he looks like 30+....

topazg asked for my reasons for watching the stream. What you now mention is much more specific and reasonably on-topic, although you bury it amidst a joke.

I discuss Redmond's territorial positional judgement because its (unfortunately low) quality is worth discussing, debunking the related rumour is worthwhile, putting professionals in a context of their actual, realistic skills enables better learning from them or their games when not confusing good information with mistakes, understanding the positional judgements of the games in the match AlphaGo - Lee Sedol is important for learning players, programmers and computer scientists, comparing with other judgements (such as Kim's) is interesting, comparing methods of positional judgement is good for learning and correcting mistakes helps avoiding learning wrong things.

http://sports.geocities.jp/mamumamu0413 ... rate1.html

112th in Japan.
414th in the world list.

Nowhere near Lee Sedol...

What he does in games is different than what he will do while giving commentary. Just in case you didn't realize this...

It is somewhat depressing to think that a 9 dan pro could be 112th in Japane and 414th in the world. There was a time when the rank of 9 dan (Meijin) was reserved for the one and only best player.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

oren, Redmond's skill as a player is impressive, especially his dynamic reading. I think in his games he would spend a bit more time on making judgements and use more accurate ones, but I do not understand that he spent quite a few seconds on rough counting when using 3 more seconds would have allowed him to declare counts accurate by 1 or 2 points instead of rough approximations +-5 points preventing him from identifying the leader in a close game with an expected score smaller than 5 points.

So you understand that all your "debunking" is saying that "Redmond didn't spend a lot of time on positional analysis as a commentator".

Ok, I can now agree. That is all you had to say.

Now you exaggerate. See the OP.

Whoosh! Still funny. You mentioned irony, but it doesn't seem you really grasped it.

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

You have put part of my text in bold font. Please tell me what you want to express by this. (I know that Cho is 9p, but this is not the point.)

Yes, I think you are correct: you don't understand his style of communication, and intentions as a broadcaster.

While pros in general can undoubtedly learn much from you, this is a case where you might learn from a pro.

Chris Garlock did ask Michael Redmond a few times during the series who he thought was ahead. I kinda got the impression myself that Michael could've answered it but chose not to? Given that they were estimating the score over on GoGameGuru.. (hence me needing to swtich between the two).

Sorry, but you paint a one-sided picture of how Redmond performed during the commentaries. He varied his performance and did some of the following:

- he wanted to do a territorial positional judgement (TPJ) but interrupted himself
- Chris Garlock asked him to do a TPJ but Redmond interrupted himself
- he considered a TPJ but said he was not able to do it
- Chris asked him to do a TPJ but Redmond said he was not able to do it
- he considered a TPJ but said it was too early to do it
- Chris asked him to do a TPJ but Redmond said it was too early to do it
- he performed a TPJ but rounded unnecessarily when the TPJ took much longer than being accurate by 1 or 2 points by spending a few more seconds
- rarely I would call his TPJ beginner-friendly: too much time spent, too much hand waving after spending much time and the audience expecting a more or less accurate count. Instead, it would have been better to immediately declare his opinion on who is ahead and whether the game was close: good enough for beginners, and they cannot become bored by watching him count
- at times, he could not resist calculating fractions while it was unclear exactly what value he was determining; such is beginner-unfriendly

So if something became clear from his style of communication, it is that it was too difficult for him to determine reasonably accurate counts most of the time. Is this something I want to learn from him? No. In such a position, I'd rather see the broadcaster simply admit that TPJ was too difficult and discuss other things he can discuss. More preferably though, I prefer to see broadcasters with good TPJ in such games in which TPJ is essential for the understanding the players' strategies.

Err, no?



Err, no? He wasn't trying to impress people with his competence as a go pro. That is a given.



No, but you could learn in the dimension of not trying to beat people over the head, constantly, with doctrinaire views.

Redmond of course has spent his adult life in Japan, and combines in my view a particular American charm, with the Japanese tendency towards understatement, and shading towards only claims that one can deliver things that one definitely can.



I imagine his "sight of the board" is pretty quick, in fact.

You, personally, were not the intended audience. So in our multi-channel world it is assumed you switch off, if the choice of topics is not to your taste.

Then for whom were the dan level comments by Redmond?

Well certainly for me, as I enjoyed his commentary greatly. Not all, or even most, dan players want the same things that you want from a commentary.