Date; 3/26 - round of 24
3/28 - round of 16

Players,

Korea: Kang Dongyoon, Park Junghwan, Na Hyun, Kim Jiseok, Park Younghoon
China: Gu Li, Zhou Ruiyang, Chen Yaoye, Ke Jie, Mi Yuting, Tuo Jiaxi, Shi Yue, Li Xuanhao, Lian Xiao, Gu Zihao, Tan Xiao
Japan: Yamada Kimio, Kono Rin, Murakawa Daisuke, Ichiriki Ryo, Kyo Kagen
Taiwan: Xu Haohong
North America: ?????????
Europe: ??????????

Winner - $150,000
Runner up - $50,000

The player for Europe would probably be Ilja Shikshin: (http://senseis.xmp.net/?EuropeanProfess ... ampionship , http://mateuszsurma.pl/en/2016/02/17/eu ... rspective/)
For America I can only find a page seeking for players: http://www.usgo.org/news/2016/01/chunla ... k-players/

A better Japanese team compared to the Bailing Cup. But still no Iyama Yuta, I'm upset. It seems that he isn't allowed to participate in international tournaments between his title match series, even thought the next Judan game is in mid-April.

I wouldn't assume that was the reason. It could be that he has other commitments at the same time as later rounds of this tournament and it'd be bad form to enter a tournament in which you know you couldn't play later rounds (or even a non-Judan commitment on March 26/28).
P.S. I'm glad to see young superstar Kyo Kagen (who beat Iyama but then lost to Cho Chikun in the recent champion of champions tournament), but isn't Yamada Kimio a bit over the hill?

He is Japan #49 world #282. Nihon Kiin could do equally well by sending an insei player.

I thought that two players would be sent to the Chunlan Cup, and one to the Ing Cup, but it didn't seem to fit the number of spaces for the tournaments.

_________________
On Go proverbs:
"A fine Gotation is a diamond in the hand of a dan of wit and a pebble in the hand of a kyu" —Joseph Raux misquoted.

Round of 24 pairings:

Oops looks like I made some mistakes, see trout's post below.

Jiang Mingjiu (US) - Park Yeonghun (KR)
Ilya Shikshin (RU) - Kim Jiseok (KR)
Lian Xiao (CN) - Yamada Kimio (JP)
Tan Xiao (CN) - Ichiriki Ryo (JP)
Li Xuanhao(CN) - Murakawa Daisuke(JP)
Gu Zihao (CN) - Xu Haohong (TW)
Tuo Jiaxi (CN) - Ryo Kagen (JP)
Mi Yuting (CN) - Na Hyun (KR)

Result of round of 24,
Park Yeonghun defeated Jiang Mingjiu by resign.
Kim Jiseok defeated Ilya Shikshin by resign.
Lian Xiao defeated Yamada Kimio by resign.
Tan Xiao defeated Ichiriki Ryo by resign.
Li Xuanhao defeated Murakawa Daisuke by 4.5.
Gu Zihao defeated Xu Haohong by resign.
Tuo Jiaxi defeated Ryo Kagen by resign.
Mi Yuting defeated Na Hyun by resign.

Pairing for next round;

Gu Li vs Tuo Jiaxi
Zhou Ruiyang vs Park Yeonghun
Chen Yaoye vs Kim Jiseok
Ke Jie vs Li Xuanhao
Shi Yue vs Tan Xiao
Kang Dongyoon vs Lian Xiao
Park Junghwan vs Mi Yuting
Kono Rin vs Gu Zihao

The four Japanese players with their probabilities of *losing* their first game based on go ratings today. Overall, the odds that all four would lose was 32.75%.

Li Xianhao vs. Yamada Kimio 3492 - 3133 .8876
Tan Xiao vs. Ichiriki Ryo 3434 - 3288 .6985
Li Xuanhao vs. Murakawa Daisuke 3378 - 3207 .7279
Tuo Jiaxi vs. Kyo Kagen 3473 - 3304 .7256

Not yet played:
Gu Ziaho vs. Kono Rin 3474 - 3363 .6545

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Round of 16;

Gu Zihao defeated Kono Rin by resign.
Park Yeonghun defeated Zhou Ruiyang by resign.
Mi Yuting defeated Park Junghwan by resign.
Tan Xiao defeated Shi Yue by resign.
Ke Jie defeated Li Xuanhao by resign.
Kim Jiseok defeated Chen Yaoye by resign.
Lian Xiao defeated Kang Dongyoon by resign.
Tuo Jiaxi defeated Gu Li by resign.

Mi Yuting & Park Junghwan played the AlphaGo opening. Top pros are trying to learn from the AI.

Pairing for round of 8;


Gu Zihao vs Kim Jiseok
Park Yeonghun vs Lian Xiao
Mi Yuting vs Ke Jie
Tan Xiao vs Tuo Jiaxi

It felt like a game of chicken, who would vary first? And, no surprise, it was the player replaying Lee Sedol, at move 25. Funnily, I thought LSD's move 25 was totally reasonable.

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

Here is the game between Mi Yuting and Park Junghwan that starts the same as AlphaGo game 5. Although Mi (black) varies from Lee Sedol on move 25 I think that is Park who makes the more substantial deviation for 28 (f3 not g3). The s10 r11 exchange looks like a slight refinement by Mi on Lee's direct s6, as it means the squeeze that AlphaGo played isn't as good. The downside is the r11 area gets stronger but black is unlikely to want to invade there. So Mi is saying Lee made a slight mistake and showing a more refined sequence, and then Park makes the tighter corner enclosure which is quite different.

The next change after the two you mentioned is Black 33 went into the corner instead of attaching on the outside at D12. The black got sente to play 41 at N17, limiting the top side potential. This sequence from move 33-41 seemed to have a larger impact on the game than the first two change you mentioned. It looks like a large improvement to me but what do I know.

Tygem and Oro news says the opening was a success for white, and the game is where white can make good use of his thinkness. However white failed to fully utilize his thickness in the middle game attack, and when the fights were settled, the game was comfortable for black who started with more territory.

I'm now waiting for the BadukTV website to upload their VOD of this game, which takes a few days, so that I can hear more about how the pros think about this Alphago's opening. I will share some notes and variations here.

Interesting info MinjaeKim, it certainly felt like a huge failure for Park when Mi managed to both save his big dragon coming out from the lower side and the left side group in a profitable way with the capture of those 2 stones. c10 and white's honte answer puzzled me a bit, was black aiming at b12 or d12 if white ignored?

I recall the AlphaGo commentaries saying Lee attached rather than taking the top left corner to avoid the thickness as he must have thought that was too good for white and they seemed to concur.

Something I was thinking about from the 5th AlphaGo game was why Lee Sedol pushed with as below. By loosing that liberty the n6 cut etc became more potent even though in the end white only got a squeeze (though actually given Mi's s10 attach I wonder if that squeeze really was a misread from AlphaGo or a sente sequence to stop Lee successfully playing that attach at a time when white would need to answer submissively as Park did, i.e. did AlphaGo see a line for black in which he played s10 and that reduced AlphaGo's winning chances so it played out the squeeze so Lee wouldn't have the chance to s10?).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wcm42
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . O . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . X . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 O . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 5 O 2 O X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 1 X X X O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 . . . . O X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . O . . . . . . X . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

If black directly haned and this happened that looks like an unconditional improvement to me (actually the improvement might not be so much as white could still probe with the n6 cut or s7 hane and if black plays in a way that makes the o8 liberty sente then white fixes that cut in sente which makes a big difference to the strength of the centre moyo, and if plays to prevent o8 being sente white gets the same squeeze...).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wcm42
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . O . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . X . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 3 O . O X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 1 X X X O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . 4 2 . . . . O X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . O . . . . . . X . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

So did Lee fear white would trade with something like this? White abandons the top right moyo area (which makes sense as he hasn't yet invested building it with the a attach and subsequent gote building of thickness).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wcm42
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . O . . . . . . . a X . . . . |
$$ | . X . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O O . . . . . , . . . . . , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 4 O 6 O X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 X X X O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 . . . . O X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . O X . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . O . . . . . . X . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Uber, in your last diagram, I think white can just pull back with the ataried stone, then block with the next move if black pushes through. Right? If so this looks way too good for white. And that explains black 43.

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders