It is currently Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:27 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 167 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9  Next
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Values of moves
Post #41 Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:50 am 
Oza
User avatar

Posts: 2494
Liked others: 1280
Was liked: 1110
RobertJasiek wrote:
The youtube videos on miai counting or Sensei's miai values list are not an easy start.
I have to disagree. I found this video, in which the lecturer took questions from the audience, to be quite a good introduction. Here are two of the diagrams from the lecture that were on a level that I could follow:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B examples from the video
$$ +---------------------+
$$ | . . . X . a O . . . |
$$ | . . . X X X O . . . |
$$ | . . , . . . . , . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . , . . . . , . . |
$$ | . . . X X X X O . . |
$$ | . . . X . . b O . . |
$$ +---------------------+[/go]


Quote:
If you want problems rather than theory with easy examples, easy problems rather than kos and whatnot, more than the few problems in O's book and no Japanese book (I think John mentioned some, but I do not know whether the problems and answers are easy), you have two options: dig for Bill's problems here (not that many, not always easy, often with difficult extras such as value trees) - or wait a few months.
I am looking forward to your next book, but I have neither O's book nor any Japanese ones, and Bill's problems are usually over my head.
Quote:
If you cannot wait, what prevents you from reading examples as if they were problems?
This is a fine idea. Where might one find more such easy examples?

_________________
Go? It's like sharing two bowls of cookies, but one person gets all of them.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Values of moves
Post #42 Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:03 am 
Oza

Posts: 2420
Liked others: 15
Was liked: 3514
daal

To show you are not alone:

O Meien starts his discussion of values with the following position.



He adds:

Quote:
How much territory does Black have on the edge at the 1-1 point? Not many people give the right answer to this question. I was very surprised to learn that this was so. Over 80% of people answered with something like:

“It hasn’t been settled whether Black will capture or White will connect, so it must be impossible to put a number on how much territory he has.”
Even among superior dan players the answers have been more or less the same. I have been surprised but just had to accept that this is the reality. That is why I thought about writing this book; because something exists which is common knowledge for us pros and some high dan amateurs, yet to the majority of amateurs it is a case of “No answer can be given.”

But none of them has any reason to feel awkward. The point is, it is just a problem of whether or not they know how to count.


He further adds:

Quote:
When counting territory, it may be ideal to be good at go, but basically it has nothing to do with go strength.


O's explanation is as follows ('calculation' is being used in the sense of primary-school arithmetic, not reading).

Quote:
You will have understood that if Black captures he gets 2 points and if White connects Black gets 0 points. But this still leaves the question “How many points of Black territory are there in Problem A?” unresolved. It would not be wrong to say “2 points or 0 points” but that would not be appropriate as a “calculation.”

So, consider first which is higher, the probability of Diagram 1 occurring or the probability of Diagram 2?

The answer is obvious, isn’t it: 50% for each. In other words, the probability of Black’s territory being 2 points or being 0 points is 50% in each case. By halving the total number of points we get 1 point, and this is the answer that applies to the initial question posed. That is, at the point in time of Problem A we can count the Black territory as 1 point.

OK? I think you can see that there was absolutely no go strength involved in that. We calculate the respective numbers of points for when Black plays and White plays and if their probabilities are equal, we divide the total by two.


All other positions follow the same method at heart even if they look more complicated. As he puts it, "The method of calculation does not change, so there is nothing to worry about."

True enough, but there is a next step. The territory count is not the same as "the value of the move" (O's key term).

As regards Black t2, the meaning of this move is definitely not “a territory of 0 points becomes 2 points.” Do understand completely that it really means a 1-point territory becomes a territory with 2 points. I am being long-winded but I want to impress this on you. In other words, “the value of the move” is 1 point.

Another example for practice:



How much territory does Black have in the extreme corner?

O says:

Quote:
If Black throws in at t2 the two White stones are captured as they are, and so Black’s territory is 5 points (3 points + two prisoners). No problem thus far, but …

When you considered White’s connection at t2, did you do a “!”?

In all the problems so far when White connected, Black’s territory simply came out as 0 points. But now we have the new occurrence of a White territory of 1 point.

Bothersome. We can’t do a calculation in such cases? Of course we can. We can produce a precise figure in the form of “X points.” Let us try looking at it as follows.

If we wish to express the fact that White has a territory of 1 point from Black’s point of view, what do we do. You’ve already got it, haven’t you? That’s right: we assume that a White territory of 1 point equals a Black territory of minus one point. This concept of “minus X points” is important, and if we can think that way, the following steps can be done in exactly the same way as Problems A ~ C [not shown here].

[1] Black’s territory in Diagram 7 is 5 points and Black’s territory in Diagram 8 is -1 point.

[2] The probabilities for Diagrams 7 and 8 are equal, and so:

(5 + {-1}) ÷ 2 = 2.

This is the answer. In other words, at the point in time of Problem D [shown here], in this area we can calculate that “Black has a territory of 2 points.”


One of the many nice things about O's book is that he explains everything without relying on terms like reverse sente (though he does mention them in passing), and you don't need to know whether there's an R in the month to know which meaning sente has. You certainly don't get bombarded with rule sets and even counting of kos is explained clearly and not as a conjuring trick. Fractions are mostly swept under the carpet (but they are there if you want them). The mathematics is of the level I enjoyed as a 6-year-old in Miss Middleton's class.

I've already said it several times, but I really do think any half serious go player needs O's book on his bookshelf.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Values of moves
Post #43 Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:23 am 
Tengen

Posts: 4824
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 656
daal, the video gives the first step (if you understood it, fine) but it does not really enable walking. I had known the first step but the video did not help me to proceed.

You find easy examples by looking at only the easy examples of the miai values list (skip all earlier, small value ko examples because they are difficult) but you might find them useless because calculations are mostly missing. Much more useful are easy examples with detailed step by step calculations and their explanations but, since this is not the books forum, I am prohibited from answering in this thread.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Values of moves
Post #44 Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:19 am 
Oza
User avatar

Posts: 2494
Liked others: 1280
Was liked: 1110
John Fairbairn wrote:
(5 + {-1}) ÷ 2 = 2.
I get the same answer, but I don't quite follow the math. It seems to me that the span of points between black getting the play and white getting it is 6, not 4, so the value of the position should lie between 5 and minus one, in other words 2 points for black. I arrive at this by dividing the 6 by 2 which equals 3, and subtracting that from black's 5 (or adding it to white's minus one).

In any case, the book seems to explain the method in a way that even I can follow, Thanks for the excerpt. I take it the book is only available in Japanese?

_________________
Go? It's like sharing two bowls of cookies, but one person gets all of them.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Values of moves
Post #45 Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:26 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 9147
Liked others: 2803
Was liked: 3095
daal wrote:
I found this video, in which the lecturer took questions from the audience, to be quite a good introduction.


Do you mean Kyle Blocher's video? It's excellent! :D

_________________
The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins

"Once in a very great while his eyes light up for a moment, and he says "Whee!" very quietly."
— Lion Miller

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Values of moves
Post #46 Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:28 am 
Gosei

Posts: 1431
Liked others: 718
Was liked: 475
Rank: AGA 3k KGS 1k Fox 1d
GD Posts: 61
KGS: dfan
daal wrote:
John Fairbairn wrote:
(5 + {-1}) ÷ 2 = 2.
I get the same answer, but I don't quite follow the math. It seems to me that the span of points between black getting the play and white getting it is 6, not 4, so the value of the position should lie between 5 and minus one, in other words 2 points for black. I arrive at this by dividing the 6 by 2 which equals 3, and subtracting that from black's 5 (or adding it to white's minus one).

Everyone is in agreement; you just misunderstood what is being calculated.

As John's translation continues:
Quote:
In other words, at the point in time of Problem D [shown here], in this area we can calculate that “Black has a territory of 2 points."

So the value of the position is 2 (on average Black will get two points in this area). The value of a move in this area is 3, which will bring the value of the position to 2 + 3 = 5 or 2 - 3 = -1.


This post by dfan was liked by: Bill Spight
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Values of moves
Post #47 Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:55 am 
Oza
User avatar

Posts: 2494
Liked others: 1280
Was liked: 1110
dfan wrote:
daal wrote:
John Fairbairn wrote:
(5 + {-1}) ÷ 2 = 2.

Everyone is in agreement; you just misunderstood what is being calculated.

So what does this equation mean in words?

_________________
Go? It's like sharing two bowls of cookies, but one person gets all of them.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Values of moves
Post #48 Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:59 am 
Gosei

Posts: 1431
Liked others: 718
Was liked: 475
Rank: AGA 3k KGS 1k Fox 1d
GD Posts: 61
KGS: dfan
John Fairbairn wrote:
(5 + {-1}) ÷ 2 = 2.
dfan wrote:
Everyone is in agreement; you just misunderstood what is being calculated.
daal wrote:
So what does this equation mean in words?

The average of 5 points for Black and 1 point for White is 2 points for Black.


This post by dfan was liked by 2 people: Bill Spight, daal
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Values of moves
Post #49 Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:01 am 
Tengen

Posts: 4824
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 656
The gote move value can be calculated as (5 - (-1)) / 2 = 6 / 2 = 3. The 6 is the 'difference value', or as Sensei's would say 'the swing', or as daal would say "the span of points between black getting the play and white getting it".

When calculating 'the count' aka 'initial value of the local endgame position', (5 + (-1)) / 2 = 4 / 2 = 2 means in words that it is the average of 'the value of the local endgame position resulting from Black's play' and 'the value of the local endgame position resulting from White's play'. IOW, it is the average of the black and white local follow-up positions (followers).

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Values of moves
Post #50 Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:06 am 
Oza
User avatar

Posts: 2494
Liked others: 1280
Was liked: 1110
Bill Spight wrote:
daal wrote:
I found this video, in which the lecturer took questions from the audience, to be quite a good introduction.


Do you mean Kyle Blocher's video? It's excellent! :D

Yes. It would have been a bit better if one could see on the video where he is pointing, but in general, his way of making sure that the audience was following what he was saying was indeed very good.

_________________
Go? It's like sharing two bowls of cookies, but one person gets all of them.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Values of moves
Post #51 Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:14 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 9147
Liked others: 2803
Was liked: 3095
Kirby wrote:
But for awhile, I missed something: it's not the answer that's the essence of go. It's COMING UP with the answer.


Well worth repeating. :D

_________________
The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins

"Once in a very great while his eyes light up for a moment, and he says "Whee!" very quietly."
— Lion Miller

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Values of moves
Post #52 Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:28 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 9147
Liked others: 2803
Was liked: 3095
daal wrote:
John Fairbairn wrote:
(5 + {-1}) ÷ 2 = 2.
I get the same answer, but I don't quite follow the math. It seems to me that the span of points between black getting the play and white getting it is 6, not 4, so the value of the position should lie between 5 and minus one, in other words 2 points for black. I arrive at this by dividing the 6 by 2 which equals 3, and subtracting that from black's 5 (or adding it to white's minus one).


As others have pointed out, you put DesCartes before DesHors. ;) That is, you calculated the value of the move and then used that to find the value of the position. The value of the position is the place to start with understanding all of this.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins

"Once in a very great while his eyes light up for a moment, and he says "Whee!" very quietly."
— Lion Miller

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Values of moves
Post #53 Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:50 am 
Lives with ko

Posts: 183
Liked others: 26
Was liked: 60
Rank: 2d
Bill Spight wrote:
As others have pointed out, you put DesCartes before DesHors. ;) That is, you calculated the value of the move and then used that to find the value of the position. The value of the position is the place to start with understanding all of this.
I have to admit that I also just do not get that. Isn't the "value of a position" completely arbitrary in just how large an area you look at? If I can compute the value of a move, why would I care about the value of a local position?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Values of moves
Post #54 Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:08 am 
Gosei

Posts: 1431
Liked others: 718
Was liked: 475
Rank: AGA 3k KGS 1k Fox 1d
GD Posts: 61
KGS: dfan
bernds wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
As others have pointed out, you put DesCartes before DesHors. ;) That is, you calculated the value of the move and then used that to find the value of the position. The value of the position is the place to start with understanding all of this.
I have to admit that I also just do not get that. Isn't the "value of a position" completely arbitrary in just how large an area you look at?

Yes, unless you are looking at the entire board. :)

Quote:
If I can compute the value of a move, why would I care about the value of a local position?

I compute the value of a move by looking at the difference in values of the resulting local positions. (As you note, both of these position values have an arbitrary additive constant, but it is the same constant, so it doesn't affect the move value.) If you can compute the move value without using position values, go for it.

I agree that once you have the move value, you can throw the position value away.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Values of moves
Post #55 Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:20 am 
Oza

Posts: 2420
Liked others: 15
Was liked: 3514
daal: Yes, O's book is only in Japanese, but I've talked about it enough here that people who don't read Japanese beyond a few basic go characters can probably glean a lot from it.

I think you and I may be the type who lose the will to live when we have to look at numbers - I certainly am. But if you ignore all the excitable froth that the numbers people emit when they engage with the topic, there are some useful elements there. I just ignore anything that's not basic arithmetic and reduce everything else to couch-potato go. I only want people to show me how to operate the remote.

But just as you need to learn how to switch the tv on, to know where the spare remote batteries are, and to sit in the right place, e.g. out of the sun's glare, so there are a few pointers that couch-potato go players need to bear in mind.

1. When we count a position it's useful to see it all from one side (usually Black's). So we count + for Black's territories and - for White's. That way we end up with one figure (positive or negative) instead of two. For couch potatoes that's a 100% efficiency gain. But, while that is easy enough to understand, it can feel a bit unnatural for non-number types, so a bit of practice until it does feel natural is a good thing.

2. The value of a position ("how much territory have we each got?") is a different thing from the value of a move (what is the biggest next to play?) These are related but that's a posh level - pommes-frites go - so we could ignore the relationship. If we follow the traditional ways of counting territory, the relationship is far from intuitive for couch potatoes and so we do ignore it. But O's way of counting territory makes the relationship maybe not easy to understand but certainly easy to apply - basically divide by 2. So just as it's good for real couch potatoes to get exercise, we can learn to divide by 2 - our equivalent of the walk to the fridge.

3. We could stop there, but again with O's method it's so easy to try a few more steps. Here's one. How much territory do we count for Black in the corner?



It's not 5. He gets 5 points if he plays t4, of course, but we've already established that we can only assume he has a 50-50 chance of playing t4. But his territory is not worth 2.5. If the white stone on t1 was at t2, the answer would indeed by 2.5. But in this position, a White play at t4, which leaves a possible move for both sides at t3. But you will notice that this is then essentially the same position as earlier in the thread, and we already know that here that Black's territory in this new position, in the extreme corner, is then 1 point. As O says, "Once that is understood, the rest is mere calculation. From the formula: (5 + 1) ÷ 2 we derive an answer of 3 points."

These are positions with a "follow-up." As you can see, the difference is just half a point here, though there are times when it could be more. You can make a judgement for yourself whether follow-ups are infrequent enough to ignore and/or, even if they are not infrequent, to ignore them anyway. Number lovers, like Syphonapterists, like to talk about follow-ups to follow-ups and so on, or as Jonathan Swift (of Gulliver's Tales) has it: "So, naturalists observe, a flea Has smaller fleas that on him prey; And these have smaller still to bite 'em, And so proceed ad infinitum. Thus every poet, in his kind, Is bit by him that comes behind." Follow-up calculations tend to end in sixteenths and such monstrosities.

My recommendation would be to ignore follow-ups for a while until you are at home with the method, and then add just one level of follow-up. This not only saves on flea powder but it also accords with O Meien's advice not to worry about the sixteenths.


This post by John Fairbairn was liked by: sorin
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Values of moves
Post #56 Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:24 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 9147
Liked others: 2803
Was liked: 3095
bernds wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
As others have pointed out, you put DesCartes before DesHors. ;) That is, you calculated the value of the move and then used that to find the value of the position. The value of the position is the place to start with understanding all of this.
I have to admit that I also just do not get that. Isn't the "value of a position" completely arbitrary in just how large an area you look at?


No, it is not completely arbitrary, as go players understand. :) However, as go programmers understand, it is not easy to define what constitutes an independent position. In Mathematical Go Berlekamp and Wolfe suggest assuming a local position to be independent until and unless you can show that it is not. (That's not a great help in writing a go program, though, is it? ;))

Quote:
If I can compute the value of a move, why would I care about the value of a local position?


But you are not able to compute the value of a move without computing the value of local positions. daal computed the value of the move by computing the value of two positions, the one where Black had 5 pts. and the one where White had 1 pt. He did so by counting the local scores.

However, he cannot rely upon the local positions he uses to evaluate plays to be scorable. So he needs to be able to calculate the value of non-final (non-scorable) positions, as well.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins

"Once in a very great while his eyes light up for a moment, and he says "Whee!" very quietly."
— Lion Miller

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Values of moves
Post #57 Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:26 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 9147
Liked others: 2803
Was liked: 3095
dfan wrote:
I agree that once you have the move value, you can throw the position value away.


Oh, that's a great help! ;)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins

"Once in a very great while his eyes light up for a moment, and he says "Whee!" very quietly."
— Lion Miller

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Values of moves
Post #58 Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:39 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 9147
Liked others: 2803
Was liked: 3095
John Fairbairn wrote:
I've already said it several times, but I really do think any half serious go player needs O's book on his bookshelf.


I agree that O's book is the best I have seen in Japanese. It avoids the errors of traditional texts. :)

Quote:
One of the many nice things about O's book is that he explains everything without relying on terms like reverse sente (though he does mention them in passing), and you don't need to know whether there's an R in the month to know which meaning sente has.


At least in the first part of the book he only talks about local sente in local diagrams, so he is clear about that. I don't think that that is unusual. He does not define sente, however, but trusts the reader to "get it".

Of course he relies upon terms like reverse sente (gyaku yose), and not just in passing. Gyaku yose is one of the five types of yose that he differentiates on p. 116: Sente yose, gyaku yose, gote yose, ko, and nidan ko.

I know you don't like reverse sente in English, but gyaku yose in Japanese is hardly enlightening in itself. ;)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins

"Once in a very great while his eyes light up for a moment, and he says "Whee!" very quietly."
— Lion Miller

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Values of moves
Post #59 Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:47 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 9147
Liked others: 2803
Was liked: 3095
daal wrote:
dfan wrote:
John Fairbairn wrote:
(5 + {-1}) ÷ 2 = 2.

Everyone is in agreement; you just misunderstood what is being calculated.

So what does this equation mean in words?


At this point, maybe this is overkill, but a picture is worth a thousand words. Here is a diagram with a miai that illustrates the point.


_________________
The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins

"Once in a very great while his eyes light up for a moment, and he says "Whee!" very quietly."
— Lion Miller

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Values of moves
Post #60 Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:58 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 9147
Liked others: 2803
Was liked: 3095
John Fairbairn wrote:
If we follow the traditional ways of counting territory, the relationship is far from intuitive for couch potatoes and so we do ignore it.


Actually, O's method of calculating territory is the traditional one. He relies on a 50-50 split for gote and privilege for sente. :)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins

"Once in a very great while his eyes light up for a moment, and he says "Whee!" very quietly."
— Lion Miller

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 167 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] 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