ez4u wrote:Sorry if I created the wrong impression. These days I study using Katago very often. Mainly my own games, but I also run Katago while watching the NHK Tournament on TV here in Tokyo. I do it exactly so that I can explore other variations that are not mentioned by the commentators. My original point above is that it is no longer possible to study things like "joseki", at least not using AI. As JF and Xela back and forthed on earlier (ultimately agreeing I think), there is no local in AI assessments. The specifics of the whole board overwhelm the local variations in the corners, sides, etc. We might be interested in a particular fight, but we cannot really believe what the programs tell us as long as the next time we use a sequence the board position might be different.
Your comment was very insightful. Especially the first sentence I thought.
It was also insightful to go a few moves backward and find a position where it isn't, so to speak, too late to start thinking. From that position, it turns out, it is necessary that both sides ignore their best instincts and follow a script or they won't reach the position that was proposed for discussion. I found your explanations to be good. I especially like the following
ez4u wrote:of course you should not answer with
Great fighting spirit!
xela wrote:The five white stones on the side are not totally dead, but definitely unhealthy. It seems again that, in the right circumstances, KataGo is happy to give away large amounts of territory in order to build a moyo.
What about the hypothesis that making a group in the narrowest part of the board is so unnatural that it shouldn't be unexpected that KataGo abandons it? I'd say that the particular enclosure makes the position feel narrower than some other enclosures would. Maybe this is the plot and the exact moves are the plot twists?
Knotwilg wrote:Also, what's most certainly is real, is that modern professionals use AI to help them understand Go better and find better moves. Of course professionals start from a different level of play and analysis so they are better equipped to interpret the sequences AI comes up with. But the practice of investigating variations (from books, from games) with AI in itself is probably a very good type of study.
In general when someone is better at something, say better able to "interpret the sequences AI comes up with", it is that they are able to do it differently than you would yourself. In general I'd expect pros to be good at human Go and teaching humans how to play Go. When someone is good at interpreting computer variations it is likely that it is how they use those skills, not only that they have the skill.
It is interesting that you mentioned Mingjiu's lectures. I watched his lectures about the first joseki on more than one occasion. It was long time ago but I think I can confirm that it isn't the ability to "interpret the sequences AI comes up with" that counts when it comes to such rigorous analysis. What counts is the ability to do the same analysis over the board and completely unrehearsed, then there is the ability to do it on the spot when someone asks a tough question. Being able to pick the right pace for a lesson is also important when communicating something complex. It is usually slowing down that is needed. Then there is the ability to sense when a class is no longer able to follow. These are all human skills, some of them are also Go skills, but honestly I think a willingness to use whatever skill you have is a precondition for being good at anything.
So, I don't agree that investigating variations is good type of study "in it self". On the contrary, it can only be a good study when using your own Go skills to accomplish the investigation. One way to accomplish that is to offer a real interpretation, as ez4u has done, another would be to play games using this joseki, which is what I did, I'd like to say not so long ago but time flies. Pondering over them could be a third way.
below a poor choice. It would be better as an invasion at 'a' instead. If you do invade anyway and Black answers at 
, do not play the rather poor extension of 
. Instead just play 'b' in the upper left. If you insist on answering locally, the counter invasion at 'c' seems to be preferable. Finally, if you do extend and Black plays 
(another "less than the best" according to Katago), of course you should not answer with 
Black having played 
. The correct idea in my experience is to tenuki early.
at 
good enough?" and "why is 
good enough?". Not "We have to see if we can play 50 moves in this corner!" but the premise of this topic is territorial vs non-territorial play, but I have noticed AI has a tendency for fill-the-board josekis, despite the myth that AI doesn't like big joseki