Checking Waltheri, Takemiya and Seo Pong-su have each played
in this position. 
| Life In 19x19 http://lifein19x19.com/ |
|
| This is not joseki (4-4 point, double low approach, attach) http://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=16087 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Gomoto [ Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | This is not joseki (4-4 point, double low approach, attach) |
While reviewing one of my games I came to the conclusion this move is not joseki: As always consider tenuki, but if you look for the best local move this is much better usually: |
|
| Author: | Gomoto [ Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: This is not joseki (4-4 point, double low approach, atta |
The bad move is played a lot by pros. As always I challenge you to show me games were the critisized move is indeed the better option. Have fun! |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Wed Sep 19, 2018 5:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: This is not joseki (4-4 point, double low approach, atta |
Checking Waltheri, Takemiya and Seo Pong-su have each played in this position. |
|
| Author: | EdLee [ Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hi Bill/Gomoto, How about Go Seigen ? 
|
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Thu Sep 20, 2018 4:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
EdLee wrote: Hi Bill/Gomoto, How about Go Seigen ? No record, as far as I know. |
|
| Author: | hyperpape [ Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: This is not joseki (4-4 point, double low approach, atta |
Funny, I don't fancy myself better than pros, but the "right" move seems like the obvious one. |
|
| Author: | John Fairbairn [ Sun Sep 23, 2018 2:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: This is not joseki (4-4 point, double low approach, atta |
Gomoto: Agreed that the low crawl is normal among pros, but your statement that it is 200:1 invites query. That implies you have at least 201 pro games with this pattern. Do you really? GoGoD has only 61 (of which 3 are the bend on top). Ed: Yes, GSG played the low crawl (1933-02-21, vs Kitani). |
|
| Author: | EdLee [ Sun Sep 23, 2018 4:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hi John, Thanks. The low crawl felt like Kitani-style. Too bad Go Seigen didn't foresee the engine move in this case. |
|
| Author: | Gomoto [ Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: This is not joseki (4-4 point, double low approach, atta |
(Thanks John, I made a mistake about the 200:1 ratio.) |
|
| Author: | John Fairbairn [ Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: This is not joseki (4-4 point, double low approach, atta |
Picking up where I left off (I had to go out this afternoon): I found the Go Seigen connection interesting, and so ran LZ for 15 minutes on the relevant position. LZ pondered NINE moves in this area (and three elsewhere). 'a' did indeed come out on top but actually with a lower score than other moves with marginally fewer visits. In fact, FIVE moves showed a higher score and for a long time 'd' (the highest scorer) was actually "best". Further, Go's move 'b' was one of the candidates and was bottom, but within 2.5 percentage points of the "best" move. I believe someone (?Bill) said on this forum that any difference up to about 3 percentage points can be disregarded, but in this case we must also remember that it was a no-komi game and Go was Black, so a base-emphasising or territory-emphasising move can be more easily justified. So, as far as I'm concerned Go himself has not been shot down by this exercise, but actually I'm not trying to make any such points: this is just the groundwork for some questions. 1. Is the 3% range sensible - at least to the extent that it's presumably better to play a move you understand rather than a higher scoring but incomprehensible love? 2. There were times when LZ was showing the best (blue) move 'a' with a lower score AND a lower number of visits than 'd'. Is that a possible bug? 3. I have noticed often before that LZ likes to choose what we might call common shape moves such as 'a' as its first candidates (just as we humans might do, of course). Being so common these shape moves are presumably encountered an uncommon number of times when LZ is training itself. It therefore must take extra account of them, at every stage in the tree. Is it possible that this process introduces blind spots in LZ, in a way similar to what happens in humans? Edit: diagram corrected |
|
| Author: | Gomoto [ Sun Sep 23, 2018 10:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: This is not joseki (4-4 point, double low approach, atta |
While I think the position Bill and John showed is very interesting, I proposed this starting position: In this case we are talking about >10% difference in favour for a. |
|
| Author: | Bill Spight [ Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: This is not joseki (4-4 point, double low approach, atta |
John Fairbairn wrote: Picking up where I left off (I had to go out this afternoon): I found the Go Seigen connection interesting, and so ran LZ for 15 minutes on the relevant position. LZ pondered NINE moves in this area (and three elsewhere). 'a' did indeed come out on top but actually with a lower score than other moves with marginally fewer visits. In fact, FIVE moves showed a higher score and for a long time 'd' (the highest scorer) was actually "best". Further, Go's move 'b' was one of the candidates and was bottom, but within 2.5 percentage points of the "best" move. I believe someone (?Bill) said on this forum that any difference up to about 3 percentage points can be disregarded, but in this case we must also remember that it was a no-komi game and Go was Black, so a base-emphasising or territory-emphasising move can be more easily justified. So, as far as I'm concerned Go himself has not been shot down by this exercise, but actually I'm not trying to make any such points: this is just the groundwork for some questions. 1. Is the 3% range sensible - at least to the extent that it's presumably better to play a move you understand rather than a higher scoring but incomprehensible love? Anything I say about this must be taken as tentative. There is not a lot of research about the margin of error of bots' winrate estimates. But I have compared the estimates of Leela Zero at the 200k setting versus the estimates at the 100k setting and found more than occasional differences of 3% or more. A good study would require looking at a few hundred games at least, and, as Uberdude suggested, looking at the variability of estimates at the same setting, as well. (IOW, I ain't gonna do it.  )Quote: 3. I have noticed often before that LZ likes to choose what we might call common shape moves such as 'a' as its first candidates (just as we humans might do, of course). Being so common these shape moves are presumably encountered an uncommon number of times when LZ is training itself. It therefore must take extra account of them, at every stage in the tree. Is it possible that this process introduces blind spots in LZ, in a way similar to what happens in humans? I don't think so. You can't ignore the obvious or the defaults. And training refines these judgements. To take a human example (myself) hane at the head of two stones is the default to consider, but I have learned to recognize some situations where my stones are too weak or the opponent's stones are too strong for that to be effective, and so I do not spend any time consciously reading the hane out. OC, I will sometimes be mistaken, but I can spend time exploring other alternatives. Here is one way I think that blind spots may arise. IIUC, LZ leans toward assuming that ladders work. In self play, it may then avoid a variation that leads to a ladder, even though the ladder does not work. In that case, it never discovers that that ladder does not work, and so continues to assume that ladders work. Or, playing one side, it creates a ladder that actually does not work, but playing the other side, it also assumes that the ladder works, and so does not try to escape. The shared assumption is never tested. |
|
| Author: | John Fairbairn [ Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: This is not joseki (4-4 point, double low approach, atta |
Gomoto: I copied Bill's diagram without noticing it was different, but the rest of my comments stand (and the GSG game was with your variation). Sorry. |
|
| Author: | Uberdude [ Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: This is not joseki (4-4 point, double low approach, atta |
A related shape you may find interesting to study and compare with: Kim Jiseok recently played a pincer (not so common these days!) and following double approach white had the choice to play hane from 3-3 stone but played hane from the 3 outside forcing black to make the rather clumsy empty triangle that I thought people generally didn't like so much (3-3 still has aji and black's shape can end up short of liberties, particularly if white pushes on the outside and black ignores so white can hane). I've seen this new variation in a few pro games recently. |
|
| Author: | Kirby [ Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: This is not joseki (4-4 point, double low approach, atta |
I like white's result in that local variation, Uberdude. I guess Kim Jiseok made things work, but how much of that is due to the joseki, and how much of that is due to being Kim Jiseok? |
|
| Author: | Gomoto [ Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: This is not joseki (4-4 point, double low approach, atta |
Attachment: jos.jpg [ 161.67 KiB | Viewed 8081 times ] (although white should not use the 3-3 variation in the first place, even in this position ELF prefers this hane) |
|
| Author: | Gomoto [ Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: This is not joseki (4-4 point, double low approach, atta |
Choi Jaeyoung 4p - Na Hyun 9p, B+0.5 (Komi 6.5) year 2018 Korean League, round 11, 2018-09-01 another game with the position mentioned by uberdude |
|
| Author: | Uberdude [ Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: This is not joseki (4-4 point, double low approach, atta |
Kirby wrote: I like white's result in that local variation, Uberdude. FWIW Elf thinks it's essentially even (probably Kim studied it with AI, at BIBA I heard Shin Jinseo spent $10k on a gaming PC to run LeelaZero), but as white is keen to attach at L17 (move 19 or 21) to bully black into overconcentration (Elf thinks black should resist with hane once then tenuki to pincer right side and allow cut). Elf says Kim's thick turn at o13 was the first significant mistake (-10%) and wants to j17 instead (obviously this makes white's good move at L17 less effective). I don't have strong feelings either way, though did play this variation as white in a pair go game at BIBA in which we got to hane at o14 which causes severe liberty problems for black but we messed up the move order later and the white group actually died (I had tenukid for grabbing cash based on the power of the hane getting us out of trouble). Kirby wrote: I guess Kim Jiseok made things work, but how much of that is due to the joseki, and how much of that is due to being Kim Jiseok? Kang Dongyun is no schmuck either! (interestingly black won all 3 games of this title match, despite Kim apparently preferring white). Kim's invasion of the right side was the highlight of the game for me. When reviewing I wondered why 98 wasn't connect above and Elf thinks that's a big 35% game switching blunder (but also (with few playouts) it wants to answer k16 because it can't see a ladder even I could find so how much to trust). If connecting above forces black to connect on the 1st line on right that seems preferable to the game because black 105 seems to work (I thought maybe black was going to die on the right but get so many forcing moves from centre to kill white l6 group, but it some variations we looked at black even won the semeai if white tries to cut 105). P.S. Fun fact, Kim's [first I think] child was born on the same day he won this title. |
|
| Author: | Kirby [ Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: This is not joseki (4-4 point, double low approach, atta |
Black just seems so over-concentrated to me. Also, I wasn't trying to imply Kang Dongyun was a "schmuck" - I just like Kim Jiseok. Re: baby - I forgot that Kim Jiseok was so old. He still seems like a little kid to me. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|