Life In 19x19

I dont get it why some people feel the need to assign near god like status to pro players.

I am totally fine that they deserve a lot of respect. They devote their whole lifes to our wonderful game. But they put their pants on one leg at a time as everybody else. Pros make terrible moves from time to time and even play awful josekis for years without noticing.

I stand by my point: It is very elitist to propose only pros can have style! But I get it, I cant convert all the snobs

Hi Gomoto,

...the need to assign... status to pro players.

It has some interesting historical perspectives.

Gomoto wrote:I dont get it why some people feel the need to assign near god like status to pro players.

I am totally fine that they deserve a lot of respect. They devote their whole lifes to our wonderful game. But they put their pants on one leg at a time as everybody else. Pros make terrible moves from time to time and even play awful josekis for years without noticing.

I stand by my point: It is very elitist to propose only pros can have style! But I get it, I cant convert all the snobs

Agree. I'll add that AlphaGo and the computer go AIs aren't gods, either

@Kirby: No, I agree, they are manna

Hi Gomoto,

Ian Butler wrote:Even though I'm quoted in the OP as saying even lowly kyu players can have a style, I must change my vote
I now start to see the other arguments as true. And the main difference between the two "sides" is probably the definition of the word 'style'.

For me, the solution is probably this:

- If you play Go as a true game, meaning you play to win, play to find the best moves. You can have no style. You are solving the game and try to find the best move in every game, every position. I'm not even sure a pro can afford to have a style if he wants to handle Go as this.
- However, if you adopt a style (and you can do at basically any level, I believe), you no longer play the game to your fullest potential. Instead you play as to try to win the game ACCORDING to that style.

And I start to think even professionals might fall into that trap often. In fact, you hear it a lot, that some Go legends had a certain style, but as time went by, they played less according to their own style, and played more... to find the best move? I guess.

But, first up, as has already been pointed out, there could me more than one "best move" in any given situation.

How are we to know if go does not have trillions of solutions?

And even if there is only one solution to the game, does that mean that there is other worthwhile way to play it? It's not as if solving the game would render it unplayable for humans, as it would only take one tiny deviation at any point along the path to get into the unknown (from our POV).

It depends on how you see go and other such games. If, like me, you believe they can be a form of art, then style counts. Others might see them purely as mathematical science. Perhaps what really matters to them is results and not whether or not the results are aesthetically pleasing, so long as they are correct.

I'll use a chess analogy: quite often, a situation can arise in which you can finish the game in multiple different ways. From the scientific point of view, the quickest method would be the optimal; but what if one chooses a method that is not quite as quick, but just as certain, because it contains something that appeals to your artistic taste. Would that not be an expression of style? Karpov might have wrapped up a game by reducing it to an easy endgame; Kasparov might have chosen a flashy sacrifice; but the destination - forced checkmate - would be the same.

Therefore, assuming that go will never be solved and that even AI will be shown to have its limits, can we not accept that go has many paths, and that the way you travel through them can be a matter of style?

And even if one's play is sub-optimal from somebody or something else's point of view, how much does it really change things? Can we no longer admire the "Cosmic Style" of Takemiya just because AI might punch holes in some of his moves? Can we no longer respect the fighting spirit and riskiness of Lee Sedol's style because AI might deem some of his moves mistakes, even though they might shake the game enough to overcome his human opponent? Do we have to consign chess's "Evergreen Game" to the wastepaper bin for similar reasons?

No! I declare that go is sport and art and science, and that's there's room for many types of player and their views within it.

I find myself agreeing passionately with both sides of the debate.

Maybe 'Style' applies to someone who is aware of what they are doing. And I think kyu players are. But the game kyus play is completely different to the game pros play. The only similarities are the rules and the equipment— actually, not even the equipment!

On one hand, I feel I have an even more extreme opinion than Tami. I feel she implied that beginners don't have a style, but I believe 100% that beginners have a style, that all beginners have a style, that everyone on earth has a style just waiting to be discovered and you can identify that person's style on their first go game— at least, their Proto-Style.

See, I believe that your Proto-Style is moreso your personality more than anything else, your style-before-your-style, your unrefined raw approach to go with your basic understanding of the game. If it oddly mirrors a dan-level or even pro-level attitude or style, Bill Spight might comment on one of your games. It has the potential to evolve into such.

On the other hand, I hold a more extreme position than knotwilg in that if there is a single move correct and several similar, and different pros choose different moves, then they don't have a style but are just wrong, even if the only way of knowing is employing Alpha-Zero 10.0 on a Quantum Supercomputer some year in the 2050's.

But if there are two moves that both win then you could say choosing a the move you like or are more likely to win with is the shadow of your Style.

But then that also applies to kyus, technically! But we don't really know what we're doing, so no. But then pros don't always know what they're doing all the time! But then they do enough of the time to have a style.

See how strange this concept is just in and of itself!

On my toes, I want to jump up and go, 'no worries'. The fact that were having this debate just shows how go is. I mean you can't exactly have a tic-tac-toe style.

Or can you... (Still 7d here and counting)

I do think Bill Spight surely received some type of Bridge manna at birth. Actually that's not too different from my story idea ahhh...

Tami wrote:On the other hand, I hold a more extreme position than knotwilg in that if there is a single move correct and several similar, and different pros choose different moves, then they don't have a style but are just wrong, even if the only way of knowing is employing Alpha-Zero 10.0 on a Quantum Supercomputer some year in the 2050's.

But if there is ever a choice of correct moves (i.e., moves that lead to victory or, if victory is not the proper outcome, then to a forced draw by triple ko or whatever), then is there not room for taste and style in making the choice?

Given that solving go is unimaginably way beyond the capacity of human beings, then surely it's more than a little harsh to dismiss our best efforts or even just our efforts as merely wrong because they fall short of the standards of a yet-to-be-invented AI? Don't we even get credit for trying or for the manner in which we try?

Tami wrote:Given that solving go is unimaginably way beyond the capacity of human beings, then surely it's more than a little harsh to dismiss our best efforts or even just our efforts as merely wrong because they fall short of the standards of a yet-to-be-invented AI? Don't we even get credit for trying or for the manner in which we try?

I think such credit will only be given by those who value the abstract and the human parts of the game at least as high as the competitive parts. Go is a solvable game, I'd even wager for it getting solved within, oh, I don't know, a century; this realization already defeats the purpose of searching for the hand of god for many people, since whoever employs stronger hardware will win the race to find it in any given position.

It's kinda funny, really - to my limited knowledge there is no philosophical experience to which we can turn to that would aid us in enjoying discoveries in the face of a provably always correct oracle. For some people right now, 'learning' the game with the help of AI is a thrilling experience, and rightfully so - there's a solidly high probability that, even without a proper interface to convey some of the more abstract ideas about the game, the openly available bots are already the best teachers a human player could ask for. It's an opportunity nobody before us ever had and some want to take the most out of it. The problem with it is that, well - if bots actually garner enough trust in them, then the top will get extremely boring to follow or pursue, leading to the similar situation that occurred in chess and was recently described here by John.

I can say from experience that it may not seem like that big of a deal when being the best doesn't mean very much, but then the community loses the vast spectrum of players who keep playing for the thrill of it. Arguably not good news when it's still trying to get people interested in the game. What you're left with is the art part of it - but in this day and age it's hard to sell understanding yourself better. As for me, I stray away from spreading the hype about the bots as I enjoy the social aspects at least as much as the competitive ones. Having a program dictate what's good and what's bad for me doesn't sound all that fun; sure, in rankings this sort of attitude puts me behind those who don't bother with such flawed premonitions, but really, the adventure to the absolute top is great and all, but reaching it is out of my reach already.

I wanted to add - turning to chess again as the example - what should we make of, say, Mikhail Tal? Should we admire his creativity and ingenuity any less because even moderately strong players (not to mention AI) can find flaws in his moves post hoc? I suppose go's equivalent is Lee Sedol.

And, I don't think the chess scene has become boring. Top-class games are still great entertainment, and exciting new ideas are being found all the time. I'm not convinced the advent of strong chess engines has hurt the game at all. And players have recognisable styles in chess, too, and even now. Carlsen, Nakamura and Karjakin are all very different.

Tami wrote:

Tami wrote:On the other hand, I hold a more extreme position than knotwilg in that if there is a single move correct and several similar, and different pros choose different moves, then they don't have a style but are just wrong, even if the only way of knowing is employing Alpha-Zero 10.0 on a Quantum Supercomputer some year in the 2050's.

But if there is ever a choice of correct moves (i.e., moves that lead to victory or, if victory is not the proper outcome, then to a forced draw by triple ko or whatever), then is there not room for taste and style in making the choice?

Given that solving go is unimaginably way beyond the capacity of human beings, then surely it's more than a little harsh to dismiss our best efforts or even just our efforts as merely wrong because they fall short of the standards of a yet-to-be-invented AI? Don't we even get credit for trying or for the manner in which we try?

I agree. If we employ a strict definition of Style regarding only correct moves, then no one will have much Style and the concept will be impractical.

So Style must be used with with a reference point for correct moves. And I agree with Knotwilg in that the most practical bar for us humans is around 7 dan EGF or pro level. But even from a pro perspective, everyone has some sort of personality they apply to the game with their limited understanding, everyone has some sort of style, albeit an underdeveloped one. This underdeveloped style is what I call the Proto-Style, and I think this is what we should mean when we refer to style among 'kyu' players. I also think it's a bit harsh to say beginners have no style— surely they do, even before the first go game.

And I think that 'dan' players are usually on there way to refining their style into a True Style.

Tami wrote:I wanted to add - turning to chess again as the example - what should we make of, say, Mikhail Tal? Should we admire his creativity and ingenuity any less because even moderately strong players (not to mention AI) can find flaws in his moves post hoc? I suppose go's equivalent is Lee Sedol.

And, I don't think the chess scene has become boring. Top-class games are still great entertainment, and exciting new ideas are being found all the time. I'm not convinced the advent of strong chess engines has hurt the game at all. And players have recognisable styles in chess, too, and even now. Carlsen, Nakamura and Karjakin are all very different.

To add to that, I was a little confused as to why some were speaking of Alpha Zero as the end of chess. It's surely the complete opposite when you think of the influence of engine play upon humans. From my perspective, Alpha Zero obliterated the notion that the tactical, materialistic and draw-prone style of the alpha-beta engines was somehow the correct way to play chess with a masterclass in positional elegance.

Style is the humanisation of strategy.

Elom wrote:
So Style must be used with with a reference point for correct moves. And I agree with Knotwilg in that the most practical bar for us humans is around 7 dan EGF or pro level. But even from a pro perspective, everyone has some sort of personality they apply to the game with their limited understanding, everyone has some sort of style, albeit an underdeveloped one. This underdeveloped style is what I call the Proto-Style, and I think this is what we should mean when we refer to style among 'kyu' players. I also think it's a bit harsh to say beginners have no style— surely they do, even before the first go game.

And I think that 'dan' players are usually on there way to refining their style into a True Style.

Sorry if it seems like I'm trying too hard to get the last word...but I'd be a bit miffed if I were 6 dan EGF, and found myself being thrown in the "proto-style" pond. Do we have to have a bar?

Can't we just accept that even weak players can have styles, albeit relatively crude ones? And that strong players have more sophisticated styles? And that some people are stronger than others? That style doesn't have to be a function of strength, though finding one's style can be practically a good thing as it enables one to play comfortably?

gowan wrote:Couldn't there be situations in a game, possibly frequently, where different moves can be called "best"? In such a situation a thick move and a territorial move both could be equally "best". Then your style would be determined by what you choose to play.

It could, but I think it's rarer than people like to admit.
Most of the time (especially after the opening) there is, in fact, a best move, I believe.
The choice between thick or territorial might be very small, though.

And then "style" might get in the way of your choice.

But OF COURSE the difference could be minimal. And since you're playing as a human being, the "inferior" choice might actually give you more confidence and allow you to carry on better than had you played the "correcter" move.

But then, as Tami suggests, you're playing the Art form of Go. And I do believe in Go as an Art.

But in Go as the 19x19 grid game, playing for the best possible outcome, style could have no saying.

Basically I think it's a difference in how you approach the game. I'd rather do it as an art form or a way of communicating myself. That's what's so great about Go. But then you have to accept that you won't make the most optimal choice every time. For an amateur, that's okay, because you'll never make the optimal choice anyway. For a strong pro, it's okay, too. Because even they don't make the optimal choice every time. But mathematically, it does matter. In mathematics, there is no style.
I hope I'm bringing my point across.

There is a style in mathematics. Greek mathematicians wrote theorems in a very different way than modern mathematicians. Even recent mathematicians may have very different styles: Arnold was famous for disliking the Bourbaki school.

In short: there are many paths that lead to knowledge. Similarly in Go, there may exist many ways to win a game.