DH records

dhu163 · **#101**

won my last two games in the casual league against Javier A-Savolainen and Amir Fragman by resign after 40 point margins again. Came 2nd on 6/7. Valerii got 7/7!

Well, I have been lucky enough so far to avoid coronavirus. Also lucky enough to start a new job project recently.

Ever since AI, I felt improving at Go seemed more pointless and I have that feeling again.

My training pre 5d (2013 Nov to 2017 ish):

Lots of KGS games every day, several Go clubs weekly. I started with Nick Sibicky, later Dwyrin and then many hours of Chinese pro videos (tywq, weiqitv) every week (or even day), lots of NHK and KBS cup too without understanding the language. bought no books but did skim 1 or 2 I think,

I'm not sure I thought of it as training, but more an addiction. I think I liked to record my games and theorise (nonsense) about what I was doing wrong. If I had a theory question, I read Sensei's library. I think I was relatively good at endgame and reading on the board with patience to calculate more, but weak at instinct and didn't have enough tsumego experience. I think I had some preliminary ideas to CGT without having heard of it, but was particularly curious about things that sound like they make sense but we can't prove like "play on wider direction etc." . Perhaps it was jarring to my experience of mathematical proof.

2017-2019 stalling at 5d:

pretty much as above + AI reviews + watch lots of AI games, but less and less of everything. KGS, Pandanet games tending to zero, leaving only games at (very few) tournaments.

Helped organise ICGT 2018, though looking back, I'm not sure I managed to contribute much. It was completely outside my normal experience and hence pretty interesting though. Passed (but terribly) in my degree. Some new (Taiwanese?) channels appeared on youtube in Chinese (e.g. GoGo) that I followed. Tried to program a small neural net to play tictactoe and failed. Tried to analyse neurons in leelazero and got too many bugs. Got an IT job.

confidence boosting to reach this Go level. But unsure why the stall occurred when I was training like I used to. (perhaps because I was ??)

2019 Dec - Now:

Nothing much in terms of training other than very heavy AI reviews after each game (like the whole next day), but somehow reached 6(-7d?) in strength though not officially. And keeping a scarily high winrate on PETC. Dangerously ego boosting. I have noticed the potential pun on the name of this thread.

Stopped following youtube channels almost completely now.
I still feel a bit weak at tsumego, but have included it in my routine more recently. My endgame has gone down the drain compared to my new skills in large scale fighting, especially in punishing my opponent's mistakes. But it remains hard to verbalise any of this instinct. I wrote a couple of "papers", available on LGC, but I feel they are pretty poor quality compared to what I could do, lacking in research, and containing flaws in thinking.

--

I wasn't so sure of my direction. I dreamed of pro a little at one point, but I think it doesn't make sense now. But I think I would like to do some writing about Go. I'm not sure mentioning my goals here is so helpful, but it worked well enough last time (2017 British Champion

).

TBH, I wrote around 40 pages of explaining maths theory of Go (+some new research) + 60 pages of mess around 1.5 years ago. But I haven't really got round to organising it into presentable form, nor clarifying the mess, nor verbalising new ideas. I have no excuse for not making full use of quiet time over the past year. Still, I find as I read more papers that my latest thoughts are often on the right lines towards the results in those papers. Perhaps I can still make progress. Hopefully my maths ability hasn't completely gone down the drain or else I will be an embarrassment to my username.

So my goals in Go for the next year(s) in priority order:

1. Presentable book style of what I have written so far + extensions. Not sure about publishing. I'm not sure there will be much audience for such topics anyway, but I still think it's worth organising current knowledge into a coherent course sequence of material. I had never heard of most of it before I started investigating.
2. Do more research into existing mathematical research in Go. I have used only free resources so far, so I may consider buying some classics, such as Mathematical Go.
3. Do some Go research of my own if I can.
4. British Champion once more

dhu163 · **#102**

Won British championship. The long time settings are quite comfortable. My total point loss was around 60 points.

(20220204: self-inflicted cross-cut, lazy stretching, arm exercise.)

Uberdude · **#103**

No comment on 79? That gave Bruno a big chance. Or did you think you could survive the ko even if objectively bad because you expected to outfight him and rather that than simple trade? Because he played d6 the ko became heavier for him with e4 corner trashing as another bonus for you,

About left side cover, that happened in similar position next day in Nongshim cup

https://www.go4go.net/go/games/sgfview/100268

dhu163 · **#104**

Balance between assumption inertia and time recalculating.

I probably assumed W had two ko threats on the right, thought I could respond to both and be fine, and so didn't recalculate after W's bad move 74.

I did notice the possibility of ending the ko quickly in the post-game review, though I didn't yet realise that ending the ko was much better (that requires more precise calculation of values).

I'm guessing you have Lee Sedol's move 78 (divine move) in the back of your mind. In Sino-Korean that's pronounced chil pal.

79 would be chil gu.

Should I point out a number of disturbing coincidences in my go life at the moment? (rhetorical)
One of the many is the round numbers in my rating points: 5, 5, 2500, 20.

Are these caused by subconscious calculations, environment, intentional pranks or something else entirely?

(edit:20220101. omg, even this post has weird references that I didn't notice then. Reading has weird effects on the brain. I must have been thinking of disturbing kos (a James Davies translation of an Ing rules term that I've seen in Jasiek's papers), just as my wordpress suggests I was thinking about goths.)

dhu163 · **#105**

well, I have written some things I am pleased with on my wordpress, and haven't yet noticed glaring errors, so I don't feel like a complete fail of a mathmo.

otherwise, just an update:

However the paper on loss-making ko threats that I was preparing is at 40pages and I'm not yet organised enough to handle the mess, especially with work too. I realise my solution + algorithm is only partial (or else I would have already self-published it), but probably worth publishing anyway, but I haven't even gotten round to writing up proofs of the most key statements yet. I would also like to investigate the cases it can't handle a bit more, and apply Tavernier's original simpler model to attack approach + multi-stage kos, but perhaps that should be another paper.

I have found one of Bill's papers that uses a simplified Neutral Threat Environment to give counts of approach kos, and the appearance of Fibonacci numbers is amazing, though I don't fully understand the calculations.

Random thoughts on bridge

What is squeeze/finesse/endplay in bridge? Why does direction make a difference and how do you best exploit it?
Properties of bridge play (ignoring trumps):
- Each trick, each player places a card. The players play in clockwise order. The highest card of the leader's suit wins the trick.
- Everyone must play the same suit as the first player (leader) unless they have run out of that suit, in which case they can play any card.
- Upon winning a trick you have to give back by playing from your hand again (leading). Within a suit, this is often self-damaging, which balances the advantage that you still have of choosing which suit to play. This adds stability by preventing a positive feedback loop. In Go, locality helps prevent positive feedback but it can still occur when big weak groups are next to each other.
- Whoever plays earlier in a trick has a disadvantage (in Go playing first in a position always gives you a non-negative advantage)

However, you work with a partner ('s hands), so if you want your hand to play later, you have some control by getting your partner to lead (and vice versa). This in turn means having the power to access each others hands is useful, with some kind of high cards in each. (Weirdly, this property is called "having enough bridge".) Having enough bridge is also critical if your partner has a long suit and is the only player that can access that suit.

Finesse: You lose something compared to expected if your high card is covered by opponent's. You finesse your opponents if you lead, partner has say AQ (with a gap of K) and the K is on your left. You don't know where the K is, but you can take a 50-50 bet that it is on the left and play the Q unless left plays K, in which case you win with A. We say the K is covered and can never win unless the hand with AQ plays that suit first. It is called a finesse because you have to take a bet, more advanced than beginners who just play winning aces.

Squeeze: One of your opponents holds all the key cards in two suits that you might be able to establish. However, they need more cards that they have to defend both suits. You watch what they discard and play that suit accordingly, in order to win more from that suit.

We can say that you establish a suit if you can win all the long cards in that suit. However, this term can be generalised to any example where special play can gain an extra trick or two from a suit. For example A always wins 1, but AJ.. might win two if you can push out the K and Q. This might occur with two finesses or if the opponent has one of (KQ) singleton (possibly from a discard/squeeze) and you can finesse the other opponent.

Endplay: You play out all suits until your opponent only has zero or one card in a suit where some critical interleaving occurs (e.g. they have KJ, you have AQ)(both have strength in the suit). They must play that suit first, which gains you at least one trick (and maybe more if it helps you establish).

Advanced: Merging all these concepts in tense situations where there are several different paths with different risks, and managing the bridge and which hand is expected to have to play first later. More advanced is maximising your own information and minising your opponent's.

Some superstition

Basic thought experiments for children, Brian Cox style:

Edit: 29/01.
1. Why is it easier to push a door than to pull it open?

2. Why is it easier to pull on a rope than to push it?

My answers

1. Because your body and the door are solid objects with internal defences to keep their structure. These repel each other upon contact. Hence the pushing interaction does more work than pulling. In order to pull a door open, each component needs to attract the next, such as your hand hooking over the door handle which is hooked into the wooden door. However, this can damage your hand (indentations), and the relation between the handle and the door.

The regularity of the internal bonds means that messages (push/pull) from one end are passed on quickly with its own resonating sounds. There are many regular modes of vibration/sound. It is hard, so it tends to reflect energy rather than store it, and when it does store it, it is normally only because the environment (air) is vibrating with the same energy.

2. A rope has interweaving threads which pull on each other by friction and support each other. The flexibility of the rope means you can knot it around your hands when you pull. It allows both a lock shape and a line shape. However, it isn't a strong solid shape overall since pushing it merely causes it to compress inwards rather than affecting the other end. It has one critical mode - taut, and chaotic other modes (slack). There are ways to hide heat/messages inside the rope.

Advanced:
In a sense, a sound wave is orthogonal to the bonds in a solid block (especially if crystal or metal, though it may diffract due to speed changes etc.) so it passes straight through. In contrast, a push is parallel to the bonds, so the whole block is pushed.

Similarly, a pull on a taut rope pulls the whole rope while a transverse wave is transmitted. In a taut rope, there is little room for large transverse effects and all threads are independently pulled taut. But a push encourages splaying, since each thread has strong attraction holding it together, much more than its attraction to neighbouring threads (unlike a solid piece of wood/metal where attraction is close to even in all directions) so much of the push pressure/energy goes into sideways collapse of the rope. This is quite random and very much depends on the subtle unseen internal/external state of the rope at the time of collapse. It can be difficult to extract the information from the rope after it collapses.

A neural network is much like a mould that tries to fit into a multi-dimensional solid block. It predicts the output of the rope.

dhu163 · **#106**

Knot theory thoughts.

Today's vote for word of the year is

sao3 rao3 (disturbing/harassing)

If you harass a knot for 1 trillion years, it might eventually unravel when the stars align. The grating feeling is anger. If you cut it, you break through, but the patterns remain.

------
[/Hide][/Hide]Dare eat a lion.[/Hide][/Hide]Just go around the valley. But there be wolves and eddies.[/Hide]Ida no wonderful Ing twa black awe.[/Hide]
[/Hide]

__
Update on goals. 20220316

I suspect it will take years to complete all of these.

1. ko paper (20hrs?)
2. constructing go trees board (400hrs?)
3. go book/writing (logic, concept classifications) (logic: 400hrs for organising, making more concise, deciding if more mathematical or not, better proof structures)(concepts: 200hrs total + absorption time).
4. go programming (influence functions: target hunters, cycles, interactions, short circuits) (??? is this even solvable ???)
5. organise my L19 writings, sgfs, notes on NTE (fibonacci bill ko)?

__
QM: Double slit.
This works in space too, so it isn't the air.

Wheeler reminds us we have "it from bit", we set up the experiment consistently, get the same data consistently, but ala Feynman, our model of what is happening to produce the results guides our guess as to the next hypothesis to test.

It is hard to explain exactly why measuring an electron in one slit causes the interference pattern to disappear. Does the measuring apparatus have "premonition" due to the presence of the electron beam gun and apparatus. The simplest explanation is that the electron itself has been affected (ala Fermi), and Copenhagen says its wavefunction collapses to a point upon interacting with the measuring apparatus. However, I am reminded of my mistaken calculation of the speed of a bubble rising through water since the water is also moving to compensate for the bubble. It seems likely that something similar happens with the electromagnetic field (some kind of ether), and perhaps Fermi would guess that the apparatus also has an electromagnetic field that repels part of that of the electron upon interaction. Just as the plate (with the slits) blocks the electrons path.

Note the apparatus must change state from the interaction for us to notice it, perhaps producing a number at the end. This interaction with a tiny electron might not always be consistent, however well designed the apparatus is.

When we have such consistent results, we suspect that a simple explanation should be the cause, but perhaps we can be reminded of the difficulty of Fermat's last theorem.

Even the wave nature of the electron itself is counterintuitive to us (with or without any slits). Perhaps the effect of the electron going through the slits creates more particles that travel with it that cause cancelling effects of sinc^2. Note that summing an evenly sampled points of sinc^2 (with right period) gives the same total whichever alignment you start at. Probably not just a curiosity either.

Are electrons even identical across space and time? Just because they have the same name doesn't mean they have the same history and all properties. This becomes like hidden variables which we know can't explain everything without action at a distance.

dhu163 · **#107**

PETC round 9.

I played in the final round. Won after massive kill. I said in postgame review other than an opening blunder I couldn't think of major mistakes I made. AI says I was totally wrong. I probably don't have a PETC game where I lost more points than this (perhaps around 500?). This happens when the life and death of a big group is in question. Luckily it was my opponent's group. But it could have been a close game many times if my opponent handled well. Perhaps I wasn't fully focused, but it shows just how weak we both are compared to AI.

I think it might be a sign I was playing too much by thought (as Bruno said) and not calculation nor instinct.

dhu163 · **#108**

With the training I have done (much more than I planned) the past few months, I think I understand go a lot better in terms of words rather than by rote. I can't say I'm much stronger, still probably 6.5 +/- 3d.

Here is a teaser for how slowly I follow AI variations to try to understand them.

DH records

Who is online