Life In 19x19
http://lifein19x19.com/

Are pros being underestimated?
http://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=18864		 Page 3 of 3
Author:  Gomoto [ Thu Nov 17, 2022 9:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Are pros being underestimated?
Aren't we flogging a dead horse?

I would like to encourage everybody to use their cone cells in addition to their rod cells when contemplating about this topic.

;-)
Author:  Kirby [ Thu Nov 17, 2022 4:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Are pros being underestimated?
I am surprised that there is so much discussion on this topic. An AI is just an entity that knows how to play good moves. It can provide sequences an evaluations. It doesn't offer explanations.

This is not that different from pro games in the pre-AI era, which didn't have commentary: amateurs can see examples of high level play, even if there isn't an explanation.

When you have a strong player available to give explanations and context beyond the moves, of course that can be helpful.

Nothing complicated here...
Author:  CDavis7M [ Fri Nov 18, 2022 10:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Are pros being underestimated?
If there's still a horse to flog then the job's not finished. :rambo:

Anyway, reading my comment again I could have been more clear. I'm not just talking about a comparison between AI analysis and pro analysis, what seems to have changed is the perspective from which commentary is given. It feels bad (to me) for a pro move to be labeled as a "mistake" instead of commending their opponent on a skillful parry or reposte. I think this perspective leads to terse and less informative commentaries. And I think this perspective has taken over a bit with the rise of AI.

In my mind, it's not the "mistake" that lost points, it's the next alternative play that gained points (or an advantage from which to gain points). In plenty of situations, especially in my own games, the best move to play in that context, is a mistake (according to better players, if made against such players). Of course, the context of a pro game is much closer to the context of an AI game. But it's definitely not the same context.

I have a preference for commentaries given from the perspective of how a player can take initiative over commentary labeling moves as mistakes. That's all.
Author:  Kirby [ Fri Nov 18, 2022 6:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Are pros being underestimated?
CDavis7M wrote:
If there's still a horse to flog then the job's not finished. :rambo:

Anyway, reading my comment again I could have been more clear. I'm not just talking about a comparison between AI analysis and pro analysis, what seems to have changed is the perspective from which commentary is given. It feels bad (to me) for a pro move to be labeled as a "mistake" instead of commending their opponent on a skillful parry or reposte. I think this perspective leads to terse and less informative commentaries. And I think this perspective has taken over a bit with the rise of AI.


I agree. Though, I would argue that some amateurs did this in pre-AI times, saying things like, "Your move is a mistake, because I saw this sequence in a pro game" - despite not understanding the reasons *why* a pro played a particular way, and without giving credit to the opponent for their response. Trick plays come to mind, though, there might be a difference in nuance.

It's just that now, some pros are apparently doing it, too, in their own commentaries :-)
Author:  John Fairbairn [ Sat Nov 19, 2022 4:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Are pros being underestimated?
I think there is an important aspect that is being largely overlooked, and that alone justifies any equine necrophilia. I think it is encapsulated in the phrase by CDavis "shift in perspective." I'd be more brutal and call it "dumbing down."

It is not a simple pro vs am or pre-AI vs post-AI issue. It is a matter of how much weight is given to each side of each dichotomy.

To restore some perspective, let us look at these two dichotomies. First, go back a wee while in the field of go commentaries. There was a time almost the only way to see a game commented was to buy something like Go World, and the comments were almost invariably by a pro, either directly or through the intermediary of a journalist. But even though they were by pros, these commentaries were far from perfect. To list just some of the faults:

1. The commentary could be too brief, as in Shusai's "121 was good".

2. The commentator would tell us "Black could have played the joseki as in Diagram 1." This sort of comment used to infuriate me. I wanted to know what was going on in this game, not some imaginary game.

3. The pros could be wrong. I have produced lots of books based on multiple prop commentaries - as many as 30 for some games. In such cases you find many instances where pros just plain disagree, even to the extent of "brilliant" against "incomprehensible" or "the losing move" versus "the game is no close." So, somebody somewhere had to be wrong. Related to this are the many more cases where one pro thought a move was worth talking about and yet others ignored it completely.

But what we usefully got from such commentaries was sense of what was happening in the game and (if I may go back to my previous point about "how" and "why") we learned how to looks at a game holistically.

Now the pre-AI vs post-AI distinction. Instant notification of errors is nothing new. We have games like tennis where a decision is made after every rally. We see a player make an unforced error and even if we don't play tennis ourselves, we don't need a Deep Bonk program to tell us that he made a mistake. Furthermore, if we just had a human commentator on tv telling us repeatedly that the players were making such mistakes, we would soon switch off. What we want is someone like John McEnroe telling us why these mistakes are made and why they matter, and how the player can recover. Mutatis mutandis in many sports we've watched for decades before computers were even invented.

Looking at an AI flow chart of a go game just tells us the equivalent of how often a tennis ball is put in the net or out of court. Actually, in a sense it tells us less, because an AI score is just a statistical snapshot, and could prove to be wrong. Furthermore, the alleged mistakes are not 100% errors like a netted ball or a missed throw. In go, they are degrees of error, and again subject to statistical noise. So, if we don't want to listen to amateur tennis commentators prattle on about undoubted mistakes, why would we want to listen to amateur go commentators prattle on about possible mistakes?

Note that I am not saying that bots are not interesting, and I agree potentially useful for those who want to review their own games. And they have already given even pros food for thought. And so on.

But what I think CDavis is talking about is a fast-growing trend for amateurs to produce video commentaries which are the equivalent of "oh he hit the ball in the net, oh he hit that too hard, oh he dropped his racket." To the bling bling of AI they are adding the bling bling of making your own videos. This is by no means limited to go or even games. It's the modern version of expecting relatives and friends to watch your home movies of your latest holiday and pretending you know a lot about France because you had a croissant on the Champs-Elysées.
Author:  gowan [ Sat Nov 19, 2022 3:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Are pros being underestimated?
It isn't fair to condemn pro commentary with a broad brush; there are many good pro commentaries. Unfortunately most commentaries are too short, possibly due to space restrictions imposed by the editor or publisher. Other sports also have ineffective commentators. When I watch American baseball on TV often the color commentator has little to say other than describing what just happened on the field with nothing addition to what we just watched. For example, "Batter hit a ground ball and Second Baseman scooped it up for an easy out". Such commentary could be helpful to visually impaired enthusiast otherwise ... Go commentaries tell us what the commentator thinks what a move means, not what the absolutely correct and deep meaning is.
Author:  Gomoto [ Sat Nov 19, 2022 3:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Are pros being underestimated?
Yes, luckily we dont have to watch those videos.
Author:  pwaldron [ Sat Nov 19, 2022 5:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Are pros being underestimated?
CDavis7M wrote:
It feels bad (to me) for a pro move to be labeled as a "mistake" instead of commending their opponent on a skillful parry or reposte.


Mistakes exist whether or not an opponent parries correctly. If I make an unreasonable invasion but my opponent fails to punish it, that's two mistakes. Ideally we want commentary relative to perfect play--even if perfect play is unachievable.
Author:  Elom0 [ Sun Nov 20, 2022 9:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Are pros being underestimated?
I can't even figure out how to use AI engines. Tech stuff just goes over my head sadly. I do very much appreciate the relative objectivity that AI has given us in terms of evaluating who's winning, but everything else pros should focus on, right? The pros should not see themselves as arbiters passing judgement over which moves are right or wrong but rather as beings guiding the lowly mortal folk in understanding the implications of each move, and if it's pop pro commentary for a TV audience ideally in an entertaining and relatable way.

https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=15927　I was really hoping for KataGo's opinion specifically on moves 117 119, but I only got winrate graphs. I'm very grateful for the replies but the fact that only Uberdude gave the move-by-move winrate and not up to 119 is a sign of how things are. I don't know how to analyse it with KataGo myself.
Author:  Mike Novack [ Sun Nov 20, 2022 11:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Are pros being underestimated?
pwaldron wrote:
CDavis7M wrote:
It feels bad (to me) for a pro move to be labeled as a "mistake" instead of commending their opponent on a skillful parry or reposte.


Mistakes exist whether or not an opponent parries correctly. If I make an unreasonable invasion but my opponent fails to punish it, that's two mistakes. Ideally we want commentary relative to perfect play--even if perfect play is unachievable.


Ah, but in a real game between humans:
a) The invading player is behind, and will lose with perfect play on both sides (the AI thinks this invasion is the worser of evils
b) The correct refutation is very non-obvious, even strange looking. Might be found with a lit of reading time, but..
c) The invaded player is in time trouble, does not have much time to read.
Author:  pwaldron [ Sun Nov 20, 2022 12:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Are pros being underestimated?
Mike Novack wrote:
[
Ah, but in a real game between humans:
a) The invading player is behind, and will lose with perfect play on both sides (the AI thinks this invasion is the worser of evils
b) The correct refutation is very non-obvious, even strange looking. Might be found with a lit of reading time, but..
c) The invaded player is in time trouble, does not have much time to read.


Quite so. And what would we expect a commentary on such a game to look like, assuming that an AI has identified some other line of play as significantly better?

I would expect to see something like "Black is behind and will lose with normal play. The invasion is probably a mistake--(other line of play) has better chances--but the invasion creates complications and throws the game into confusion. White will have to play carefully."

The invasion remains a mistake, but there are certainly nuances that a commentary can layer on top.
Author:  Kirby [ Mon Nov 21, 2022 6:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Are pros being underestimated?
John Fairbairn wrote:
But what I think CDavis is talking about is a fast-growing trend for amateurs to produce video commentaries which are the equivalent of "oh he hit the ball in the net, oh he hit that too hard, oh he dropped his racket." To the bling bling of AI they are adding the bling bling of making your own videos. This is by no means limited to go or even games. It's the modern version of expecting relatives and friends to watch your home movies of your latest holiday and pretending you know a lot about France because you had a croissant on the Champs-Elysées.


Agree. Open source AI has made it a lot easier for amateurs to do this.
Author:  Elom0 [ Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Are pros being underestimated?
Kirby wrote:
John Fairbairn wrote:
But what I think CDavis is talking about is a fast-growing trend for amateurs to produce video commentaries which are the equivalent of "oh he hit the ball in the net, oh he hit that too hard, oh he dropped his racket." To the bling bling of AI they are adding the bling bling of making your own videos. This is by no means limited to go or even games. It's the modern version of expecting relatives and friends to watch your home movies of your latest holiday and pretending you know a lot about France because you had a croissant on the Champs-Elysées.


Agree. Open source AI has made it a lot easier for amateurs to do this.


However it does mean that it showcases the amateurs that are more philosophical about it.
Author:  Gomoto [ Thu Dec 01, 2022 5:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Are pros being underestimated?
Takemiya video: Best Selection of Cosmic (v.s. Cho Chikun 9p)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-mC7AKWXA8
Page 3 of 3 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/