Why humans fail against AI

[Elom]

BTW, there was a bot called GoGod that showed its estimated winrates online, and presumably elsewhere, during the game. Perhaps doing so will make go more interesting to spectators who are not good enough to have much idea of who is ahead and by how much. It's like having a scoreboard for go.

It's interesting to note that in Korea— forgive me if I'm wrong— already seem to have this alongside professional commentary in a few tournaments (at least in the baduk leagues). But maybe non-commented games are the gold for such a tool that may increase their spectator appeal dramatically— even beginners can now follow any game of their favourite pro.

This relates to two future musings; one on skill and another on the relationship between 'popular' sport and 'elite' sport.

[dfan]

BTW, there was a bot called GoGod that showed its estimated winrates online, and presumably elsewhere, during the game. Perhaps doing so will make go more interesting to spectators who are not good enough to have much idea of who is ahead and by how much. It's like having a scoreboard for go.

This is standard on websites that follow pro chess tournaments. The main benefit for me is the ability to glance at a webpage to check on the status when you only have a spare second to see how things are going. The main downside, and it is large, is the hordes of people in chat making fun of how stupid the players are for making such large mistakes all the time.

This is probably already true on the go servers I frequent, but luckily for me the chat is generally in languages I can't read.

[Elom]

...It's like having a scoreboard for go.

That is exactly how I thought of it .

[Elom]

Now I cannot help but think of each stone as having reverse gravity, or negative gravity, like a white hole. Putting stones together increases their negative gravity (decreases their gravity). If you have groups on the board, they repulse each other so that new stones would rather be on open areas.

Here's a demonstration of a white hole at 7:00

(it is likely erroneous but logical to think of big points as deep and thick stones or groups as mountainous in this fashion).

Does your idea of gravity agree with present ideas of light and heavy? Putting stones together might make their combined gravity positive, e.g. a poorly shaped heavy group or or more negative e.g stones in a sabaki group.

Perhaps; you seem right on the mark. Maybe even more accurate is simply:

Groups that are weak and cannot stand on their own have positive gravity.
Groups that are strong and can stand on their own have negative gravity.

...It has been criticized as slow, but has made something of a comeback in modern times...

Sai has returned!

If proverbs are an attempt convey in language a common situation we could, in theory, keep adding excepts to the proverb to make it more accurate. But the sum of all the situations one can play it is eventually more economical than language past a certain accuracy.

[Tryss]

Perhaps; you seem right on the mark. Maybe even more accurate is simply:

Groups that are weak and cannot stand on their own have positive gravity.
Groups that are strong and can stand on their own have negative gravity.

Just an idea : Why not using stability? I think it's a theme in the AI games : how to walk on the thin line between stability and instability.

Note that stability don't means settled. When we ride a bike, we're stable, but it's dynamic. In go, when you make sabaki, you're aiming at this kind of dynamic stability. The difference between heavy and thick is also stability : a thick group is stable, while an heavy group is not.

[Elom0]

Perhaps; you seem right on the mark. Maybe even more accurate is simply:

Groups that are weak and cannot stand on their own have positive gravity.
Groups that are strong and can stand on their own have negative gravity.

Just an idea : Why not using stability? I think it's a theme in the AI games : how to walk on the thin line between stability and instability.

Note that stability don't means settled. When we ride a bike, we're stable, but it's dynamic. In go, when you make sabaki, you're aiming at this kind of dynamic stability. The difference between heavy and thick is also stability : a thick group is stable, while an heavy group is not.

Well, I want to incorporate the concepts of distance one should play their stones. I revive this because I think perhaps simply playing around with graphical analogies of masses interfering with space-time will give on a feel for "thickness" playing away from it (and instead moving near thickness), in other words perhaps a shortcut to the Japanese understanding of it.

[Elom0]

Expounding upon the previously mentioned idea, General Relativity implies that particles themselves are just disturbances in the space-time continuum, and using energy to pull parts of the spacetime continuum together stretches the surr, which changes the trajectory of straight paths along the continuum causing gravity and time dilation effects. Of course that's where the trouble with the fact that physicists can't unite general relativity with loop quantum gravity comes in!

If we imagine stones as particles
created through disturbances in space time, then they can also join together to increase their mass, and have gravitational influence over any single stone that comes near them capturing them, however if they're arranged together in a way whereby the interaction between the particles is an exothermic reaction that results in a loss of energy then they lose gravity and become vulnerable to other groups that might have less stones, or groups with few stones that interact in and endothermic reaction could punch above their weight in terms of expected gravitational influence.

Also, light stones might be considered to have high acceleration and also affect the go board space time continuum