Ke Jie 9p lost yesterday to Huang Yunsong 5p (http://www.go4go.net/go/games/sgfview/56666) and Aja Huang made the following interesting comment on facebook with a link to an article on the game http://new.eweiqi.com/portal.php?mod=view&aid=27246.



From the garbled machine translations I get the impression Ke Jie's approach of 11 at the top left was a bad move (and white 12 hanging connection a good one) and gave him a bad game, but that he may have played this move based on rumours that AlphaGo likes this move, but then Aja says this rumour was incorrect information. Can anyone fluent in Chinese shed some light on this please?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bm11 Ke Jie (black) vs Huang Yunsong
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . 2 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . X O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Whatever the specifics here, it is clear that some pros are trying out new moves based on AlphaGo's play. That tells me that they probably think AlphaGo is the strongest player around, because it has long been normal for pros to ape moves by those they regard as their betters. You can call it following fashion. It's more likely a desperate keenness to try and get an edge.

The curious thing about this process is that they clearly do it without understanding the new moves. It's clearly a suck-it-and see approach.

I mentioned recently that I saw evidence, when transcribing 1920s games for the GoGoD database, that the Shin Fuseki of the 1930s had been prefigured in the 1920s. One element of that was a probe contact play facing the centre. I found them very strange but there was a rash of them, accompanied by an unusually high number of early contact plays of other types. The following game shows several examples. It is not that each such move is strange, but the high frequency of them in this game and others of the same period (the type of fuseki shown here was also of unusually high frequency).



The relevant contact plays are moves 23, 28, 59, 70 (especially) and 86.

In those days the typical commentary was not done by a go journalist but by both players. Both White and Black condemned one of their moves as "very bad" (59 and 70). It seems odd that each should play such a "very bad" move in a two-day game where time was not a factor.

It seems the urge to experiment or explore was stronger than normal go sense. That may be what is also going on at the moment.

I'm not sure if Ke Jie play this because of AlphaGo's influence, may be he's trying his own new sequence?

Just because they are inspired by another player doesn't necessarily mean they think that the other player is stronger than they are.

Just because they lost one game doesn't mean they don't understand what they're playing.

I find that some people often make pretentious comments based on many logically flawed assumptions.

But what I can say is two things:

1. I just rewatched Ke Jie's commentary for the Lee Sedol-AlphaGo games again, recently, and in one of the games, Ke Jie clearly said that even if it's proven that AlphaGo's moves are better, professionals won't necessarily play them because they have to understand why the move works themselves.

So if he decides to try out an "AlphaGo move", it would still have been based on a lot of research, until he feels he understands it.

2. I don't remember when exactly, but I remember watching a short interview a month or two ago (so well after the AlphaGo matches, with enough time for the pros to do thorough analyses and learn more about AlphaGo) where the interviewer said that Shi Yue claims he has a 50% chance against AlphaGo v18, and asked Chang Hao what he thought, to which Chang Hao answered he thinks Shi Yue is probably correct.

Of course some pros probably think that AlphaGo is the strongest player now. But certainly not all the top pros think that way. Whether it's because they still don't understand AI or how bots work well enough, clearly some still think they have a good chance against AlphaGo after the Lee Sedol matches.

Some pros may think that way, but I'm fairly confident now that they're mistaken - they probably don't understand Deep Learning. It's simply the same attitude that Lee Sedol had after seeing the Fan Hui games. He assessed AlphaGo's strength based on a handful of game records, and suddenly had confidence. And we can see how that worked out

_________________
be immersed

Uberdude, I think your understanding is right on. It appears that Ke Jie thought was a move in one of the self-playing games by AlphaGo. Interestingly the Chinese article says 局后黄云嵩说曾经看到过黑11的下法，但自己觉得走到12白棋局面还可以(After the game Huang Yunsong said he had seen this move before and believed was a good enough response.). So seems to me there must be some AlphaGo self-playing game video out there that has this move and Ke Jie, maybe also Huang Yunsong had seen it.

The article went on to say Ke Jie, Huang Yunsong and Lian Xiao had long discussions about move 11 after the game, and Ke Jie joked "maybe one should't imitate blindly".

In general, I think that Ke Jie and other pros that copy AlphaGo are taking the wrong approach. It's good to be inspired by ideas that AlphaGo gives, but fundamentally, AlphaGo plays the game in a different way than humans do.

One of the examples I see so often in pro games is the bad exchange here:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . X . X , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Prior to AlphaGo, many pros would simply say that this move is bad. Besides being aji keshi and a waste of a ko threat, it greatly reduces the threat of a play at 'a' later by black. Locally, this exchange is bad.

I still believe that, locally, the exchange is bad.

More insight into this position can be found from Fan Hui's presentation during the European Go Congress:


From this presentation, Fan Hui explains to us that, not only does AlphaGo think that the exchange was good, AlphaGo thought that white's move was bad:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . X . X , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

So what does this mean? Is AlphaGo correct? Is this old joseki flawed? I believe the answer is no.

Following Fan Hui's presentation further, we see that AlphaGo had a plan for its idea of an "ideal" fuseki:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$c
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . O . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . O X O O X O X . , . . . X . X . O . |
$$ | . X X . X O . X . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . X . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . X X X . X . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . X O O . O O . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . X X O . . . . . , . . X . X X O . . |
$$ | . X O . . O . X . . . . . X O O O . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Now, if AlphaGo is correct, it very well may be that this board is even for both sides. But what about the bottom right corner?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . X . X X O C C |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O O O C C |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C C C |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C C C |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

White has something like 10 points of territory, but I would totally bet that black's influence is worth more than that.

So what has happened here?

AlphaGo sees its ideal way of how the fuseki will play out, and is willing to play locally inferior plays in order to get the globally ideal result.

This isn't something that we only see in the opening. As we saw even from Game 1 against Lee Sedol, AlphaGo is winning to play point losing moves locally, as long as it increases its confidence that it will be ahead at the end of the game.

Humans don't play this way. In the late middle game, for example, humans are not able to see the end board position. They can't iterate over all possibilities. As a result, pros count point values and aim to maximize profit around the board. Concepts like sente, reverse-sente, and gote are taken into account and even factored into calculation.

But in general, since humans cannot see the final board position, you don't see the point-losing moves that AlphaGo plays. It would be too risky for a human to do that - maybe their point-losing move could cost them the game.

--

So from this, I conclude that humans can be inspired by AlphaGo, but we must remember that AlphaGo doesn't play the same way as humans do. AlphaGo is willing to play point-losing moves in the opening, middle game, and endgame, provided that it is able to increase its confidence in success. Sometimes AlphaGo will play aji-keshi to simplify the board and ensure that it gets a decent result.

But what we've seen from pros is some sort of copying of AlphaGo's moves. While this is interesting, I don't think it's a good idea: It's not the particular moves that AlphaGo plays that makes it powerful; it's it's powerful global evaluation ability, which can read a globally ideal sequence, and is willing to play locally inferior moves in order to have more confidence in its success.

_________________
be immersed

Speak for yourself.



I think that you are conflating two things: 1) Whole board play vs. local play; 2) Plays that increase the so-called "probability" of winning, as per relatively weak playouts. Humans -- some of us, anyway --, will definitely take a local loss to take a whole board gain. We do not, as a rule, take a local loss to increase our chance of winning by stupid play -- unless we are desperate or wish to win by trickery.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I disagree, Bill. The first example I gave is clearly an example of where AlphaGo evaluated the entire fuseki, but played a locally bad play.

Humans do utilize local heuristics that AlphaGo might not use. Joseki is a good example. Pros analyze what exchanges are good or bad, because it's a way of simplifying the game. They can't read out as far, so they use these heuristics. AlphaGo doesn't play that way. AlphaGo is willing to play aji-keshi and other moves that pros wouldn't think of, because it has confidence in its readout.

Take a few minutes to listen to Fan Hui's talk. I think it's clear from his discussion that AlphaGo's method of analysis is different from that of humans.

_________________
be immersed

Also, this may be the case, but perhaps humans don't always do this. Otherwise, it's not consistent with all the pros we see stealing these AlphaGo moves in situations where they are not called for.

According to wolfking, even Ke Jie said he shouldn't have blindly imitated the move from this thread.

Clearly, he didn't do the same type of analysis as AlphaGo did, and was interested in just the move itself.

_________________
be immersed

And FWIW, Hajin Lee also described a difference between AlphaGo's play vs. professional play. She also indicated that human pros often aim to maximize their profit (make sure they get good exchanges, etc.), whereas AlphaGo could have confidence in just being a 1/2 point ahead.

_________________
be immersed

I guess the only point I am really trying to make is this: It is not useful to copy individual moves that AlphaGo makes. Maybe you can be inspired and come up with some new ideas, but AlphaGo wasn't designed to invent new joseki - it was designed to win games, and the moves it plays are specific to the evaluation for that particular game.

Analyzing joseki, good and bad exchanges, etc., are still tasks for humans to undertake, since they're tools that we use for our way of playing the game.

_________________
be immersed

To me, it's not so obvious that is a bad move. Even less obvious is how white somehow punishes black and leads to a superior result for white. I think the game is still playable for both here. certainly isn't as crazy a move as the moves John was referring to.

And it was not obvious to Ke Jie either The article did not say if they reached a definitive conclusion about this . But even if it was unfavorable for black, I would imagine it was not "obvious" judging by a) Ke Jie played it, and b) they had a lengthy discussion afterwards.

Thanks captain english.

And the following conversation between Jennie Shen 2p and Aja Huang in the same post...


It sounded to me like the reporter was quoting out of context some joke response or word play?

But I too am only relying on machine translation.

Here is an argument that is not so good.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wcm8 Different sequence
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 5 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . 4 3 . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Suppose that had been the slide in the top right instead of (I suppose) the 3-3 invasion, and that had approached the top left corner. So far, so good. Now suppose that had played on the 3-3. In this position is clearly a bad play, gaining almost nothing while strengthening White. Even if is inferior to, say, responding in the top left, it's not that much inferior, is it?

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I agree with Bill's analysis that looks a bit weird with in place. Given the different order of moves, I was going to ask, why would you ever leave as it is? After all, continuing can be sente, and black can still play the approach on the left:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 4 2 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . X O 3 . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

After thinking about it more, I'm thinking that the reasoning at the time must have been a probe. For example, black doesn't have to block that way. He could do this way:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 O 2 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 3 X O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 7 5 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Which is quite common, too... So my thinking is that Ke Jie must have been intending to probe the top left. After the opponent responded, he could decide which way to continue in the top right.

But of course, white's move in the game prevented either of these options:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . X O . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

I like the idea of probing, but since white has this response, perhaps it's bad timing?

_________________
be immersed

Indeed the approach looks like a probe: if white answers with the knight's move then black may block the right to take sente instead of separating as the top side is now less valuable. I found one pro game with this approach and that's what happened: http://ps.waltheri.net/database/game/61578/.

I'd assume that any evaluation of this position would want to include the fact that B has played an extra stone? If we consider 10 points to be the price of sente, then one would hope that B's influence is worth at least 20 points.

In fact, willingness to take a locally inferior result in order to get a better global result is implied in any tenuki until you get to completely settled positions late in the game. I'd consider this a perfectly human way to play...I don't happen to have a joseki book handy, but I wouldn't be surprised if this position was straight out of one.