Mike Novack wrote:
I think I need to explain what I meant by "theories" being useful, but slightly wrong shortcuts for humans. Since "ladders" were given as an example, a good starting point.
Early on we human players learn about ladders and how to determine whether they work or not. At our early playing level, extremely useful.
But ultimately, a ladder (the potential of a ladder) can't be judged simply by whether the ladder works or not but by the collective value of all the sente moves that can be made because of the potential of that ladder vs the plus and minus of the ladder working or not.
Most of our go theories are like that. They give "local" answers but go is a "global" game. Thus, if you think of josekis as theories, one could play joseki in all four corners and have a hopelessly lost game < because although locally correct, they do not cooperate globally over the whole board >
No disagreement. However, we must keep in mind that, although current bots make global evaluations, they also produce slightly wrong evaluations. (Go is not solved.
) The lack of theoretical shortcuts is a disadvantage for bots. Chess has good examples of positions that top engines misjudge, but humans can evaluate correctly using theory and logic. Also, chess engines utilize theory through opening books and tablebases. The Zero go bots can achieve superhuman play without theory, but who knows what the future holds?
To underscore the point, here is an example Uberdude posted here (post #3).
- Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . X O . O O O . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . X . . . . X X X O . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . X . . . X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . X . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . 1 2 . . |
$$ | . X X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X O X O . O O . . . . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . O X X X X O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O O X X O O X . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | a . O X O . O . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | 5 4 O X X O . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . 6 O O X . O . . O . X . . X . . . . |
$$ | O O X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]
LeelaElf missed
, wanting to play at "a".
The depth of local reading to find
is shallow. The required depth of global reading is surely much greater. The thing is to find
to start with. That is not difficult for humans to do who are familiar with this theoretical shortcut.
- Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | X X X . X . . . .
$$ | X O X . . O O . .
$$ | X O X X X X O . .
$$ | O O O X X O O . .
$$ | 5 4 O X . X O . .
$$ | 2 1 O X X . X O .
$$ | . 3 O O X . X O .
$$ -------------------[/go]
Because of damezumari
fails.
Even a player who had not seen the position below but had seen the previous one could find the descent in the following variations.
- Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . X . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . X X . X . . . .
$$ | X O X . . O O . .
$$ | 5 O X X X X O . .
$$ | . O O X X O O . .
$$ | . 4 O X . X O . .
$$ | 2 1 O X X . X O .
$$ | . 3 O O X . X O .
$$ -------------------[/go]
- Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . X . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | 6 X X . X . . . .
$$ | X O X . . O O . .
$$ | 4 O X X X X O . .
$$ | . O O X X O O . .
$$ | 5 . O X . X O . .
$$ | 2 1 O X X . X O .
$$ | 7 3 O O X . X O .
$$ -------------------[/go]
Given enough time, a Zero bot could learn
in the original diagram, but it would require two things, I think. First, enough similar examples. Second, enough examples where the analogous play was found. With self play whether the analogous play would be found is a real question.