Ask a merchant banker. Or a climatologist. Or a deal-maker. Or a trader. Or a ball-breaker poker player. Or His Golden Royal Excellent Empire Duckness, who is all them rolled up into one.

As a human dan player you will sometimes be capable of correctly distinguishing one move as better than another when LZ sees the difference as small as 1%. But other times you won't realise you made 10% mistakes. Your blunders could be 20-30% or even more. Very roughly I'd guess you might make 30 mistakes in a game >= than 5%. Also bear in mind these % mistakes are quite a different scale to number of points loss of the human feeling of how big a mistake is: for example a 1 point mistake in an endgame you were winning by half could be -60%, an unconditional loss of 5 points in a middlegame you are winning by loads just -4%.

See also forum/viewtopic.php?p=240586#p240586 for a 2% mistake ddks shouldn't make.

Seeing as I think saying a 5% mistake is your 30th worst (on % scale) move this game is a fairly intuitive way of understanding how bad it is, I quickly ran one of Pippens's games (https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?p=240856#p240856) though mylizzie which has a nice table to show mistakes over a selectable threshold, Using LZ 157 (so winrate changes generally smaller than more recent 40 block LZ) and mistakes >5% I got the following. That's 32 white mistakes >5%, my guess of 30 was not bad eh .



And for comparison, here's the same thing for the best 2 humans on the planet, Ke Jie vs Park Junghwan's recent game. Not so different (though it was a longer game and it's debatable the meaning of such mistakes in late endgame where doesn't change result, also was only about 1k analysis so LZ 157 could be wrong)! Not so many >20% mistakes though.

So basically it comes down to: fuseki doesn't matter below pro-level play.

And if I am not mistaken then LZ giving White 46.51% and Black 53.49 after the split move K17 means (in theory) that from 1.000 games Black would win ~535 and White would win ~465, so enough chances for White still, right?

None shall Pass. It ain't over 'till the fat lady sings.

Right. For amateurs only the endgame matters.

Edit: Seriously, if we take the fuseki to go up to move 50, the pros made 2 mistakes in the fuseki while the amateurs made 5. I'm not sure if I counted the total number of mistakes correctly, but I think that the number for the amateurs was 64 and the number for the pros was 55. In that case the fuseki accounted for about 4% of the pros' errors but for about 8% of the amateurs' errors.

But if you consider the number of amateur errors that are larger than any of the pro errors, in terms of win rate, the amateurs made 15 or 16 of those, if I counted correctly, and all of them were in the middle game.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:

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

— Winona Adkins

I think it's a great idea to talk during sex, as long as it's about snooker.

— Steve Davis

which suggests two things:
1. Black Knight Pippen can get away with fundamentally illogical fuseki; because unlike King Arthur, her opp will blunder in the middle game and let her off;
2. If there's anywhere that separates the wheat from the chaff, it's the middle game

The second point suggests that it's the middle game that is the phase that deserves most assistance from any AI that can lend a helping hand.

Rbot...
https://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.p ... 28#p240928

... is on the case viewtopic.php?p=240856#p240856

Ilogical? Maybe it's time for a challenge. If I got it correctly this is the worst of my split fusekis, according to LZ:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 3 . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 2 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Let's play 10 games with this setup, usual komi (Chinese 7.5, Japan 6.5), with LZ vs. LZ (with some decent playouts) and see how many times White wins. If it is more or equal to 4, you can't say this fuseki is illogical, if it's 2 or less you can (3 is kind of meh). I'd propose Uberdude as the guy who runs the competition, posting the games here. The price will be to be right. Maybe that's the start of my glory as the inventor of the 21th century "Pippen-Fuseki". *dream*

you are already world-famous, and we will all do everything we can to further glorify your holy name in tablets of stone.

However,

Please accept my apologies, but i'm never going to use the Pippen-Fuseki in my own games.

Isn't it obvious why it isn't a good idea to ignore common sense, which says that 2 open friendly sides are better than one, and that to make yourself the meat in a sandwich is just asking to be eaten?!

But i will munch upon my own Humble Pie if your experiment proves me wrong. As it happens, i am usually wrong, so you are in with a good chance!

i don't care that you are trying to cheat here, claiming that a win rate of 40% is a logical proof!

And Now for the weather forecast... It will be hot today, as the steam from Uberdude's PC adds to all the hot air Pippen produces to set a world record for climate change acceleration and we will all go to Hell in a handbasket sooner than you thought.

This will finish off Mankind once and for all, and "good bloody riddance!" will say all the other species.

And, later, a new intelligence will evolve, that will tell its children about the Great Overheating of the past that melted all the icecaps and evaporated the entire Pacific Ocean, all caused by the Pippen-Fuseki.

Stop Press

omg, it's started already!

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 3 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . 8 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . 2 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

What does LZ suggest here for Black?

This is LZ favorite move, but any other move at a seems ok

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Bc
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . a . . . . . . . X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . a . . . X . . . a . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

The idea is to play this :

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

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

@Tryss: How much worse are a or b compared to what LZ suggests (because both are my favourites, and even Leela 11 like them)?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . a . . |
$$ | . . . 3 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . 8 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . 2 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Isn't a considered too slow and gote these days?

Leela 11 was trained on human play.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:

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

— Winona Adkins

I think it's a great idea to talk during sex, as long as it's about snooker.

— Steve Davis

Sorry Bill, I don't follow you here. I was refering to the 3-3 defense of the corner, which seems gote and slow...but then I am still just a humble little kyu.

Additionally, I think I read in some thread here about comparative efficiency of adding a stone to different areas based on the local balance of power (number of stones per side), which I thought might apply in this position. Thank you in advance for any further insight!

Bill was making the point that Leela 11 is trained on human games from some years ago before the slide and subsequent 3-3 defence lost popularity with the AI revolution, and is thus not playing according to the theory of "these days", but those days.
As for the 3-3 the reason it's not played now isn't so much that it's slow and not because it's gote. It's generally not gote, even these days white will probably answer with the traditional low 2-space extension (or sometimes high one-space if moyo potential on the side, an old idea, or sometimes high 2-space, used to be considered a bad shape but bots seem to like it sometimes), though tenuki and then q15 attachment to make shape when black pincers is another idea depending on the whole board. The point is that exchange probably helps white more than black so black is reluctant to do it. Also black is no longer scared of white playing the 3-3 next, the bots have made us realise that white follow-up is less powerful than we thought so black doesn't need to prevent it. Why? Partly because r17 to s16 is a weak shape (imagine white r17 first and black ignored, white would not s16 as a followup but r16 to be stronger / take liberty / make more territory / help r14 more) so black q16 and o17 aren't so easy to attack (e.g. http://www.alphago-games.com/view/event ... 23/move/17), but even so black might answer r17 (at l17 or k16) and again you wonder was that really a good exchange for white this time or did black gain more in whole board development?

Not much worse. The 3-3 is 2% worse than LZ top choice, while Q13 is 3% worse.

You may say "it's not much", and you're right, but at this point, black has gone down from 46% to 40% in 3 moves.

Damn it. We need new weight files for LZ that doesn't depress me so much.

What Uberdude said,

Also, the 3-3 response to the slide started being omitted in the 1980s, it was much later that it came into disfavor. That made sense to me, because I had always questioned the slide. And the 3-3 follow-up (when the response is omitted) makes the slide look inefficient, eh? But when Leela 11 was trained, the 3-3 response was still popular enough for Leela to like it.



Well, yeah, the 3-3 response puts Black one stone ahead locally, and threatens White's potential base. But, Leela 11 aside, the bots don't like it, and they don't particularly care for the slide, either.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:

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

— Winona Adkins

I think it's a great idea to talk during sex, as long as it's about snooker.

— Steve Davis

But I was thinking that adding an approach stone to one of the other corners was more efficient per something that I read...I think in a thread here but I cannot find it at the moment. Something about getting one vs one or two versus one being more important? I guess I see it as percentage change in relative strength, though it wasn't expressed that way. Does this sound familiar? Maybe I was dreaming?!