Backing up a few moves, Elf has a small disagreement with AlphaGo of the game (AlphaGo-Li). Elf thinks that is a minor error, losing 7%.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bcm9 Elf's variation for
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , 0 . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 5 . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 4 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . 7 . . . , . . . 1 X , O . . |
$$ | . . . . 6 3 . . . . . . . X O O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

As almost always, Elf prefers the solid connection in the bottom right corner. AlphaGo-Li played the approach at 12. That may be because it was trained on human play, right? That approach before connecting on the right was popular at the time. Elf prefers to make the solid connection and then approach from the bottom side. After Black plays the Go Seigen/AI shoulder blow at D-07. White solidifies his corner and then switches to the top left corner. I suppose that - violate standard theory.



By the mid-20th century pros knew that the joseki in the bottom right was problematic for Black. (When I was learning go I read something that Segoe wrote about that.) The bots have taught us that the problem lies with the extension on the bottom side. Sometimes you make it, but often it can, and should, wait. Note that in Elf's variation Black does not make that extension.



Game diagram for convenience.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bcm9 Moves 9 to 16
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . a . . |
$$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 6 . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8 . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . c . . 3 . X , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . X O O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Elf regards as a minor error and thinks that White should invade the top right corner at a (where else? ). Interestingly, Elf also regards the AlphaGo peep as a minor error, preferring the human play at b by 5%. I like these disagreements between the bots. They remind us not to take what they say as gospel. Sic semper tyrannis.



OK. Everyone at the time began to think of the AlphaGo peep as a marvelous play. Now that we have more experience with bots, I think that we can take it as an example of a bot playing kikashi early, without worrying about aji keshi or the loss of a ko threat. Why the bots do that we do not know. Maybe it helps with reading by simplifying the position early. Anyway, Elf regards it as a minor error and prefers the human play at b. After which Elf leaves the peep unplayed. It does not appear in any variation after b, even though White immediately replies with the pincer at c.

So we have to question the timing of the peep. O Meien's reasons for playing it or not playing it are open to question. First, let me note that lowering the temperature (下火) seems to accord with the informal Western go term of temperature. 火 = fire, heat. But if so, why would Black not want the temperature to drop on the bottom side? (Aside from considerations of aji keshi and ko threats.) A lower temperature means that White would gain less from attacking Black. Second, as for playing the peep when White has to reply with the solid connection, Elf disagrees. In fact, Elf regards as a substantial 10½% mistake.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bcm15 One good peep deserves another
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . X 3 X , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . X O O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

takes advantage of the weakness of the hanging connection to peep at its mouth. Then plays the second line kosumi.

So Elf casts doubt on the preferences of AlphaGo-Li. OC, we cannot take Elf's choices and winrate estimates as gospel, either.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Just a quick comment on the early peep of game 2. Later versions of AlphaGo, such as used for the teaching tool opening book, thinks it's a bad move if White replies correctly with the counter peep instead of submissively connecting as Lee did (but the old "standard theory" was that that wasn't submissive but made the peep aji keshi). Also earlier versions of AlphaGo tended to like that hanging connection, but later versions prefer the solid like Elf does, because they realised hanging connection is gote whereas solid is sente because it threatens the severe follow up of Go Seigen's attach and 2nd line hane. I think LeelaZero went through a similar evolution.

Could anybody point me to a Go Seigen game with this play please?

I don't know if Go actually played it, but afaik it was an idea he recommended in study groups or lectures and books he produced in later life after he'd retired from competitive play.

Thank you, I did search for it in my database and did not find an example. That is why.

Since various people are citing opinions based on different times (in a fast-noving field) and different machines, or even different versions of the same machine - all good stuff - it occurs to me to repeat that O's book is dated late 2017, i.e. ancient. He doesn't even mention Master (or Magist), or Zero anything, though he does spend a lot of time on DeepZen.

There is also the (maybe debatable) point that the earlier writers seem to have tried to anthropomorphise the bots. I have pointed out a couple of examples by O. The Korean 9-dan Hong Min-p'yo (with computer expert Kim Chin-ho) wrote a book on the same match in which Hong described move 80 in Game 1 as a "declaration of victory" by AG. In Game 2, he commented on the tenuki-ed Black shape we are currently discussing as demonstrating that AG "likes to build moyos rather than defend its groups". (And for Hikaru lovers, move 102 in Game 1 was a true kami no itte for him.)

I think we have all, pros and amateurs, moved on quite a long way in a very short time from that old use of terminology when talking about bots, and numbers now punctuate most articles and posts. But we are all still cleaving to certain words, and I find it fascinating to note which words seem to be retained and which are (apparently) being discarded. The words being retained are not necessarily those that were big in pre-bot days. Overconcentration has moved right up the charts; efficiency, too. Technical terms for moves such as peep and shoulder hit have Oscar nominations. Thickness now seems to belong to silent movies age of go rather than the dynamic talkies of today. Aji is hanging in there, but is maybe being overtaken by nerai. Some such a moyo have lost appeal for specific authors, while others keep them (but to me don't seem either convinced or convincing).

What specific examples do you see for this change in terminology? When you write about bots, which words do you now suppress? Which ones do you now highlight?

Nuance: I still don't write about bots. I think about Go, fueled by bot analysis. I don't think I suppress any words due to that: the balance between influence and territory has shifted a little to territory, but we do see examples where cooperating influence is favored over enclosed territory. Thickness is a term I try to avoid, not because of bots, but because of the discussions we've had about it.

Popular words/concepts: sente, tenuki, 3-3 invasion, peep, shoulder hit
New words: probability, policy, win rate,
Old/less popular words: honte, miai, split, probe

highlights: shape, mistake, good move

Highlight: Efficency, overconcentration, attachments, tenuki.

_________________
My "guide" to become stronger in Go

AI play neither deemphasises thickness (or other concepts) nor raise importance of efficiency (or territory or other concepts). From AI play, some learn their own previous under-estimation of some concepts. Do not use that as an excuse to now neglect other concepts.

Means of positional judgement include
1) reading (or, for AI, emulated reading or a combination of both),
2) mostly static aspects (current territory, endgame-like counts...),
3) dynamic aspects (influence, fights, options...),
4) efficiency,
5) probability.

For reading, basic theory is known but excecution requires effort, time or (for AI) calculation power.

For static and dynamic aspects, there are well developed theories (especially mine about positional judgement and endgame evaluation). Their application often also requires (simplified) reading.

For human players, probability relies on experience and guesswork so is very unreliable. For AI, probability relies on sampling; due to its huge amounts, it is reliable for the strongest AI engines but has gaps (ladders, status assessment...) for below-strongest engines.

Quite a few professional players use all means of positional judgement. Not necessarily, all their usage of all means is good but some means they should use well for their own play. Mostly they hardly can explain their use.

This results in relative frequency of very short, easily generated comments, such as good versus bad efficiency. Now, we must not deceive ourselves by thinking that efficiency would be the only useful means, and very selective good versus bad assessments would be sufficient while almost all aspects and stones of positions might be considered ok without analysis and verification. Only comparing Black's and White's obviously most inefficient mistakes hones our laziness of not doing careful positional judgement.

It would be useful to develop good/bad efficiency from its current needles of occasional insight in a haystack to a well-developed theory, like for the (other) static and dynamic aspects. Currently, I do not see such a general theory of efficiency in terms of simple good/bad comparisons (very far beyond the only specialised tewari), unless we substitute the former as a tag for the theories of the (other) static and dynamic aspects. (Note that the same stones can have aspects of static and dynamic efficiency when, e.g., protecting territory and building influence.)

Rather than an aspect of efficiency, I consider impact of stones on fighting potential as part of the dynamic aspects. For that, I have already provided influence stone difference and excess counts of new valuable versus neutral/dead stones as very useful concepts. For identifying fights, I have introduced the concept of fighting value.

We perceive positional judgement by the strongest AI as strong because of excellent (possibly emulated) reading and probability-sampling.

Robert, you explained in great detail how to play a good / efficient move. I like especially the idea that the AI helps us to identify weak aspects of our own play. I know from bicycle training theory a common error by some amateur athletes to train their strong points and neclect the weaknesses, while if you want to improve, you have to take special care for your weaknesses.

With AI it is easier to learn a good move, because you have not only to rely solely on your own current abilities or the availability of a teacher. You can check your own evaluation with the bot.

I have the luxury that I play go just for the joy of it. So I can choose to put less effort in some aspects of the game. If you strive for top performance, this is definitly not possible and you have to look at all the concepts you mention with great effort and accuracy.

The problem with the concepts and amateurs is, that weaker players will over generalize one concept from time to time and apply it wrongly in a situation that requires a deeper look at another concept. Like you said Robert, the AI helps players to better identify such mistakes.

Current AI show some single move mistakes. For mistakes involving sequences and variations (or even explanations), human teachers are by far superior with one exception: a single move mistake pointed out by AI can be understood with respect to its consequences by the human learner by studying ensuing local tactics sufficiently completely.

Yes, they are. I am very grateful to all my teachers and additionally to all the people offering go content online.

We now enter the world of Hogwarts Castle with O Meien's second highlight in Game 2 of the AG-YST match. The group that O and his fellow groups thought was a duff heavy group turns out to be an even stranger shape - Harry on his broom-stick hovering on the edge of the quidditch field? Where is the Golden Snitch about to appear?



O said that (at the time of writing, of course - early 2017) many commentaries on the game had appeared but with only little on this position. Yet, before this game, he felt that hardly any pro would ever sanction the last move at the triangled point. In a comment that brings a smile to my face given what we have just been talking about in another thread - shape - he says that "if you are wedded to good shape you will think about venturing forth to A or even treading carefully to B. But Black's actual move [the triangle stone] will certainly not come into the reckoning as a candidate move. Even I, considered a bit of an eccentric, would probably never even cast a glance at this move."

As to why, he says the game move feels too narrow and is more careless of territory than A or B. In this position, he adds, there is no good reason to be careless of territory, according to "standard theory." And playing that in addition to the strange peep on the right only makes it seem even stranger.

We now know that AG does not 'gang the same gate' [go the same way] as the standard theory of the Muggles, but I think we can still sense O's incredulity as this game unfolded. And it was about to get much stranger!

But being a pro, O still kept a careful eye on all aspects of the position, and he noted that if Black got a stone at C, Black D would be a powerful move, and the triangled stone would be in a good position.



The besom-making move on the lower side probably did not get as much attention as it deserved because it was a Black move very soon after - the triangled one the Snitch darting to the other side of the field - that really made the pros' eyes goggle. It was the nozomi kind of shoulder hit - gazing from afar. I prefer to think of it as fake shoulder hit because (as O explains) it is not the usual kind meant for erasing, accepting a possibly weak/heavy group that ends up being harassed. And we all know how that kind of game ends up proverbially - "there is no territory in the centre." "Oh yeah," says AG.

If we assume a normal defence by White on the right side, O hypothesises the following resulting position, and he says the majority of pros would have then played something like this (territory on the fourth line - no-brainer!):



Apart from noting the fact that the strange peep appears to have ended up in a rather good position, O obviously still felt perplexed as he could find nothing else that "in concrete terms" was especially good about Black's position. After all, even we can see that Black has not really erased White. But he does note that the centre was taking on a blackish hue. I think that's worth mulling over, because we have to assume that AG could not possibly predict that White would have played his hittable stone on the fourth line on the right side. AG's creativity, therefore, may not be so much in choosing the shoulder hit as in creating the conditions - the hue - where it could become an option. (I recall the comment passed on Shuei, that his skill with miai was no so much in making them but in creating the positions where they work.)

Yi Se-tol, however, smelled a rat and chose to go the other way with his response to the (real) shoulder hit.



O now spends some time on a tewari analysis of this position, comparing it also to the position where White had instead originally played on the third line on the right side and Black had made a shoulder hit on the fourth line. I'll omit all of that except to note that Yi's choice of fourth line kakoi seems to come out better than the third line choice in tewari terms.

We cut to the chase instead and note simply that for Black's next move the Golden Snitch darted across to A. The position in the left corner that O had envisaged did thus become an important factor. All of a sudden, what was just a blackish hue becomes a dark cloud forming in the empyrean. It is instructive to look at the final position of this game. Black got a huge lake of territory on the sides but also a massive cloud in the centre. AG dominated this game in more than one sense.

O's summary of this portion of the game was that the peep and the fake shoulder hit were the highlights, but he still clearly felt reluctant to say that AG's centre strategy was actually correct. It was more that AG had showed it was possible to play that way, and that AG was choosing such moves because it liked to play shapes such that they inhibited confused fighting. In other words, he seems to have had a feeling that AG's move were not so much superior as "not bad moves", and further the power of this approach was less to do with avoiding confusion and more to do with avoiding exploitable weaknesses (an interesting distinction?). Of course having the calculating power to evaluate what is and what is not exploitable is what makes that approach pay off, especially in the latter half of the game.

I wonder whether O still cleaves to that view, now that AG Master and the Zeroes have altered the complexion of the whole game, not just the centre. And we also have yet to hear what Dobbie can tell us . Maybe AG still had too much Muggle DNA after all.

Just a note from the Elf commentary

For , the fifth line unshoulder hit and the next three plays for Black, Elf prefers E-12. By not more than 4%, so within Elf's margin of error.

For White's keima into the center, Elf prefers the submarine invasion at P-18 by 1½%.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.