Debunking Michael Redmond's Positional Judgement

Charles Matthews · **#41**

RobertJasiek wrote:

Charles Matthews wrote:

You, personally, were not the intended audience. So in our multi-channel world it is assumed you switch off, if the choice of topics is not to your taste.

Then for whom were the dan level comments by Redmond?

Perhaps for the majority of the population of the world who would be interested to hear a little of the more advanced theory of go, without having a long lecture.

The format for live events is set up that way, after all. It is a "double act", and Garlock was for obvious reasons less practiced in his role. Redmond may have had to do a bit more of the deflection onto accessible ground than you'd see on Japanese or Korean TV.

Here's a thing about communication: there are anti-patterns, as in go.

gowan · **#42**

In televised "real time" commentaries and public lecture/commentary in Japan they usually have a lower level pro "assisting" the main commentator. In that format the assistant easily understands what the main commentator says and can help the weaker players in the audience understand. With the assistant being an amateur player, more falls to the pro to moderate the commentary.

wineandgolover · **#43**

wineandgolover wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:

Knotwilg wrote:

I thought the best part of your post was "Cho Chikun and me". That's an instant classic.

You sound ironic but, if so, you miss the point. I mention Cho because he is the predecessor of my very much more worked out theory of territorial positional judgement...

Whoosh! Still funny. You mentioned irony, but it doesn't seem you really grasped it.

RobertJasiek wrote:

You have put part of my text in bold font. Please tell me what you want to express by this. (I know that Cho is 9p, but this is not the point.)

To emphasize the irony.

Bill Spight · **#44**

RobertJasiek wrote:

Charles Matthews wrote:

You, personally, were not the intended audience. So in our multi-channel world it is assumed you switch off, if the choice of topics is not to your taste.

Then for whom were the dan level comments by Redmond?

Dan level comments? For an English speaking audience watching the DeepMind channel?

Bill Spight · **#45**

RobertJasiek wrote:

Knotwilg wrote:

I thought the best part of your post was "Cho Chikun and me". That's an instant classic.

You sound ironic but, if so, you miss the point. I mention Cho because he is the predecessor of my very much more worked out theory of territorial positional judgement during the opening and middle game

The ideas in Cho's book in English did not originate with him. They were familiar to me from the Japanese literature.

Knotwilg · **#46**

I suspect Michael Redmond will score his own commentary series' "subjective aim's achievement" with a mild "-" after reading this.

RobertJasiek · **#47**

Bill Spight wrote:

The ideas in Cho's book in English did not originate with him. They were familiar to me from the Japanese literature.

Was there more stated as theory about the theory of reductions to the minimum and what?

mhlepore · **#48**

deleted - felt bad piling on...

Bill Spight · **#49**

RobertJasiek wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

The ideas in Cho's book in English did not originate with him. They were familiar to me from the Japanese literature.

Was there more stated as theory about the theory of reductions to the minimum and what?

What I had read was aimed at kyu players, as is Cho's book. I think that John Fairbairn is more familiar with the advanced literature.

That said, I have Ishida's How large is this play? (Kono te, nanmoku?) which is aimed at Japanese shodans and 2 dans who wish to break through to 3 dan. (OC, Japanese 3 dan now is equivalent to Japanese shodan in my day.

) Unfortunately, it echoes the traditional undervaluation of early plays.

RobertJasiek · **#50**

uPWarrior wrote:

"Another topic where the words Positional Judgment are used so that [...]

[Dubious suggestion at the end of your sentence removed.]

"positional judgement" is a term with a well-understood meaning: the part of go theory for assessing positions. For example, "analysis" would be a less-specific, ambiguous word, which is used in various contexts of go theory; one can also analyse strategy, tactics, psychology or time management (which are the other major fields of go skill). Only the word "judgement" is another example of a less specific, ambiguous word. I use the term "positional judgement" when I mean positional judgement and do not mean other kinds of analysis or judgement.

In the thread title, I indicate that I criticise Redmond's positional judgement, i.e., I do not necessarily criticise his other forms of analysis or judgement.

You criticise me for using the phrase. Instead you might appreciate my choice of the term to restrict my criticism to what I want to criticise instead of expanding my criticism unduely by too ambiguous language.

topazg · **#51**

RobertJasiek wrote:

... In the thread title, I indicate that I criticise Redmond's positional judgement, i.e., I do not necessarily criticise his other forms of analysis or judgement..

Your basis for the criticism however is on his stream of a game, rather than his actual positional judgement skills, which you haven't had the opportunity to see in enough detail to criticise. It seemed unnecessarily disingenuous to me, which is the biggest basis for my participation in this thread.

RobertJasiek · **#52**

He made enough "cannot judge" comments etc. in positions, which I could have judged in a live commentary, to know that his PJ is unimpressive.

bayu · **#53**

English is not my mother tongue, but I find the thread title quite condescending (If somebody else posted a thread with a this exact title, Redmond replaced with RJ, I'd expect a furious reaction. But that's speculation). Putting oneself on the same level as Cho doesn't help neither. Both are sure fire methods for losing sympathy and selling less books. Unforced errors DDK-style in marketing. [sarcasm sign waving] don't forget to mention Go Seigen in your next post. [sarcasm sign not waving anymore]

I don't know whether I should be glad or sad that the original post triggered a reply by JF.

A live tv show by Redmond done for entertainment purposes is definitively not the way forward to discussing positional judgement skills. Find one of Redmond's games where his positional judgement is off. That might lead to an interesting discussion.

Charles Matthews · **#54**

RobertJasiek wrote:

He made enough "cannot judge" comments etc. in positions, which I could have judged in a live commentary, to know that his PJ is unimpressive.

Extraordinary.

RobertJasiek · **#55**

bayu, you speak about putting myself on the same level as Cho Chikun. I do not. He is one of the most successful players of the 20th century while I am an amateur 5d. His, among us known, contribution to the theory of territorial positional judgement is mostly restricted to its core idea while my contribution is to have worked out the theory a lot. He is the successful player while I am the successful theoretician. I have first mentioned him in this thread out of fairness to mention my source for the part of the theory that I have not developed myself; such is a standard for avoiding plagiarism.

Is takes you seconds to request from me a study of a Redmond game. Writing, editing and posting such a study would take me ca. 7 hours. I have spent 15+ hours on doing this for the AlphaGo - Fan Hui games. You can find much related study material from me elsewhere. So I need not prove again my skill in making positional judgements.

What would be my reaction if people criticised my play or the contents of my commentaries? I would love it because I might learn a lot. Please help me to find my mistakes! Your Meta-discussion, however, does not improve my play.

I do not wish to discuss off-topic parts of your message.

Knotwilg · **#56**

RobertJasiek wrote:

What would be my reaction if people criticised my play or the contents of my commentaries? I would love it because I might learn a lot.

Your reaction to anyone criticizing the tone of your message here, however, has always been defending your position in complete isolation. You do not wish to learn anything at all and are perfectly happy to be the way you are. And that's fine Robert. It doesn't help your acceptance in the go world but it surely makes for good fun.

Bantari · **#57**

RobertJasiek wrote:

He made enough "cannot judge" comments etc. in positions, which I could have judged in a live commentary, to know that his PJ is unimpressive.

I knew a beginner once who had the uncanny talent for glancing at any given position and immediatly declaring who was ahead. Was really amazing, I tell you!

PS>
Of course, he was not always right...

Bantari · **#58**

RobertJasiek wrote:

Charles Matthews wrote:

you don't understand his style of communication, and intentions as a broadcaster.

Sorry, but you paint a one-sided picture of how Redmond performed during the commentaries. He varied his performance and did some of the following:

- he wanted to do a territorial positional judgement (TPJ) but interrupted himself
- Chris Garlock asked him to do a TPJ but Redmond interrupted himself
- he considered a TPJ but said he was not able to do it
- Chris asked him to do a TPJ but Redmond said he was not able to do it
- he considered a TPJ but said it was too early to do it
- Chris asked him to do a TPJ but Redmond said it was too early to do it
- he performed a TPJ but rounded unnecessarily when the TPJ took much longer than being accurate by 1 or 2 points by spending a few more seconds
- rarely I would call his TPJ beginner-friendly: too much time spent, too much hand waving after spending much time and the audience expecting a more or less accurate count. Instead, it would have been better to immediately declare his opinion on who is ahead and whether the game was close: good enough for beginners, and they cannot become bored by watching him count
- at times, he could not resist calculating fractions while it was unclear exactly what value he was determining; such is beginner-unfriendly

So if something became clear from his style of communication, it is that it was too difficult for him to determine reasonably accurate counts most of the time. Is this something I want to learn from him? No. In such a position, I'd rather see the broadcaster simply admit that TPJ was too difficult and discuss other things he can discuss. More preferably though, I prefer to see broadcasters with good TPJ in such games in which TPJ is essential for the understanding the players' strategies.

I think you are committing a logical fallacy here.

Consider:
Just because I don't call a friend in Germany to drive by your house and egg your window, does not mean that I don't have the skill (or to means) to do it. To conclude that it would be impossible for me to arrange would be a mistake. Want proof?

Back to the topic:
At best, what you can say here is that it is possible that Redmond is a weak commentator. In your personal opinion.

PS>
If you really think your positional judgement is so superior to his, play him a game, see how it goes. Positionaj Judgement (TPJ?) is a rather fundamental concept, and being so much better at it should be a great advantage. You can beat him, for sure!

Bantari · **#59**

John Fairbairn wrote:

I stopped posting here because a certain person did not know when to shut up.

I understand your position perfectly well, feel the same myself.
In my case, however, this person is... me.

RJ can be (and usualyl is) irritating, but this can also be stimulating. Or funny. Or ignored. Depending on your mood.

RobertJasiek · **#60**

Bantari, I would play games against Redmond (or any other professional) but opportunities are infrequent to play some professional player and rare to play him. Although I think that my positional judgement until the micro-endgame is superior, how can you say that this alone would give me good winning chances? Redmond's tactics are superior. I do not know about his level of strategy. Presumably, his blunder rate is lower than mine. So in a game without much tactics and without blunder from me, in a game developing like my win against Ali Jabarin, I might have a chance if furthermore I play almost correct micro-endgame.

Knotwilg, you put everything in one basket: my mistakes as a player on the board and the meta-discussion about how or what to discuss. That I am not convinced by every argument of the meta-discussion says nothing about my learning about my mistakes as a player.

You speak about some topics of meta-discussion. These and several other topics of meta-discussion in this thread I consider off-topic. If I or others would participate (or possibly support me) in clearly off-topic, derailing messages and discussions about me as a person, such might be seen as violation of various paragraphs of the Terms of Service. I do not want to violate them and I think most users would not want, either. So when you perceive an isolated position in off-topic meta-discussion, it may as well be nothing more than a sign that most users abide by the TOS (great!). For similar reasons, I do not want to start a new thread for every topic of meta-discussion.

Debunking Michael Redmond's Positional Judgement

Who is online