Life in 19x19. Go, Weiqi, Baduk... Thats the life.
https://www.lifein19x19.com/
After AlphaGo, a lot of people noted that they realized now how flexible go is - how many possibilities exist that they didn't think possible before. The "rules" of the past were no longer rules. In that spirit, I think it'd be a mistake to make new rules out of AI percentages. The value of top-level AI recommendations is that they bring about new ideas.gowan wrote:Now it seems that simply being played by a top level AI go player makes something joseki. What do we make of this? Human judgment appears no longer to be needed.
I don't think the meaning changes much, as long as we let the word mean "commonly played sequence by strong players".gowan wrote:For years I have objected to the common practice of using "joseki" to describe any and every sequence of moves. The advent of superhuman AI in go brings up a question as to the meaning of now joseki. Traditionally joseki refers to standard moves or sequences, the standard quality coming from history of use and consensus as to appropriateness of moves or sequences. Now it seems that simply being played by a top level AI go player makes something joseki.
Joseki = Phrase, one that hopefully uses good grammar and syntaxsorin wrote:I don't think the meaning changes much, as long as we let the word mean "commonly played sequence by strong players".gowan wrote:For years I have objected to the common practice of using "joseki" to describe any and every sequence of moves. The advent of superhuman AI in go brings up a question as to the meaning of now joseki. Traditionally joseki refers to standard moves or sequences, the standard quality coming from history of use and consensus as to appropriateness of moves or sequences. Now it seems that simply being played by a top level AI go player makes something joseki.
Whether the strong players are human pros, or AI programs.
.My post above was in response to the use of joseki in the title of this thread. Unusual AI moves do indeed suggest new ideas but they aren't joseki (yet). Maybe we need nothing more than "interesting move" to describe them. Whether moves or sequences are joseki does, too, depend on the level of the player. There is that old maxim "There is no joseki for the Meijin" which means that the Meijin is so strong that everything is done on the fly rather than relying on standard moves. This might now apply to the top AI.Kirby wrote:After AlphaGo, a lot of people noted that they realized now how flexible go is - how many possibilities exist that they didn't think possible before. The "rules" of the past were no longer rules. In that spirit, I think it'd be a mistake to make new rules out of AI percentages. The value of top-level AI recommendations is that they bring about new ideas.gowan wrote:Now it seems that simply being played by a top level AI go player makes something joseki. What do we make of this? Human judgment appears no longer to be needed.
Human judgment is what we can use to make use of these new ideas.
AI should break down the barriers of rules we've made about the "proper way" to play - not make new rules.
Quote from an 8 dan giving a class years ago in Kyoto:gowan wrote:Whether moves or sequences are joseki does, too, depend on the level of the player. There is that old maxim "There is no joseki for the Meijin" which means that the Meijin is so strong that everything is done on the fly rather than relying on standard moves. This might now apply to the top AI.
Just for the uninitiated, the sequence was played by Alphago, but there are also over 20 pro games with this joseki in my databaseMy post above was in response to the use of joseki in the title of this thread. Unusual AI moves do indeed suggest new ideas but they aren't joseki (yet). Maybe we need nothing more than "interesting move" to describe them. Whether moves or sequences are joseki does, too, depend on the level of the player.
How about just "AlphaGo sequence", though I think it's not far off joseki. This sequence is not a one-off that AlphaGo played once and we noticed, it is a sequence you will find many times in the AlphaGo teaching tool. So if joseki can be understood to mean "after many thousands or millions of games by a strong player (be it human or computer) it has become accepted as a good sequence" then it's joseki. Leela Zero and Elf have also both independently discovered it (actually recent LZ is not independent of Elf but is influenced by some Elf self-play inclusion) and come to the conclusion it is a good sequence for both sides in some positions. And pros have thought it worthy of trying out in several games; probably more pro examples than some of the more esoteric lines in your joseki books.gowan wrote:My post above was in response to the use of joseki in the title of this thread. Unusual AI moves do indeed suggest new ideas but they aren't joseki (yet). Maybe we need nothing more than "interesting move" to describe them.
First sequence with the falling-back hanging connection of 4 still feels a bit odd to me but here is some local analysis. White has not made the exchange of a-b compared to the second sequence. The plus for white is the stone at 6 has an extra liberty, the downside is the atari is not 100% sente so if you play it latter black might not connect (and then defending at 4 becomes basically redundant). One way this could happen is with the peep at c which is a key follow-up point: if white can play this and black defends at d that's nice for white to get the exchange whilst preserving the liberty, but maybe black would tenuki or resist (e.g. at e, also possible with 2nd sequence but there is a more immediate threat to cut).Gomoto wrote:I am exactly interested in your human opinion on the two positions. What do you think of the possibilities, differences and characteristics of the two boards.
One of the advantages of not playing the atari at "a" is that after 
, 
is atari.
attach is a fine move (-1.5)%
hane only move.
pole connection is strange move not making good use of the approach stone, -45%
weird pull back should be at 5, -48%. So slightly worse than 3. In the end result it's easy to see how the connect of 3 ends up inefficient with the approach to make an empty triangle, but the inefficiency of this stone is harder to spot.
not an urgent place (so white should tenuki) but locally it's a plausible move and if white answers not a major change in the position (a slightly bad exchange for black because now white's next move of capturing one stone is better eyeshape and yose than had black not exchanged). -24%
obedient answer, -16%. So what I said was slightly bad exchange Elf thinks is net loss of 8% for black, but 8% for Elf is not so huge (pros make more often).
inefficient duff move. If white just answers at a it's a bad exchange for black who didn't get much pushing from behind and a net loss of 17%. But white can tenuki and then this is -43%. Elf actually thinks clamp at a is best move on whole board.
small place. -46%. So a small net loss for white in giving black the duff empty triangle and taking this yose. If answer with extend was -27%.