It is currently Sun Sep 23, 2018 4:25 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Leela Zero analysis of 'Making good shape' and other boo
Post #61 Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 2:55 pm 
Dies in gote

Posts: 31
Liked others: 49
Was liked: 23
Rank: Euro 1 dan
GD Posts: 7
Here's one more book example, this time from Ishida-Davies 'Attack and Defense', a book that I appreciate very much.

There is a problem quite early in the book, asking which one is better for black, A or B:



This seems quite a difficult problem, at least I did not get it 'right' last time I revisited the book after a couple of years.

Anyway, the book answer is A, intending to demonstrate that in a running fight you should go for the mutual eyespace. Playing B lets white play at A which is given as a vital point.


Leela Zero thinks that the book right answer is 4.5% worse than book wrong answer, and a 7.5% mistake (also compared to the best local move). You can navigate the above diagram for some notes and variations.

I am not taking LZ opinion as gospel, by the way. Indeed, maybe alphago or the next year's LZ would have another verdict. However I have no reason to think that Ishida-Davies know better. LZ strength is evidence, and I think the only evidence, that suggests it may know better.

What I did learn is that no amateur has anything to worry if he has no idea which of the moves is better. The book would be a bit better if it just said that some options in this kind of running fight are A and B, instead of trying to judge them.

(One caveat is the komi, which was I think 5.5 when the book was written. But if the difference between A and B is so subtle that their ordering depends on the komi, then it is certainly high above the pay grade of the book's audience.)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Leela Zero analysis of 'Making good shape' and other boo
Post #62 Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:43 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 8077
Liked others: 1411
Was liked: 1278
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
Quote:
Ponnuki without capturing is impossible. It's what the word means.


Thanks. I used to study Japanese, but funnily enough, I didn't know this. Kind of makes sense.

_________________
it's be happy, not achieve happiness

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Leela Zero analysis of 'Making good shape' and other boo
Post #63 Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 6:19 pm 
Judan

Posts: 7686
Liked others: 2059
Was liked: 2697
Tryss wrote:
Quote:
The position doesn't even have to be all that wacky. IIUC, the more any bot is trained by millions of games of self play, the more it has been trained on high level positions played in its style. How many of those positions are going to be similar to those that I face at move 75? The stronger the bot gets, the less similar its training positions will be to my games, n'est-çe pas?

But these deep neural networks are good at this kind of generalization. Even if you create an unnatural position (but equal and not a 120 moves deep tsumego), it will still play sensible moves.


Yes, but so will I. :)

OC, the nets are good at generalization, but as the bulk of the positions that they generalize becomes narrower (less varied), their generalization won't get better, will it?

_________________
The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Leela Zero analysis of 'Making good shape' and other boo
Post #64 Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 7:14 pm 
Judan

Posts: 7686
Liked others: 2059
Was liked: 2697
zermelo wrote:
Here's one more book example, this time from Ishida-Davies 'Attack and Defense', a book that I appreciate very much.

There is a problem quite early in the book, asking which one is better for black, A or B:



Using my "miai method" of comparing plays, I compared these two diagrams.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc Black A - White B
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . O . . . X X 1 . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , X O . . O , X . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . X O . 3 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O . . . O . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . X . . . . X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . 2 . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Edit: :b3: added later.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc Black B - White A
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . O . . . X X 2 . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , X O . . O , X . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . X O . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O . . . O . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . X . . . . X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . 1 . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


Despite a certain thinness with the keima, I prefer the second diagram. :)

Edit: Hmmm. The existence of a play like :b3: in the first diagram suggests that this is not a good example for my miai method. :(

Out of courtesy I am hiding my further remarks. :)
The book answer, A, follows the heuristic of taking away eye potential on the side for White while improving eye potential on the side for Black. This is important, because Black is not completely secure, either. I think I was a dan player when I learned that. LZ, at the setting used, prefers B, as do I.

Recently in a discussion here Leela Zero or Elf did not prefer the move in a similar fight that took away the opponent's eye potential (base) on the side while making a base for oneself. So maybe that heuristic is not so important. It seems to me that AlphaGo and today's bots do not care as much about making bases (prophylactically) as humans have done.

As for LZ's second choice,

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc Second choice
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . O . . . X X . . O X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , X O . . O , X . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . X O . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . O . . . O . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . X . . . . 1 . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . X . . . . X . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


When I see it, I like it. :)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins


Last edited by Bill Spight on Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Leela Zero analysis of 'Making good shape' and other boo
Post #65 Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2018 3:33 am 
Oza

Posts: 2176
Liked others: 13
Was liked: 3141
The following is part I was transcribing a game this morning. My first impression was that I must have made a mistake somewhere along the line as the moves looked so bad. On one of the previous forums, T Mark and I used to run a series where you had to guess whether the game was by pros or amateurs. This one I would have ranked at kyu level. The shapes (at first) struck me as horrendous, although I realised later it was the suji (the flow of stones) that felt most wrong. Looking at the resulting actual shapes (katachi), yes there were empty triangles etc, but on the whole you could say Black's bad shape cancelled out White's bad shape.

But even then, something felt off, and my next thought was that the two top young Japanese players here had been at the forefront of training with DeepZen - perhaps they were trying to play like an AI bot?



It's a weird game worth looking at anyway, but I took a look with LeelaZero. I was taken aback by the results. There were no 3-3 invasions or shoulder hits but almost every move was in a margin-of-error range that I presume was very acceptable. What I mean by that is the winrate changed by a very modest amount, usually down though not always, within less than a percentage point in most cases. The only moves that showed a big change in the early stages were 49 and 56 (-10% and -11%). These two big mistakes cancelled each other out but the trend was for Black to accumulate more tiny mistakes and he eventually lost.

The impression I have been getting up to now, perhaps wrongly but mainly from myself and others pointing up apparent pro mistakes in problem books, is that pros have been making lots more big mistakes than in this weird game, and we should be more prepared to question their judgement.

So I took a look at some other recent (i.e. AI-influenced) games, and it seems again that pros are getting winrate changes that are being held within a very low range. I certainly did not get that sort of pattern when I looked at some famous Edo period games before.

At best, what I think I have found can only be indicative, but I'm curious to know whether other people have an impression that modern pros have already been able to adopt some AI knowledge/feeling (and, as I've said, outside the usual 3-3/shoulder hit novelty paradigm)?


This post by John Fairbairn was liked by: Bill Spight
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Leela Zero analysis of 'Making good shape' and other boo
Post #66 Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2018 11:55 am 
Judan

Posts: 7686
Liked others: 2059
Was liked: 2697
Yes, I think that you can see the imitation of the bots in this game. Imitation means learning by observation. There is surface, monkey-see-monkey-do imitation, but there is also a deeper, more thoughtful imitation, called programmatic imitation. I think we can see both in this game. :) It would be interesting to see a professional commentary.

I have made a few comments in the sgf file, in an attempt to understand some of what is going on.


_________________
The Adkins Principle:

At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?

— Winona Adkins

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Leela Zero analysis of 'Making good shape' and other boo
Post #67 Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2018 1:31 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 823
Location: Earth
Liked others: 251
Was liked: 135
You can make one eye at the edge? Dont! Run!

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group