It is currently Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:12 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Tyrannosaurus Rex plays Botosaurus
Post #1 Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:12 am 
Oza

Posts: 3128
Liked others: 18
Was liked: 4138
I don't know whether T Rex played go or not. This title is just to make this thread stand out. There are so many AI-related threads now that I didn't have the mental energy to think of a distinctive yet accurate title.

However, it has a smidgeon of accuracy in that it relates to a T Rex level player of the recent pre-AI past pitted against lesser species armed with AI knowledge.

The fossil record is as follows (Black to play):



This is from a Go Weekly series I have mentioned before here, in which Hirata Tomoya takes a move from a past game, asks the player how he would play now in 2020, and also asks a clutch of players, ranging from 9-dan to 1-dan, how they would play in the AI age.

It's a small sample, so a purely statistical view is not appropriate, but a very significant aspect is that the players explain their choices, and in some cases offer a second or third choice.

T Rex was Cho U here, playing Yuki Satoshi in a Gosei title match in 2009. The reason this episode stood out for me is that all the other players got the right area of the board (as per AI) but all had quite different views about the right pace to play there. It was also interesting that Cho, who won the game as Black, essentially stuck to his guns.

And the reason I want to highlight this reason is that I think it illustrates an approach by Japanese pros to investigating AI that is radically different from the one typical on L19.

I may be wrong in my impression about the tone of L19, but it comes over to me as primarily a concern with finding the best move and determining how much better that is then other moves. It is mostly move-specific. In the case of the pro writings (of which I have seen quite a lot now), I have an impression that the investigation is chiefly area-specific. It's a sort of pruning process before they get down to choosing a move. An alternative interpretation may, of course, be that they do start simply looking for best moves, and they all just happen to end up in the same area. But, either way, it seems clear to me (from this series) that they are having more success in finding the right area than the right move.

And even if my impressions are right, I'm not saying that one approach is automatically better than the other. Pros are starting from a quite different place from amateurs. They can shop on the posh first floor. We lesser mortals have to shop on the ground floor. Still, I do wonder whether a rather more area-specific approach might benefit amateurs. This example may offer some food for thought.

I suggest, as part of the experiment, that you think about the above position first in terms of which area to play in.



In the game Cho played A. At the time, pro opinion in the press-room while he was thinking was that he ought to hold back to B. Cho now revealed, however, that he had thought about playing at C at the time, and the reason he didn't was that (after a sequence I omit here) he had a position he liked in his gut but he wasn't quite sure how it would pan out. As is normal for the Japanese pro scene, he opted for a measure of control - better the devil you know. But, with the benfit of hindsight, he would now play C.

LeelaZero and Katago did look at some moves round the middle of the lower side, but thought (a) they were inferior to their on choice by about half a point and (b) if Black does play on the lower side, D is better. In all, about 5 moves on the lower side were deemed worthy of serious consideration by AI. C didn't get a look in.

The area deemed most worthy by the bots was the upper-left quadrant, and every other player in the GW episode chose that area. But each was different: E, F, G, H.

Katago looked at about 10 moves in that area, and not all bunched densely together. But G was the runaway winner for both KG and LZ (60,000 playouts). The other pro choices in that area were not at all bad - just a shade inferior. Looking at the AI-suggested follow-ups for these moves, as a way of trying to understand why one moves was better than another, I was struck by how weird the variation after G looked. Was this weirdness what put the pros off this line? Obviously I can't evaluate this weirdness myself, but pros write game commentaries and insert variation diagrams, and I can tell that this AI diagram looked like nothing I see there.

This all raises what I would see as the big question if I were a pro? Do I follow my private investigator's nose and play moves I'm pretty sure are in the right area, and probably on exactly the right spot a lot of the time - but where it's all a bit weird and quickly go pear-shaped? Or do I stick with what I think I know, and give up half a point or so to get the reassurance that I feel I know what is happening> Based on Cho's other appearances in this series and on extensive coverage of his games in First Teenage Meijin, it seems to me that he, for one, feels happier sticking with what he knows.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Tyrannosaurus Rex plays Botosaurus
Post #2 Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:32 am 
Gosei

Posts: 1534
Liked others: 471
Was liked: 424
Rank: 5d
GD Posts: 1000
I picked the move the bots liked (C) but I did it for reasons totally in the vein of pre-bot era thinking. I rejected the lower side because the low strong white stone in the lower left makes the lower side small for both players. As for the upper left, a play by white would be big territorially and a black play at C erases white's potential while helping to develop the upper side for black. I think I considered the upper left area before choosing the specific move.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Tyrannosaurus Rex plays Botosaurus
Post #3 Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:00 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3368
Thanks, again, John, for an interesting post. :)

Since the problem position has at least two stones in each corner, my guess is that there will not be much difference between the AI choices and that of human pros. OTOH, since Hirata chose this position for his survey, my guess is that there is some difference that he noticed that is of some significance to him. Still, it may be that the difference falls within the margin of error for the bots' evaluations, but AFAICT, pros are not concerned with the margin of error. ;)

I am going to check and see how much the human play differs from par, according to the Elf commentary. I am going to guess that it lies between 4% and 10%, i.e., from a bit within what I think Elf's margin of error to be to in the range of a minor error. :) We'll see if I'm right.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.


Last edited by Bill Spight on Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Tyrannosaurus Rex plays Botosaurus
Post #4 Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:22 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3368
Oh, dear, wrong again. :lol:

Elf reckons that Cho U's play lost 11½% to par. Elf's choice was the same as that of the other bots, with 32.3k rollouts. The human play got 0 rollouts, but its evaluation is based upon Elf's reply to it, which got 27.6k rollouts. The difference is greater than 10%, so I owe Hirata an apology. :)

John Fairbairn wrote:
This is from a Go Weekly series I have mentioned before here, in which Hirata Tomoya takes a move from a past game, asks the player how he would play now in 2020, and also asks a clutch of players, ranging from 9-dan to 1-dan, how they would play in the AI age.

It's a small sample, so a purely statistical view is not appropriate, but a very significant aspect is that the players explain their choices, and in some cases offer a second or third choice.

T Rex was Cho U here, playing Yuki Satoshi in a Gosei title match in 2009. The reason this episode stood out for me is that all the other players got the right area of the board (as per AI) but all had quite different views about the right pace to play there. It was also interesting that Cho, who won the game as Black, essentially stuck to his guns.

Another example, perhaps, of starting from where you are. :)

John Fairbairn wrote:
And the reason I want to highlight this reason is that I think it illustrates an approach by Japanese pros to investigating AI that is radically different from the one typical on L19.

I may be wrong in my impression about the tone of L19, but it comes over to me as primarily a concern with finding the best move and determining how much better that is then other moves. It is mostly move-specific. In the case of the pro writings (of which I have seen quite a lot now), I have an impression that the investigation is chiefly area-specific. It's a sort of pruning process before they get down to choosing a move.

As a budding bridge player, I encountered lists of opening leads telling which card to lead from which suit holding, with some holdings being good to lead from, and other holdings being bad. I later learned from Alfred Sheinwold that that approach was wrong. The right idea is to decide first which suit to lead from, and then to decide which card to lead. The main criterion for choosing a suit was the contract and the bidding, with the holding in the suit being a lesser criterion.

Also, as I recall, Lasker, in his Chess Primer, uses the metaphor of attacking a castle to indicate that strategy is not specific, but general, until you get close to the castle (checkmate).

And in golf, if you have a long putt, the advice I was given was not to try to sink it, but to get within 2 feet of the hole (margin of error).

All of which is to say that going from the general to the specific is a successful human heuristic. :)

As for today's bots, apparently their search is move specific over the whole board, using a form of best first search. This does not mean that there is nothing like first forming a broad, fuzzy focus on areas of the board by the deep neural networks. None of those inner workings are reported to us, so we don't know.

John Fairbairn wrote:
An alternative interpretation may, of course, be that they {the humans} do start simply looking for best moves, and they all just happen to end up in the same area. But, either way, it seems clear to me (from this series) that they are having more success in finding the right area than the right move.


I also decided on the top left corner. I was not sure whether it was better to approach the corner or invade it, so I split the difference with the attachment at D-17. ;)

John Fairbairn wrote:
And even if my impressions are right, I'm not saying that one approach is automatically better than the other.

Oh, I think we humans are using an approach that is good for us. Searching the whole board is beyond us, except in the sense of performing a number of local searches, and doing a kind of fuzzy search of areas, not specific points. Sometimes a particular move will stand out, but if it doesn't, starting with areas instead of points is a good idea. :)

John Fairbairn wrote:
I was struck by how weird the variation after G looked. Was this weirdness what put the pros off this line? Obviously I can't evaluate this weirdness myself, but pros write game commentaries and insert variation diagrams, and I can tell that this AI diagram looked like nothing I see there.

Weirdness is in the eye of the beholder. ;) FWIW, Elf's mainline variation for G did not seem weird to me. But I think it would have before AlphaGo. Here it is.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bcm17 Elf's mainline
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 9 7 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 3 4 . 1 . . . X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 5 O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . X , . 2 . . . , . . . . O , X O . |
$$ | . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

:w18: is kind of obvious, these days. I might have anticipated that White would tenuki, and realized that I could have my cake (approach the corner) and eat it, too (invade the corner). :)


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wcm26 Elf's mainline, continued
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . X . . . X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . 4 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . X , 2 O . . . , . . . . O , X O . |
$$ | . . . . X 1 . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Does this seem weird? I suppose, I dunno anymore. :lol:

It does stop in media res, you want to see another play by White, at least. Either at C-14 or D-14, I suppose. Elf stops because the next play has fewer rollouts than 1500. :b21: has 2747 rollouts. Elf probably had more than one good play to choose from, which is why the rollout count for the next play dropped below 1500.

Moi, I like the fact that Elf's variations are not so long. Each move in a variation increases its uncertainty. Cum grano salis. ;)

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Tyrannosaurus Rex plays Botosaurus
Post #5 Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2020 3:08 am 
Oza

Posts: 3128
Liked others: 18
Was liked: 4138
I mentioned above a case where a group of pros got the right area as recommended by AI but got flummoxed by the precise spot to play on. This week's follow-up was an amusing contrast.



The pros this week had obviously been reading L19 and were almost unanimous in realising that the press at A would be the move the bots like.

Well, no... Some pros equivocated between A and B, one even going so far as to say it was a toss-up.

That's probably true, but Hirata's bot (unnamed) chose B. My version of Leela originally chose B but after more thought plumped for C. Katago also gave me B. But A, which Cho U chose in real life - the game is GoGoD 2010-02-03b), is only marginally inferior in bottish terms. B is, however, another good example of my new proverb: "a 4-4 needs a reinforcement".

Apart from the amusing contrast, other reasons for mentioning this episode are:

1. The game is a famous example of winning a 4-liberty approach ko as the weaker side and still winning the game. It will probably be new to newer players.

2. Hirata answers a question often posed by amateurs: What is the best book to read about ko? He says it is Cho U's "How tp thnk about k" which he has read "thoroughly". It is unusual for pros tp own up to reading books intended for amateurs!


This post by John Fairbairn was liked by: Bill Spight
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Tyrannosaurus Rex plays Botosaurus
Post #6 Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2020 10:06 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3368
John Fairbairn wrote:
I mentioned above a case where a group of pros got the right area as recommended by AI but got flummoxed by the precise spot to play on. This week's follow-up was an amusing contrast.



The pros this week had obviously been reading L19 and were almost unanimous in realising that the press at A would be the move the bots like.

Well, no... Some pros equivocated between A and B, one even going so far as to say it was a toss-up.

Bully for him. :)

Quote:
That's probably true, but Hirata's bot (unnamed) chose B. My version of Leela originally chose B but after more thought plumped for C. Katago also gave me B.

Elf in the GoGoD commentaries also picks B. :)

Quote:
But A, which Cho U chose in real life - the game is GoGoD 2010-02-03b), is only marginally inferior in bottish terms.

Indeed. Elf reckons its loss to B as only 2½%, well within Elf's margin of error.

Quote:
B is, however, another good example of my new proverb: "a 4-4 needs a reinforcement".
:D

Quote:
Apart from the amusing contrast, other reasons for mentioning this episode are:

1. The game is a famous example of winning a 4-liberty approach ko as the weaker side and still winning the game. It will probably be new to newer players.

I took a quick look. Interesting that Yamashita took the ko at move 163 instead of filling a liberty.

Quote:
2. Hirata answers a question often posed by amateurs: What is the best book to read about ko? He says it is Cho U's "How tp thnk about k" which he has read "thoroughly". It is unusual for pros tp own up to reading books intended for amateurs!

Cho U's books seem to be quite good. Cho U no Tsumego even got rave reviews from DDKs, who, one would have thought, would have been in over their heads. :o :D

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group