Surprising result (imo) in 3-4 approach variation

Fllecha · **#21**

I am following your post with incredible pleasure... pretty much interesting tewari analysis and thickness approximations... :clap:

Gomoto · **#22**

Quote:

My view since the advent of neural nets is:
You do not need to know why a move is good, you just need to know the good move.
The request to explain a move is therefore superfluous.
Just know your moves, if you want to play strong go :twisted:

Quote:

The idiot savant theory of go.

Indeed, neural networks show perhaps the secret to the power of some savants.

But I really think there is a lesson to be learned for the average (Joe) Go aficionado .

1. Rule based knowledge is to be treated with a certain amount of mistrust.
2. Training routine should be heavily based on intuition building activity (aka: spam games and tsumego, rehearsal of pro games, ... )

Edit: Something I found on Wikipedia

Quote:

In savants, says Snyder, the top layer of mental processing —conceptual thinking, making logical deductions— is somehow deactivated. His working hypothesis is that once this layer is inactivate, one can access a startling capacity for recalling the most minute detail or for performing lightning-quick calculations. Snyder's theory has a conclusion of its own: He believes it may be possible someday to create technologies that will allow any non-autistic person to access these abilities.

A little bit of willpower could also be used instead of the technologies :twisted:

Gomoto · **#23**

Quote:

Edit: OC, Zen is assuming a 7.5 komi to get that advantage for White.

(Not in my case, I used a 6.5 komi setting with Zen 7.)

Fedya · **#24**

Gomoto wrote:

(Sorry for the thread hijacking)

Pincers (are) were overrated in Go theory.

My view since the advent of neural nets is:
You do not need to know why a move is good, you just need to know the good move.
The request to explain a move is therefore superfluous.
Just know your moves, if you want to play strong go :twisted:

I hope you're being sarcastic.

If you don't know why a move is good, how will you be able to figure out what move to play in a position that's similar to, but not quite the same as, other positions you've seen before? (Or if your opponent doesn't follow joseki as another example.)

Bill Spight · **#25**

Gomoto wrote:

Something I found on Wikipedia

Quote:

In savants, says Snyder, the top layer of mental processing —conceptual thinking, making logical deductions— is somehow deactivated. His working hypothesis is that once this layer is inactivate, one can access a startling capacity for recalling the most minute detail or for performing lightning-quick calculations. Snyder's theory has a conclusion of its own: He believes it may be possible someday to create technologies that will allow any non-autistic person to access these abilities.

A little bit of willpower could also be used instead of the technologies :twisted:

Willpower? Liquor is quicker.

Actually, I doubt that these abilities are particularly dormant in regular people. Most pros see the right move immediately. Conscious calculation is for checking. (Recall is a different question.)

Kirby · **#26**

Fedya wrote:

Gomoto wrote:

(Sorry for the thread hijacking)

Pincers (are) were overrated in Go theory.

My view since the advent of neural nets is:
You do not need to know why a move is good, you just need to know the good move.
The request to explain a move is therefore superfluous.
Just know your moves, if you want to play strong go :twisted:

I hope you're being sarcastic.

If you don't know why a move is good, how will you be able to figure out what move to play in a position that's similar to, but not quite the same as, other positions you've seen before? (Or if your opponent doesn't follow joseki as another example.)

Neural nets “know” why a move is good. It’s just a representation that is different from how humans think.

fycj · **#27**

I prefer black, the top side has little value, black has still two 4-4 stones and the left side is easily reducible or at least can be made overconcentrated in some way

(im overconfident in this post)

Surprising result (imo) in 3-4 approach variation

Who is online