Many magazines such as Go World offer a problem section every issue. Typically you get 10 fuseki problems, 10 middle game problems, 10 life & death. A common format is "choose A, B or C". Sometimes there are prizes or rewards (e.g. dan diplomas).

Obviously with Lizzie etc (well promoted in Japan now with several pros - e.g. Ichiriki Ryo - saying they use it) there is scope for amateurs to cheat. It may not seem a big deal, but I recall a manga series in which the theme was a bloke about to retire from Tokyo to back home in the countryside, but he kept deferring his departure because he had not yet earned a 1-dan diploma and couldn't face going back to his friend in the country without it. Obviously his friends would expect it because the city is where everything is possible and he has to come back a big shot. (In the manga, he got it in the end with great effort and great fortitude on the part of his wife, and they all lived happily ever after ...)

Nowadays he could get his diploma by faking the results for a competition. He would then be cheating not just on the examiners but deceiving his friends back home. Tut-tut.

But, wait. The examiners can cheat, too.

Several of us here have looked at positions from books from before the AI era and found that the bots quite often disagree with the boys. So, out of curiosity, I looked at Lizzie's best-move suggestions for problems in the latest Go World. What do you know? All the best moves in the problem answers just seem to coincide with Lizzie's.

You can decide for yourself whether that is coincidence, and if it's not whether it matters - you could even say that editors not checking the answers against Lizzie would be total stupidity. The format of these problems is such that the answers don't have to be explained in detail, so there's no sense of pros suddenly waking up to how the bots think. In fact, you probably don't even need a pro now to check the answers, so amateur compilers can also "cheat" by masquerading as pros.

It's all part of progress, but it does a leave a bit of a sour taste, too.

When I was young I used to love watching athletics on tv. The legacy of those days is still strong where I live. I drive past the Roger Bannister sports ground most days. The London Marathon was founded by his rival Chris Brasher. But I lost much interest in athletics first when pacemakers became a common way of breaking records, and then I lost all interest once drugs took hold. I now pay zero attention to the Olympics.

So should I be prepared to take the same stance and give up go? I've certainly lost a lot of interest, but so far for reasons other than AI (e.g. too many tournaments, too many Mickey Mouse time limits). The fact that AI bots are stronger than humans doesn't bother me. But if bots were used to cheat...

The only pacemakers I'm aware of are the medical implants for heart conditions; is there another type for athletes that I've never heard of ? The chess world has had about 10~20 years head start with this issue...

If you solve those problems for yourself(either because you have fun doing it or you want to prove that you can do it) then using AI defeats the purpose and it does seem like those diplomas hold hardly any real value, so if you don't even get bragging rights if you achieve it, why care about cheating in the first place?

Obviously some people will cheat for one reason or another, but in this case it seems like that has no influence on the experience for me personally.

Cheating online is a bit more of a problem, but I'm kinda used to that, its part of lots of (online) video games, so I don't see why go would be exempt.

A pacemaker is a runner who is brought in just to set a fast pace for the star runners for the first few laps. He drops out once he's exhausted (though there have been cases where the stars can't keep up and the pacemaker has stayed in the race and gone on to win). Some races even had pacemakers for other pacemakers, with the stars staying firmly at the back until the end.

I believe records set this way are no longer accepted, but as I no longer follow athletics I can't be sure.

Thanks, John -- I had no clue about these human pacemakers.

I believe it’s fine to have a pacesetter for records, but they must start the race with the competitors (the longer you race, the harder it is to set a pace for an elite competitor).

Fun fact: it’s rare, but sometimes the pace setter wins, when the other runners decide it’s not worth it to match their pace.

Btw: I believe Bannister had two pace setters in his four minute mile.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

It's still difficult to cheat in major tournaments, so we are ok on that front.

Online tournaments have become a lot less appealing, but I guess that's how things are now.

_________________
be immersed

A way to test: look at similar problems from old issues pre-strong-bot and see how much they are in agreement.


About pacemakers, Paula Radcliffe ran the 2003 London marathon in a still unbettered 2h15m25s with the help of male pacemakers.

FWIW, dog races have pacemakers. Mechanical ones, OC.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

If I showed you an SGF with Player A vs Player B and you found the moves fascinating, would your enjoyment then be diminished if I revealed that one or both players was silicon-based? If yes, what is your rationale, if any?

Online go is a modern variant of a 2,500 year old game. It brings convenience in finding opponents of a similar level, in finding opponents at a time convenient to me, and in providing a digital board at times where I am not near a physical one.

But it is not necessary.

This progress has soured none of the ultimate appeal of Go to me, and that appeal is what is happening when I sit down at an empty board across from another human and place the first stone.

I'm largely over my AI depression, but I must still maintain that I get more enjoyment in seeing games played by people I know.

The reason is because, in go, a move is not just a move. When I sit down at the board and play Q16, it's not just a coordinate. If I've been slacking in study, and haven't been into go lately, then there isn't much more to the move - I just played on 4-4 - so what?

But when I've been diligent in my study, having played game after game every week, having sat down with a go book to do go problems during my commute every day of the workweek, when I've been replaying games that pros have been played, and have been reviewing my own; when I just spent an hour and a half last Tuesday on a problem because I didn't want to give up on it... Then Q16 isn't just Q16. Q16 is an encapsulation of that effort, of that study, of that focus, of that diligence, of that getting up at 5 o'clock in the frickin' morning to work on this game of putting stones on the board.

There's a lot of meaning there - not just a coordinate. And I respect that, and enjoy the feeling of watching someone I know play a game live. There's some sort of personal connection there - some sort of respect and understanding of the effort they've put forward to be playing at this level that they're at.

On the other side of the coin, there's AlphaGo and LZ and Elf... When these computer programs play Q16, it's not just Q16 for them either - it wouldn't be fair to say that it was. Their Q16 is the result of their own training - neural nets and reinforcement learning or whatever, where the computer played against itself millions of times. That's cool.

But I RESPECT the human who put for the effort toward go and defied natural instinct to get more sleep or go to a party or do whatever else they find relaxing, because of their love of the game. This manifestation of human spirit is admirable. A piece of hardware, on the other hand, didn't have much say in the matter. It just did what we told it. Nothing to respect really - we can just learn from its moves.

That's my take, at least.

_________________
be immersed

In bicycle stage racing most teams with elite sprinters have team members who lead them out for the final sprint, allowing the elite sprinter to be able to draft on the lead out rider and also have a pace maker.

I'm still a bit under the shock. Suddenly all changed and in a way I never expected. I play these computers masters with respect for their strength... and their disponibility too! I have a 7d home when I want.
There is something very positive in the new knowledge. Soon I will have to burn my 300 books with their old pattern. I see these 6d and these 20k using and abusing the early san-san new patterns ( with a remaining little smile on my face)
Same time I'm still lost, I miss that feeling I have when playing against ( or better with) someone and his personality.

These AI who play so high, play so cold.

Furthermore they interfere in our dreams, they downgrade the esteem we put in a high quality go.

I'm an idealistic I behave as if people are trustable even if I get wrong sometimes. AI will not improve this side for sure. I know I m being introduced in the cheaters world; and I will have to endure it if I still want to enjoy playing human on the net.

As the OP said "I could give up go because of cheating" is not a small point:
In fact the work on our personality and the communication with your partner could be the most important source of happiness hidden behind the wish to play at best.

It's a big revolution with its give and take, I could have lived without it and I have to integrate it by now.

The question of future still remains we are safe till now because we haven't yet discovered any simplification of the way to play. The day that happen we will burn our goban and hopefully find something more interesting to play.

And don't tell me that will never happen because you know I never ever thought that an AI with no human knowledge of go will ever existed and be world master.

I would be very interested to see how the opinion of Go players who have never really "got into" Shogi, Chess, Xiangqi etc to the same level of Go, compare to those who already were pretty proficient in another board game before coming across Go.

My background was chess, and to great irony I encountered Go when starting to work on an AI and wanting something "easier than chess to start with" - this soon was given up in favour of just playing Go, but even back then Kasparov had been notably beaten by AI and progressions since then meant everyone already had a super GM chess player on their laptop. The idea that no matter how good I ever became at chess, it was always going to be nothing compared to my silicon analysis buddy was never a problem to me, because I really never knew any different.

Perhaps we could all take some inspiration from how the professionals have reacted to the surge in AI brilliance on their territory. I rewatched AlphaGo last night, and I was very moved by Lee Sedol's reactions in the post matches - he started being convinced of an easy win, yet after the first game was clearly in shock. After game two (and that magic 5th line shoulder hit), he not only felt that the computer was perhaps more clinically strong but actually had a deeper understanding of the game, and then game three he just got fairly solidly beaten to already have a guaranteed overall match loss at 3-0 down. It was heartbreaking seeing the guy feeling like he'd somehow let not only himself down but the entire human race. Despite that he picked himself back up, pulled off a magical 4th game win (and probably the last we'll ever see against a top AI on good hardware by a human), and despite losing the 5th game had clearly not only dealt with what was clearly a really depressed feeling about the future of Go, but was already really excited about learning more about the fundamental nature of Go from working with AlphaGo or its descendents.

We've already seen a number of professional games clearly enormously influenced by LZ, and obviously it's been acknowledged as being used as a tool by top level players. I think this is a hugely exciting time for Go generally, the chance to question what we thought we knew in the pursuit of even greater understanding, shown to us by players of a level that will always be out of reach. It doesn't in any way detract from the dedication, effort and skill shown by the World's best when they sit down across the board from each other, it just provides them with some form of tool to be even better the next time they meet.

Can LZ be used to cheat in tournaments? Absolutely, but as Ed says, this has been a chess thing for decades - do we need to consider similar monitoring practices in real life tournaments, even at top levels? Probably, and I dare say there will be a bunch of scandals as people get caught, but I don't believe it takes away from the fundamental nature of Go, its beauty, or its value as an art, a sport and a game.

NB: From a personal perspective, I'm far more concerned with the damage neural network AI is doing to one of my other pet hobbies, Texas Hold 'em, where I suspect online play will slowly be killed by computers.

I have no other board background!

You make a fine and well written presentation of what AI brought us in the aspect of refining our shared art, I had those same feelings watching LeeSeDol.

I'm just unhappy if all this progress interfere in the quality of a human Vs human game (see cheating but not only) and if some day it could "solve" it.

Off topic: your "nebulous" rank made my day worthy. Maybe I should steal it for me too.

I thought Go World stopped publication in 2012?

I think he means the Japanese version which still exists.