translation of a 9d pro commentary

[dhu163]

I found some time to do another translation - it was interesting to hear Chen Zude's thoughts on ancient games.

I ordered the move tree in the order in the video, so the game is not on the principal branch. I'm not sure if this is a good idea or not.

This is for all levels - Chen aims at a large audience, talking lots about the history and background in this video

enjoy:

1st of games of blood and tears (1600s)

[Uberdude]

Apart from all the fancy fighting, I found it very interesting how Chen Zude went on about the group tax and thus not wanting to take make separate groups, so the 3-3 weakness of the 4-4 large knight response wasn't so easy to exploit. I wonder if they would have played the now normal small knight without group tax rules. I seem to recall although that is very normal to us now it's actually relatively recent as in only been joseki since mid 20th century or so, didn't it used to be considered slow but Go Seigen said it was playable or something like that?

I ordered the move tree in the order in the video, so the game is not on the principal branch. I'm not sure if this is a good idea or not.

I think not: makes it a pain to jump forward through the game on my phone apps without a big game tree and a mouse (it's ok when replaying in detail from start to finish, but if I misclicked back to start of game, or want to skip forward to pick up where I left off you have to keep choosing non-first variation).

[Bill Spight]

Apart from all the fancy fighting, I found it very interesting how Chen Zude went on about the group tax and thus not wanting to take make separate groups, so the 3-3 weakness of the 4-4 large knight response wasn't so easy to exploit. I wonder if they would have played the now normal small knight without group tax rules.

I doubt it. The large knight response persisted as the most popular reply for many centuries in Japan, without the group tax. To be sure, that was nearly always in handicap games, but many other replies were tried, as well. The small knight response was almost non-existent. Since it is more solid than the large knight response, you might think that it would be appealing in a handicap game.

I seem to recall although that is very normal to us now it's actually relatively recent as in only been joseki since mid 20th century or so, didn't it used to be considered slow but Go Seigen said it was playable or something like that?

Go Seigen's argument, which I read from somebody else, maybe Takagawa, was that if you start from where each player has one of the 6-3 points in the corner, an obviously even position, the 4-4 point is a good move.

OC, that does not mean that it is superior to other replies. Out of curiosity, I just checked Waltheri, and he gives it a winning percentage of 49.6%, lower than each of the other top ten replies. The highest winning percentage in the top ten was 53.2%, going to -- you guessed it! -- the large knight response.

[dhu163]

Master vs MiYuting 9p, Master+0.5
commentary by Mi Yuting 9p with Meng Tailing 6p

[Drew]

I really admire the spirit of Mi Yuting that comes through in that commentary. The battle seems hopeless very quickly but Mi continues to fight onwards in the hopes of learning as much as possible.

As an aside, could someone please briefly explain to me what they meant by "negative points" when discussing white's area on the right-middle edge?

[Uberdude]

Negative points for white just means you expect black to get more points in that area than white. You can often think of a weak group as negative points because you expect your opponent to get more points from attacking it than you make defending it. Rob van Zeijst (Dutch 7d who lived in Japan and author of several Kiseido go books) has this idea with a funny acronym that a weak group is worth -20 points. But weak is a sliding scale not yes/no. So Mi/Meng are wondering if White's right side is weak enough that black will get more points from his possible attacking invasion there than white does, but once white adds the move it's clear the right side is positive points for white. Master is good at getting sente for key points.

[John Fairbairn]

Mi: you could say it like that. Originally B did seem quite thick, but actually any group that isn't yet alive can't really be counted as thick

Now that Mi has said it, maybe people will believe me (or, to be more precise, pros I have been quoting).

[daal]

I found some time to do another translation

Thanks so much for all the work you've done and shared!

[ez4u]

I found some time to do another translation

Thanks so much for all the work you've done and shared!

Second that!

[daal]

Mi: you could say it like that. Originally B did seem quite thick, but actually any group that isn't yet alive can't really be counted as thick

Now that Mi has said it, maybe people will believe me (or, to be more precise, pros I have been quoting).

Meng: so W is now attacking your thickness

I'm not disagreeing with you, but if a 6P pro needs correcting then a bit of disagreement among us mortals doesn't seem so unusual...

[Bill Spight]

Mi: you could say it like that. Originally B did seem quite thick, but actually any group that isn't yet alive can't really be counted as thick

Now that Mi has said it, maybe people will believe me (or, to be more precise, pros I have been quoting).

Meng: so W is now attacking your thickness

I'm not disagreeing with you, but if a 6P pro needs correcting then a bit of disagreement among us mortals doesn't seem so unusual...

Actually, thickness has at least two meanings, and you can have, as here, thickness in sense 1 (Is it thickness?) that is not thick in sense 2 (How thick is it?). It is not all that unusual to have thickness(1) come under attack, which means that by that time it has very little of thickness(2) left. One thing that AlphaGo seems to be doing, as it utilizes its own (often not very thick) thickness or counters its opponent's thickness, is to cause some reconsideration of thickness in sense 2.

[John Fairbairn]

Actually, thickness has at least two meanings, and you can have, as here, thickness in sense 1 (Is it thickness?) that is not thick in sense 2 (How thick is it?). It is not all that unusual to have thickness(1) come under attack, which means that by that time it has very little of thickness(2) left. One thing that AlphaGo seems to be doing, as it utilizes its own (often not very thick) thickness or counters its opponent's thickness, is to cause some reconsideration of thickness in sense 2.

Of course, if we trace it back to atsumi and atsusa. But Chinese lacks this distinction so I don't think it applies to Mi's comments. I know it's a huge stretch to say this of one of the strongest ever humans, but was his previous thinking about thickness perhaps just a little constrained by the lack of a distinction in Chinese? Bear in mind that Chinese took the term from Japanese and so they have had virtually the same problem as we have had - even if they have handled it rather better

Moving on a little, I have read an enormous amount about the New Fuseki era. But I was always a bit baffled about the reaction of both pros and fans at the time. I could see that it was novel and exciting, of course, yet I always felt the reaction was over-the-top. Having actually lived through such a reaction myself with AlphaGo I am beginning to understand the New Fuseki phenomenon better, though I still think it's all a bit OTT in both cases.

The fascination with rethinking josekis has an exact parallel. So does the urge to copy fuseki ideas without understanding them first - experimentation, of course, but perhaps also a way of becoming less jaded with the game? The reappraisal of theoretical concepts like thickness also has parallels in principle - perhaps 1933 thoughts about tengen are the equivalent of Mi's 2017 thoughts about thickness? I don't think it's too fanciful even to draw a parallel between AlphaGo and Go Seigen.

[dhu163]

Well, I'm glad if my translations help contribute to resolving disputes.

The classic killing game 1926 Honinbo Shusai (Nihon Kiin) vs Karigane Junichi (Kiseisha)

[dhu163]

Mi: you could say it like that. Originally B did seem quite thick, but actually any group that isn't yet alive can't really be counted as thick

Now that Mi has said it, maybe people will believe me (or, to be more precise, pros I have been quoting).

Meng: so W is now attacking your thickness

I'm not disagreeing with you, but if a 6P pro needs correcting then a bit of disagreement among us mortals doesn't seem so unusual...

I think Meng was probably saying it more wryly. I've heard the warning that not alive is not thick in pro videos many times (particular wrt korean (modern, e.g. Lee Sedol) attacking style where all groups not alive may be attacked), and I'm sure Meng is familiar with it. Perhaps he was implying that B's position is so bad that even the "thickness" is a weak group, and Mi doesn't really join in with such humour, and repeated the standard warning for the benefit of viewers.

[Bill Spight]

Actually, thickness has at least two meanings, and you can have, as here, thickness in sense 1 (Is it thickness?) that is not thick in sense 2 (How thick is it?). It is not all that unusual to have thickness(1) come under attack, which means that by that time it has very little of thickness(2) left. One thing that AlphaGo seems to be doing, as it utilizes its own (often not very thick) thickness or counters its opponent's thickness, is to cause some reconsideration of thickness in sense 2.

Of course, if we trace it back to atsumi and atsusa. But Chinese lacks this distinction so I don't think it applies to Mi's comments.

I kinda do, as I will explain below.

I know it's a huge stretch to say this of one of the strongest ever humans, but was his previous thinking about thickness perhaps just a little constrained by the lack of a distinction in Chinese? Bear in mind that Chinese took the term from Japanese and so they have had virtually the same problem as we have had - even if they have handled it rather better

Here I think that we are in agreement.

In my own case, until your writings about thickness I mainly thought of thickness in sense 1. However, I had developed some appreciation of sense 2, but I called it strength. By the time I was 3 dan I was not only aware of thickness coming under attack, I sometimes built thickness only to sacrifice it later. So, even though the Chinese have adopted the term from Japanese, I expect that Mi has a quite subtle understanding of it, even without the verbal distinction.

Moving on a little, I have read an enormous amount about the New Fuseki era. But I was always a bit baffled about the reaction of both pros and fans at the time. I could see that it was novel and exciting, of course, yet I always felt the reaction was over-the-top. Having actually lived through such a reaction myself with AlphaGo I am beginning to understand the New Fuseki phenomenon better, though I still think it's all a bit OTT in both cases.

The fascination with rethinking josekis has an exact parallel. So does the urge to copy fuseki ideas without understanding them first - experimentation, of course, but perhaps also a way of becoming less jaded with the game? The reappraisal of theoretical concepts like thickness also has parallels in principle - perhaps 1933 thoughts about tengen are the equivalent of Mi's 2017 thoughts about thickness? I don't think it's too fanciful even to draw a parallel between AlphaGo and Go Seigen.

FWIW, I have had the feeling that there was some parallel between AlphaGo and Go Seigen, purely in terms of go. Some of the AlphaGo moves that Mi pointed out were moves that had struck me as Go Seigen moves. IIRC, the play against the large knight's enclosure, building up some -- ahem!-- thickness and then extending from it was something that I saw in a Go Seigen game when I first began to study go books. Also, Uberdude has pointed out the flexibility of AlphaGo's play, and I think that that is characteristic of Go Seigen, as well. Rui Naiwei told me that one thing about attending Go Seigen's study groups was that he often changed his mind, saying one thing one week and another thing the next. He was creative till the end.