Life In 19x19

Interesting. Is the move below now considered to be slack? I learned it as a joseki many years ago.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +----------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 2 1 . . . . , .
$$ | . . X 3 4 . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 5 . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

drmwc wrote:Interesting. Is the move below now considered to be slack? I learned it as a joseki many years ago.

$$B
$$ +----------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 2 1 . . . . , .
$$ | . . X 3 4 . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 5 . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +----------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 2 1 . . . . , .
$$ | . . X 3 4 . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 5 . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Me, too.

The winners rewrite history, eh?

Who am I to tell you it is slack?

But I would not play it myself anymore

drmwc wrote:Interesting. Is the move below now considered to be slack? I learned it as a joseki many years ago.

$$B
$$ +----------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 2 1 . . . . , .
$$ | . . X 3 4 . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 5 . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +----------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 2 1 . . . . , .
$$ | . . X 3 4 . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 5 . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Yup, at least in China, and Alpha Go supports that view. See #9 at https://viktorlingo.com/2018/02/15/top- ... nt-page-1/.

Uberdude wrote:Yup, at least in China, and Alpha Go supports that view. See #9 at https://viktorlingo.com/2018/02/15/top- ... nt-page-1/.

I was very surprised when I saw that LeelaZero also plays the same main fighting variation as AlphaGo does. As if it is the most natural way to play Go.
Which reminded me of something John wrote sometime after AlphaGo defeated Lee Sedol, I don't remember the exact quote but along the lines of "maybe there is some simple secret to playing Go well, something that humans just overlooked so far".

I somehow accepted the sad fact that humans overlooked the simple 3x3 invasion under 4x4 as being a strong move early in the game, and I explained to myself that two different AIs somehow discovered it very early in their self-play training because it is a relative simple sequence - but how do different AIs discover what looks like an extremely complicated variation like the one in this thread, AND they find it so natural to play, is just beyond me. Looks like magic

sorin wrote: Which reminded me of something John wrote sometime after AlphaGo defeated Lee Sedol, I don't remember the exact quote but along the lines of "maybe there is some simple secret to playing Go well, something that humans just overlooked so far".

Is it a secret? Play (and learn from) millions of games and you'll get really strong. Problem is humans tend to die before they can do so.

Uberdude wrote:

sorin wrote: Which reminded me of something John wrote sometime after AlphaGo defeated Lee Sedol, I don't remember the exact quote but along the lines of "maybe there is some simple secret to playing Go well, something that humans just overlooked so far".

Is it a secret? Play (and learn from) millions of games and you'll get really strong. Problem is humans tend to die before they can do so.

Ha-ha, good point, but that is about a method to get strong, not about a principle
I think the meaning behind the message I mentioned was that there is a simple underlying principle, which if discovered anyone can apply in realtime and play much better.

The zero bots are masters of balanced fights. It is like surfing on the opponents unsettled groups.

Gomoto wrote:The zero bots are masters of balanced fights. It is like surfing on the opponents unsettled groups.

I like your analogy

There are many ways to surf, I imagine - what I find amazing is that both AGZ and LZ naturally learned to surf the same way in this complicated joseki in particular.

sorin wrote:

Uberdude wrote:

sorin wrote: Which reminded me of something John wrote sometime after AlphaGo defeated Lee Sedol, I don't remember the exact quote but along the lines of "maybe there is some simple secret to playing Go well, something that humans just overlooked so far".

Is it a secret? Play (and learn from) millions of games and you'll get really strong. Problem is humans tend to die before they can do so.

Ha-ha, good point, but that is about a method to get strong, not about a principle
I think the meaning behind the message I mentioned was that there is a simple underlying principle, which if discovered anyone can apply in realtime and play much better.

I think that humans have discovered most simple underlying principles, and some not so simple ones, as well. Efficiency is an underlying principle, which has some simple examples, but some that are not so simple.

Here is an analogy with extensive and intensive definitions. An extensive definition of snapback, for instance, is a list of all snapback sequences of play. An intensive definition is a description that allows us to check whether a sequence of play belongs on that list or not. Humans are good at coming up with such descriptions.

Superhuman bots can give us a long list of very good plays, with some errors. Humans, especially if using such bots to check their work, will be good at refining current principles that tell us whether a play or sequence of play belongs on that list (with a few errors), and with coming up with new principles.

Note, however, that such recognition principles are not quite enough to tell us how to play better. We also have to think of plays that will pass their tests. There are also principles about how to do that, as well. It does not matter too much if their error rates are higher than the error rates for the recognition principles, since the plays that fail the tests can be eliminated.

I had a big surprise earlier today, as I was analyzing some positions with LeelaZero: I realized that this joseki below that starts from a high kakari is very much related to the one that Gomoto started the thread about!

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +----------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O 1 . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . , .
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

The following diagram shows how they are related: if white chooses the complicated variation with the bump at 2 (instead of the very peaceful 'a') and cuts at 4, LeelaZero wants black to descend at 5 (instead of the human joseki move at b, which is sometimes called "magic sword" see Sensei's Library for instance: https://senseis.xmp.net/?MagicSword ).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +----------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . a . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O 1 . . . . . .
$$ | . . . 2 3 . . . , .
$$ | . . 5 X 4 . . . . . .
$$ | . . . b . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Well, this is exactly the shape from the original joseki discussed in this thread, just the order of moves is different, that one starts with the low kakari!

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +----------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O X . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O X . . . , .
$$ | . . X X O . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Now we don't need to learn two separate joseki anymore, one is enough

Variation 2:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ +----------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O O X . . . . .
$$ | . . . O X . . . . . .
$$ | . 1 . O X . X . . , .
$$ | . . X X O O . . . . .
$$ | . . . . X . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Variation 2.1:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +----------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O O X . . . . .
$$ | . . . O X . . . . . .
$$ | . O . O X . X . . , .
$$ | . . X X O O . . . . .
$$ | . . . . X . 1 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +----------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O O X . . . . .
$$ | . . . O X . . . . . .
$$ | . O . O X . X . . , .
$$ | . . X X O O 5 . . . .
$$ | . . . a X 2 1 . . . .
$$ | . . . . 4 3 . . . . .
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Variation 2.2:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +----------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O O X . . . . .
$$ | . 3 . O X . . . . . .
$$ | . O 5 O X . X . . , .
$$ | . 1 X X O O . . . . .
$$ | . . . . X 4 . . . . .
$$ | . . . . 2 . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ +----------------------
$$ | . . . . . 5 . . . . .
$$ | . . . O O X 3 7 9 a .
$$ | . X . O X 2 1 6 8 0 b
$$ | . O X O X 4 X . . , .
$$ | . X X X O O . . . . .
$$ | . . . . X O . . . . .
$$ | . . . . O . . . . . .
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]