Debunking Michael Redmond's Positional Judgement

[oren]

oren, Redmond's skill as a player is impressive, especially his dynamic reading. I think in his games he would spend a bit more time on making judgements and use more accurate ones, but I do not understand that he spent quite a few seconds on rough counting when using 3 more seconds would have allowed him to declare counts accurate by 1 or 2 points instead of rough approximations +-5 points preventing him from identifying the leader in a close game with an expected score smaller than 5 points.

So you understand that all your "debunking" is saying that "Redmond didn't spend a lot of time on positional analysis as a commentator".

Ok, I can now agree. That is all you had to say.

[RobertJasiek]

Now you exaggerate. See the OP.

[wineandgolover]

I thought the best part of your post was "Cho Chikun and me". That's an instant classic.

You sound ironic but, if so, you miss the point. I mention Cho because he is the predecessor of my very much more worked out theory of territorial positional judgement...

Whoosh! Still funny. You mentioned irony, but it doesn't seem you really grasped it.

[RobertJasiek]

You have put part of my text in bold font. Please tell me what you want to express by this. (I know that Cho is 9p, but this is not the point.)

[Charles Matthews]

I think in his games he would spend a bit more time on making judgements and use more accurate ones, but I do not understand that he spent quite a few seconds on rough counting when using 3 more seconds would have allowed him to declare counts accurate by 1 or 2 points instead of rough approximations +-5 points preventing him from identifying the leader in a close game with an expected score smaller than 5 points.

Yes, I think you are correct: you don't understand his style of communication, and intentions as a broadcaster.

While pros in general can undoubtedly learn much from you, this is a case where you might learn from a pro.

[longshanks]

Chris Garlock did ask Michael Redmond a few times during the series who he thought was ahead. I kinda got the impression myself that Michael could've answered it but chose not to? Given that they were estimating the score over on GoGameGuru.. (hence me needing to swtich between the two).

[RobertJasiek]

you don't understand his style of communication, and intentions as a broadcaster.

Sorry, but you paint a one-sided picture of how Redmond performed during the commentaries. He varied his performance and did some of the following:

- he wanted to do a territorial positional judgement (TPJ) but interrupted himself
- Chris Garlock asked him to do a TPJ but Redmond interrupted himself
- he considered a TPJ but said he was not able to do it
- Chris asked him to do a TPJ but Redmond said he was not able to do it
- he considered a TPJ but said it was too early to do it
- Chris asked him to do a TPJ but Redmond said it was too early to do it
- he performed a TPJ but rounded unnecessarily when the TPJ took much longer than being accurate by 1 or 2 points by spending a few more seconds
- rarely I would call his TPJ beginner-friendly: too much time spent, too much hand waving after spending much time and the audience expecting a more or less accurate count. Instead, it would have been better to immediately declare his opinion on who is ahead and whether the game was close: good enough for beginners, and they cannot become bored by watching him count
- at times, he could not resist calculating fractions while it was unclear exactly what value he was determining; such is beginner-unfriendly

So if something became clear from his style of communication, it is that it was too difficult for him to determine reasonably accurate counts most of the time. Is this something I want to learn from him? No. In such a position, I'd rather see the broadcaster simply admit that TPJ was too difficult and discuss other things he can discuss. More preferably though, I prefer to see broadcasters with good TPJ in such games in which TPJ is essential for the understanding the players' strategies.

[Charles Matthews]

you don't understand his style of communication, and intentions as a broadcaster.

Sorry, but you paint a one-sided picture of how Redmond performed during the commentaries.

Err, no?

He varied his performance and did some of the following:

<snip>

So if something became clear from his style of communication, it is that it was too difficult for him to determine reasonably accurate counts most of the time.

Err, no? He wasn't trying to impress people with his competence as a go pro. That is a given.

Is this something I want to learn from him?

No, but you could learn in the dimension of not trying to beat people over the head, constantly, with doctrinaire views.

Redmond of course has spent his adult life in Japan, and combines in my view a particular American charm, with the Japanese tendency towards understatement, and shading towards only claims that one can deliver things that one definitely can.

No. In such a position, I'd rather see the broadcaster simply admit that TPJ was too difficult and discuss other things he can discuss. More preferably though, I prefer to see broadcasters with good TPJ in such games in which TPJ is essential for the understanding the players' strategies.

I imagine his "sight of the board" is pretty quick, in fact.

You, personally, were not the intended audience. So in our multi-channel world it is assumed you switch off, if the choice of topics is not to your taste.

[RobertJasiek]

You, personally, were not the intended audience. So in our multi-channel world it is assumed you switch off, if the choice of topics is not to your taste.

Then for whom were the dan level comments by Redmond?

[HermanHiddema]

You, personally, were not the intended audience. So in our multi-channel world it is assumed you switch off, if the choice of topics is not to your taste.

Then for whom were the dan level comments by Redmond?

Well certainly for me, as I enjoyed his commentary greatly. Not all, or even most, dan players want the same things that you want from a commentary.

[Charles Matthews]

You, personally, were not the intended audience. So in our multi-channel world it is assumed you switch off, if the choice of topics is not to your taste.

Then for whom were the dan level comments by Redmond?

Perhaps for the majority of the population of the world who would be interested to hear a little of the more advanced theory of go, without having a long lecture.

The format for live events is set up that way, after all. It is a "double act", and Garlock was for obvious reasons less practiced in his role. Redmond may have had to do a bit more of the deflection onto accessible ground than you'd see on Japanese or Korean TV.

Here's a thing about communication: there are anti-patterns, as in go.

[gowan]

In televised "real time" commentaries and public lecture/commentary in Japan they usually have a lower level pro "assisting" the main commentator. In that format the assistant easily understands what the main commentator says and can help the weaker players in the audience understand. With the assistant being an amateur player, more falls to the pro to moderate the commentary.

[wineandgolover]

I thought the best part of your post was "Cho Chikun and me". That's an instant classic.

You sound ironic but, if so, you miss the point. I mention Cho because he is the predecessor of my very much more worked out theory of territorial positional judgement...

Whoosh! Still funny. You mentioned irony, but it doesn't seem you really grasped it.

You have put part of my text in bold font. Please tell me what you want to express by this. (I know that Cho is 9p, but this is not the point.)

To emphasize the irony.

(Do I really have to explain this? Whether your high self-regard is merited or not isn't all that important. It is your gall that is so surprising, and therefore sometimes funny. As you very well know, Cho is one of the greatest players ever, with a zillion titles. So your flippant, "Cho Chikun and me" had several us chuckling. As a clear example of what I mean, even if Cho improved on an aspect of Go Seigen's go theory, I am confident that he wouldn't brag about it in those words, and they were peers. This is decorum.

Please note that we all understand you are comparing your theory to that of Cho, not your playing skill. And your assessment might even be correct. But it is still unusual to compare yourself with a true great, and therefore a little funny. I hope that this is clear.

I am convinced that I've improved on the rhetorical skills of some of the greats with this explanation. Yeah, me and Barack Obama.

[Bill Spight]

You, personally, were not the intended audience. So in our multi-channel world it is assumed you switch off, if the choice of topics is not to your taste.

Then for whom were the dan level comments by Redmond?

Dan level comments? For an English speaking audience watching the DeepMind channel?

[Bill Spight]

I thought the best part of your post was "Cho Chikun and me". That's an instant classic.

You sound ironic but, if so, you miss the point. I mention Cho because he is the predecessor of my very much more worked out theory of territorial positional judgement during the opening and middle game

The ideas in Cho's book in English did not originate with him. They were familiar to me from the Japanese literature.