It is currently Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:23 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Measuring intuition
Post #21 Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2020 12:53 pm 
Gosei

Posts: 1634
Location: Earth
Liked others: 609
Was liked: 279
"Thinking fast and slow" +1
supplemented by
"La Trahison des images"
and
"Dag en Nacht"
and
"Ko-Ko"


Last edited by Gomoto on Mon Oct 12, 2020 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Measuring intuition
Post #22 Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:28 pm 
Gosei

Posts: 1634
Location: Earth
Liked others: 609
Was liked: 279
black to play, THINK about your INTUITIONS (moves & concepts)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ --------------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ , . . . . . X O . . |
$$ . . . . . W . X O . |
$$ . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ --------------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . O . O . . . . |
$$ , . O . O . O . . . |
$$ . . O . . . O . . . |
$$ . . . O . O . . . . |
$$ . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]


Last edited by Gomoto on Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Measuring intuition
Post #23 Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:38 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 646
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Liked others: 52
Was liked: 216
I think it's an example of confirmation bias. Most Go moves are simple and obvious. But every position has a few moves that look simple/obvious. The problem then is to pick the correct simple move over and over without missing a single one.

When you play a real game, suddenly one of your simple moves will end up getting you in trouble. And often it's not an unexpected response, instead the game proceeds with more and more obvious moves but suddenly you're in a bad position.

Then a pro could review your game, and you'll see "aha yes of course, so obvious, why didn't I see that?"

If you read a pro review of a full game, it's an easy trap to think "aha yes, so simple, of course I would play the same in my own game 100% of the time."


This post by yoyoma was liked by: Kirby
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Measuring intuition
Post #24 Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2020 1:57 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1107
Liked others: 87
Was liked: 381
@Gomoto:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ --------------------+
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . e b c d . |
$$ . . . f g . X O . . |
$$ , . . h i . X O . . |
$$ . . . . . W a X O . |
$$ . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]


Intuition (moves that I would consider): a, b, c (expecting White d then Black e), or extend at one of the intersections f, g, h, i (I don't know where, reading required).

Concepts that spring to my mind: peep-connect, peep-resist, can resist if Black is strong around so that the two strings live independently, the two stones are weaker than the four ones so need to be defended, pay attention to their liberties, b threatens d next, the exchange c-d-e is often useful to make life, the sequence comes from a 3-3 invasion, probably the answers are on josekipedia.

And now, checking on josekipedia, I see that some moves I considered are not there and vice-versa.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Measuring intuition
Post #25 Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2020 3:00 pm 
Oza

Posts: 2820
Liked others: 16
Was liked: 3930
Quote:
Concepts that spring to my mind: peep-connect, peep-resist, can resist if Black is strong around so that the two strings live independently, the two stones are weaker than the four ones so need to be defended, pay attention to their liberties, b threatens d next, the exchange c-d-e is often useful to make life, the sequence comes from a 3-3 invasion, probably the answers are on josekipedia.


All of those, but... I think we must remember we are talking here about amateur responses, and amateur responses are a mixture of head and heart.

If I saw this position and was focused/alert/in a good mood/whatever so that I was thinking with my head, I would say to myself things like, "OK, connection can't ne made - it's an empty triangle but he's lost a cutting point and made a daft peep. So connection can't be bad in efficiency terms. But he's got sente and I've got the initiative - I'm the one who decides were the game goes from here. Maybe there's something better. And so on. All technique/theory/board related. I suggest the end result of thinking like that is that I will see several moves that are all at least close to satisfactory. I have used my intuition (my gut feeling based on experience). I think Gomoto is mixing up instinct and intuition. If it were a blitz game I would just connect - instinct.

My underlying point is that my intuition has got me to a point where I have palette of moves. I'm like a water-colour painter. I have all the right colours to paint a landscape, but where do I start. My instinct tells me it doesn't matter. My experience tells me it does. My intuition tells me to start with the ground. My observations tell me that pros usually start with the sky. I don't know whether to trust my instinct, my experience, my intuition or my observations. I have no hierarchy in my head that tells me which one is most trustworthy.

If I am trying hard to improve (gosh, that takes me back 50 years!) I might go through a phrase of copying my observations, hoping enlightenment will creep up on me. But (and I think this is typical amateur behaviour) I will trust my heart over my head. So I will look at this position in a different way, depending on, say, the day's testosterone levels. I might say, "He wants me to connect? Hell, no. I'll tenuki." Or "I'll show him something fancy." Or I might say, "Ha! He's copying the bots, but there's no way he knows why they play that. I'll connect here but hit him with a shoulder hit over there - show him two can play at that game." Or some such drivel.

Drivel, but seductive drivel. The point there is that it creates a hierarchy, or perhaps better a mindset, in my head which not only tells me how to play here but in the rest of the game. If I choose the "ha, he's a bot copier" mindset, every time thereafter that I come up with a slew of candidate moves I will know straightaway what to play - the one that's a Direct 3-3, shoulder-hit, a weird attachment, a centre move, a tenuki... I am in control! Or so I think until I count up and find I lost by 40 points. Yes, well, I wasn't really trying, was I?

In more reflective moments, of course I realise what is needed. I need to concentrate on theory and technique. I might be weak enough to need to add to my arsenal of techniques, but most mateur dan players have actually already seen just about every tesuji or theory. OK, there may be a few tricks or hametes we haven't seen, but look at soccer - not every millionaire pro is a Ronaldhino or a Messi. What we amateurs need is just more control, to know when to pass, when to shoot, when to bunt, when to hit for the fences, when to run or when to go for a touchdown pass - or even a Hail Mary.

It is my belief that you can't get that from books, or lists, or video lessons with a teacher. You get it only from hard work - the infamous 10,000 hours - to build up your intuition. To be more precise, you need to play, or play over, a HUGE number of games so as to provide data for your subconscious to make the enormous mass of associations that turn into probabilities, which in turn turn into intuition. Intuition where you can't explain why you did something but your subconscious could, if it could talk. It would tell you things like "in this kind of situation technique A works most often" or "in that sort of shape you need to watch out for a sneaky B." In fact, your go brain will already be working that way. And working well. You shouldn't be trying to swamp that smoothing-working function by piling on theories (or emotions). You need to keep taking the pills - adding more and more game positions to the database in the brain.

Sounds easy on paper. The problem, for me at least, is that my instinct, my intuition, my experience and my observations all tell me that that sort of hard work is PAINFUL. And I have a low pain threshold.

This is, of course, where books, videos and teachers come in handy. One the one hand, provided they are treated as mainly entertainment or encouragement - mild painkillers or mild tranquillisers rather than opioids - they can make the 10,000 hours seem to fly by. But their main use can be to help you measure your intuition: to help you realise which muscles need extra reps.


This post by John Fairbairn was liked by 3 people: ez4u, fireproof, gennan
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Measuring intuition
Post #26 Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:38 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1107
Liked others: 87
Was liked: 381
Candidate moves can be classified as follows:

A. Moves found with non-verbal thinking, but no reading.
B. Moves found with verbal thinking, but no reading.
C. Moves found after reading.

I think Gomoto refers to type A moves, while I refer to types A and B. Blitz moves are mostly of type A, however some amount of verbal thinking is also possible during blitz games, and conversely not all type A moves are found under time pressure.

Moves of type A may sometimes be explained verbally, to communicate between players, even though no words were used during the thinking process, and even if the verbal explanation doesn't fully capture the idea.

Reading can help to determine which moves among A and B are best, but also to discover new moves. For instance I try a sequence :b1: :w2: :b3:..., find that it doesn't work so maybe :b1: at :w2: is better. Or I found a ladder that doesn't work so I shoulder hit elsewhere to make a ladder breaker. Or I think that :b7: in the sequence needs some help so before starting the sequence I make a kikashi.

So we can ask ourselves two different questions: why isn't the pro's move among my type A moves? Why isn't the pro's move among my type B moves? Either way, the answer indicates which brain muscles need more reps, as John says. I only make 10 reps/day with 10 kg weights, that won't get me very far compared to pros who make 500 reps/day with 100 kg weights, but it's better than working on the wrong muscles, or repeating wrong movements that hurt my joints.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Measuring intuition
Post #27 Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:42 am 
Oza

Posts: 2820
Liked others: 16
Was liked: 3930
I encountered a position this morning that illustrates many points in my original post - you may wish to refer back as I won't repeat any points here.

The position was as below. It's an old Chinese game so White played first, and no komi of course (and no captures so far). The last move was the triangled one.



The first reason this position caught my eye was that it is perhaps the starkest practical example I can recall where you can tell who is ahead at a glance. Pros don't count anything like as often as some amateurs assume. Rather than relying on the 'balance of territories' they rely on the 'balance of mistakes'. That's my term but it's their concept.

Here the board can easily be split into two halves. In the left half we can instantly see that it is either even or White has the edge, based on similar shapes (shimari each) and roughly equal stones.

The right half may need a split second longer but it's pretty obvious that the exchange, in tewari terms, of White A and Black B is daft, but White's mochikomi stone A is offset by the Black stone captured by the triangled White stone. Furthermore, the Black stone diagonally below B makes an empty triangle and should ideally be at least a point lower. On top of all that, the Black group in the top right is spectacularly ugly. It has just three-quarters of an eye at best and so must be a target for attack at some point (I thought). The Black stone in the lower centre looks lonely. There is one other mistake by Black that he made on move 16 (to attack a two-space extension) and which didn't register with me until the commentary pointed it out. It was the move marked X. It should have been at the point marked X. But in this position I could see straightaway it was a mistake - it has ended up attacking a completely safe White group.

In contrast I couldn't see much awry with White's position, so I was totally certain White was ahead on the balance of mistakes. Of course I couldn't quantify those mistakes the way a pro can, but there were enough of them to create daylight between the two players. (And let the record show that I was also perhaps subconsciously affected by the fact that I knew White was Huang Longshi, and Black (Zhu Sisheng) was a step weaker than him.)

And yet, as I kept staring at the position, I become more aware of the potential Black territory in the lower right, and I started wondering where White was going to get his territory from. That's when it dawned on me that his centre thickness maybe wasn't as obviously good as I'd instinctively assumed. It was facing the wrong way to attack the Black group at the top. It was not anchored to a side, so surrounding territory with it meant surrounding the centre, which we all know is highly problematical.

So, how on earth can White turn his (alleged) advantage into victory? I could see a possible plan for White. He could catch at C and/or uses moves around D to set up a splitting attack in the lower left. There was a slight flaw in that though: it was Black to move. I could see on the next page that Black played E, White F, Black G. That looked good to me (and therefore bad for White) as Black was consolidating his territorial lead, indirectly defending his straggly upper-right group by making White's upper-side group under a bit of threat, and playing high in the centre shaved a bit off the value White's right-centre thickness.

White's next move made me blink. He played H. I could see straightaway that he was trying to wrest the initiative from Black, and I would have had the same mindset. But I would have looked only at a move in the corner or at something like D.

I was so intrigued that I flipped straight through to final position. This is what I saw:



Actually what I really saw first was a huge Black territory in a reverse L shape on the right, a territory which had even gobbled up part of White's thickness. Given that the record stopped on Black move 150, I also wondered strongly whether the result "White wins" was a misprint. The last moves were actually the X exchange on the left but just before that Black had played the triangled move, which clearly required some attention from White in the corner.

Still bemused, I looked a little harder. I could of course see that White had captured some stones in the centre, but it seemed to me that Black has more than a few reducing moves at the still open boundaries (and at first I also thought he had a semedori attack from below but a second's extra reading revealed a crane's nest, so that was irrelevant).

And to make it worse for White, he was -2 in captured stones and a further -2 in group tax.

Actually, though, this is a case where evaluating the position through the balance of territories is necessary. I may know that but one of the many differences between me and a pro is that I normally can't be bothered to count. Bestirring myself for a change, however, reveals that White is a good 10 points or so ahead. Gulp.

With my socks back on my chilly toes and fingers back on the keyboard - I have no truck with fancy technology like abacuses - I now realised I had let myself be fooled by an optical illusion.

But that did not represent enlightenment. I still have no idea how Huang actually used his thickness. I know he did, but it was all sleight of hand to me. What I can tell you, though (courtesy of the commentary), is that Black helped him a bit. On move 48 he played a move at B7 which was almost a carbon copy of his move 16 - a kosumi peep at what was then a White two-space extension on the side. Two examples in the same game finally made a dent in my habitual thinking. For over 50 years I have played a kosumi peep against a two-space pincer, and felt really good doing it. And I usually feel even better when the opponent ignores it and I can crawl into his guts. Now it seems I really ought consider foregoing that pleasure.


This post by John Fairbairn was liked by: SoDesuNe
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Measuring intuition
Post #28 Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2020 6:56 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 372
Liked others: 5
Was liked: 79
Rank: kgs 5 kyu
KGS: Pio2001
John Fairbairn wrote:
The new thought that occurred to me just now, is that if each of us amateurs were to look at a game and make a list of the concepts that we think of first (i.e. our intuition) at each move, we would be revealing (and ultimately measuring) what goes on in our intuition. Interesting in its own right. But it would then be doubly interesting if we were able to compare each other's lists.

I suspect what we would find is that each band of grades would share common characteristics, and that is why pros can so easily categorise amateurs as of a certain grade after seeing just a few moves.

Anyone game to give it a try? This is one case where the lurkers can't use the excuse of being too weak to speak up.

Hi John,
Is the game proposed by jlt OK for the exercise ?
Should we propose candidate moves ? How much ? Or just list some concepts that seem to be at work in the current position ?

Maybe we can make an example of what is expected from everyone, so that a few of us can do it.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Measuring intuition
Post #29 Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:39 am 
Oza

Posts: 2820
Liked others: 16
Was liked: 3930
Quote:
Hi John,
Is the game proposed by jlt OK for the exercise ?
Should we propose candidate moves ? How much ? Or just list some concepts that seem to be at work in the current position ?


To me it either doesn't matter or may even be counter-productive to use someone else's example, and it's even more questionable for everyone to follow the same format.

My feeling is that what's useful is, in the old school phrase, to show your working. Depending on who you are, your strength, level of interest in go, etc etc, you may list a couple of concepts or a dozen, and you may talk about them in a way different from everybody else. My thesis, though, is that whichever approach you take you will list much of what goes through a pro's mind. My further expectation is that you will then find that within those matching concepts, he will often rank them in a very different from ours.

That's for people who have enough experience of go to have seen almost everything. But even for people with less experience, I would still expect that what they do know matches up with things a pro would say.

Do you remember those toddlers' toys where you have to put a brick of a certain shape (star, circle, triangle etc) through the right shape in a container? The toddler knows just as well as the adult that you have to put the right shape in the right hole. He struggles a little to learn which shapes match up and how. I personally wouldn't call that a mistake. It's part of a learning pattern. Bored adults might show the toddler what the object of the exercise is and proceed to put the star brick in the star hole, only to find it doesn't go. They have lazily forgotten to line the shapes up. That's what I consider a mistake.

I believe that most of us in go are toddlers rather than bored adults. We are still in an enjoyable learning process. But one size does not fit all!

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Measuring intuition
Post #30 Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:54 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1107
Liked others: 87
Was liked: 381
John Fairbairn wrote:


The first reason this position caught my eye was that it is perhaps the starkest practical example I can recall where you can tell who is ahead at a glance. Pros don't count anything like as often as some amateurs assume. Rather than relying on the 'balance of territories' they rely on the 'balance of mistakes'. That's my term but it's their concept.


Counting the "balance of mistakes" would be completely useless in my games, since there are too many mistakes to add up on both sides... So what do I see? The left side is approximately even. On the right side, Black has about 20 points + a weak group, and not much influence. White has 10+ points and a thick group on the right, so completely controls the centre (let's use British spelling here). I don't know how to evaluate that, but I feel that controlling the centre early in the game is worth much more than 10 points, so I prefer White.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Measuring intuition
Post #31 Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:22 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 372
Liked others: 5
Was liked: 79
Rank: kgs 5 kyu
KGS: Pio2001
In-Seong Hwang gave a lecture about the "Seven types of go players".
Being a go teacher and reviewing a lot of games, he identified seven stereotypes among kyu players :

The Philosopher: knows a lot of things, principles and theories... but thinks too much
The Honor student: make good shape and is strong at basics... but lacks experience and fighting spirit
The Politician: good at negotiations
The Boss: bullies his/her opponent, have him/her do the hard work
The Detective: strong at tesuji and finding the weakness in opponents' position
The Street Fighter: strong at fighting, plays fast, but lacks the basic knowledge
The Don Quichotte: creative, but the game quality depends on the day

Here's the video. Very funny, with a lot of examples taken from real games. The lecture starts at 6:40



This post by Pio2001 was liked by: gennan
Top
 Profile  
 
Online
 Post subject: Re: Measuring intuition
Post #32 Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:03 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 354
Location: Netherlands
Liked others: 167
Was liked: 97
Rank: EGF 3d
Universal go server handle: gennan
Pio2001 wrote:
In-Seong Hwang gave a lecture about the "Seven types of go players".
Being a go teacher and reviewing a lot of games, he identified seven stereotypes among kyu players
Not only kyu players. In-Seong also has dan players (up to strong 5d EGF) as students and he puts those into the same categories. He categorises himself as a Boss and he tends to have difficulty against a Politician of his level (like Seong-Jin Kim and Seok-Bin Cho).

In-Seong categorised me as a Street Fighter. But I think in my case the reason is not a lack of basic knowledge (I'm 3d and I've been playing actively for decades), but more a lack of self control and self-indulgent, superficial reading. For example, this is a League Game of me against another Street Fighter dan player. As you can imagine, it's a tense game with lots of (over)aggressive moves and big mistakes by both players:


Attachments:
loopan_vs_gennan.sgf [5.1 KiB]
Downloaded 68 times
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group