Ke Jie joked on Weibo after the Zhang Tao game that it was probably the most amateurish misread he ever made since turning pro.

Nonetheless, he turned around and beat Zhou Ruiyang to remain undefeated (9-0) against him in the semifinal of Ahan Tongshan Cup. It's another back-and-forth game with major mistakes from both sides. He will play Tuo Jiaxi in the final to defend his title.

Thanks for confirming that: it did seem such a shockingly simple misread (I could read it correctly in 30 seconds) that I wondered if I had missed something: perhaps he worried about the safety of his centre group if he answered the L5 attachment passively at k4 or whatever to keep the lower territory. Here's the misread: clamp of 1 doesn't work because black can break through and if next a then b captures, there's no ladder-building or squeeze or anything fast enough for white following push to the left and cut (as there sometimes is in similar shapes, perhaps the source of the misread? e.g. would work if d3 at e3). But even if black couldn't play b then wouldn't c in sente then coming back to d still be a success for black? (Maybe not so bad as for breaking the side you gave 2 stones and ponnuki so white centre stronger, and white lower left is safe anyway?) Next white did use the ponnuki to do mean things in the lower right corner but black didn't die and then the centre white group got cut (as Ke had to ignore the peep at e in the process).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc Ke Jie (white) vs Zhang Tao
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . O X . . . . O O O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . O X . . . X X X X O O O . . |
$$ | . . O O O X . . . , . . . . X X X . . |
$$ | . . O X X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . X X X . . X X . . . . |
$$ | . X . . . . . O . O . . X O . . . . . |
$$ | . X O X . O . . . , O . X . O , O . . |
$$ | . O X . . . . . . . . O . . . O . . . |
$$ | . O . X . . O . . . . . O . O . X . . |
$$ | . . O X . X X X . . . . . e . O X . . |
$$ | . X X O X . . . X . 5 . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . O O O . O d O 4 3 X O . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . 6 1 X O . . X . , X . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . 8 7 2 . O X . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . c a b . O . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Commentators have been saying that after alphago, Ke Jie's game has gone up another level. Before he might win after getting into trouble and messing around, taking advantage of his reading skill to reverse the game, but after alphago, he seems to win games so smoothly, and his opponents can't work out where they went wrong.

But Ke Jie almost messed up horrifically in his latest game. Wang Yao 6p (on weiqitv) suggests that it is difficult for him, having so many interviews and TV meetings each week, spreading the word about go after his alphago match.

He played a lovely game up until 170 (should be O11), but proceeded to lose so many points (maybe about 10?) in the endgame, say at 188, but notably at 224, especially as 229 leaves a sente 6 point+ follow up now rather than sente 3 point. The weiqitv commentators were speechless, having just said how hopeless it was for Tang, against any professional, B wouldn't consider the possibility of winning, especially as there is no endgame left.

Ke Jie appears to go crazy and fights back with 230, utilising the aji of his dead stones at F5, and holds on to win by 0.5.


__

Otherwise

32 was a nice move aiming at the corner cut
70 was interesting, hard to tell if it is overplay or not, 73 seems questionable, but it isn't clear how B should attack. W made the D10 G15 shape look too thin. The invasions on either side were the highlight of this game.

Maybe Ke Jie want to understand why AlphaGo throwaway points in late game can help win the game by experiencing by himself.

Ke jie just lost the final of the Agon cup (lighting tournament 5 min plus 30 sec 10 times) against Tuo jiaxi 9p. Ke jie was the title holder last year.
https://gotoeveryone.k2ss.info/cn/agon/ Here is the link of the tournament. Kifu (gibo coming soon).

Yesterday Ke jie lost his second game in a row. The 17th round of the chinese A league. I didn't like the beginning for him. He lost some stones and after i felt white was thick but for him it was hard to build some territories. I wonder if he made a mistake in the first corner.

It's funny that the early 3-3 invasion can end up as a different order to reach the same position as this 3-4 high approach outside attachment joseki: http://josekipedia.com/#path:qdodoeqcpd ... melcldmbnb.

Yesterday the AGA released the first video from weiqiTV with subtitles and they also mentioned what you (@uberdude) said about the corner shape.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaHmUG62RQc

I'm wondering when did DeepMind record Ke Jie review game with Fan Hui (apparently Fan is DeepMind Go Ambassador now, nice position)

I don't: I'm more interested in the content.

Ke Jie beat Park Junghwan in this event by 2.5. He did his now-traditional 3-3 invasion before move 10.

Thank goodness Ke Jie win this. Park Jungwhan has been a threat to Ke Jie's reign for years and

Something I found particularly notable in the recent DeepMind AlphaGo vs Ke Jie analysis videos is how critical AlphaGo was of a sequence of 4 moves Ke played in game 1, quickly losing 10% win rate (he'd already lost a little and was black so AG went from about 55% up to 65% which is approaching 70-80% game over level -- it's not really a probability). As throughout the whole video Ke accepted the criticism gracefully (much humbler than a year ago!) and showed a tewari analysis (to 3-3 invasion of 4-4 and double hane) saying that he knew his result sucked. For the best human in the world to be told he keeps making mistakes from bad to worse, rather like when a pro reviews my game, was amusing/sobering.

In summary:
- Ke's high extension on the right side had already come in for some criticism (AlphaGo had preferred a low extension, or invading the top at a earlier).
- When AlphaGo invaded at Ke realised his formation was bad: to be better either move high extension to low so there is no slide (AlphaGo would then shoulder hit the extension, they looked at some variations), or move 3-3 to 4-4. He had thought about reinforcing for his previous move (e.g. big knight shimari to lower side) but that was unsatisfactory as white can still easily sabaki on the right side.
- was bad, -3% said AlphaGo. It liked to just tenuki and invade at the top (seems to me a you-destroy-my-thing so I-destroy-your-thing balance, as more stones added to area it gets smaller, also if black invaded there before right side extension and white pincered then AG liked black to tenuki and extend on right side, already made top smaller in sente).
- was bad, -2%. It preferred 2 space jump to b to grow lower side (Ke never considered), after peeping ladder on left exchange. Its thin shape made Ke uncomfortable.
- was sharp, Ke didn't expect it: even normal answer to the kick was bad for him. Apparently some other humans, maybe Gu Li, had suggested it though.
- was bad -2%. AlphaGo preferred to just dodge to c. Fan showed a variation in which AlphaGo ended up capturing the stone on the right ("it got more territory than me in my area!" says Ke), but black squeezed the outside to develop the lower side and got sente to extend on upper right side. Damage limitation.
- was bad -3%. AlphaGo says hane underneath. The trade of game was good for white.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc AlphaGo (white) vs Ke Jie, game 1.
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . , . . . O . , O . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . b . 6 2 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . |
$$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . 9 8 . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . c . 7 X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Brief comment about .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc AlphaGo (white) vs Ke Jie, game 1.
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . , . . . O . , O . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . |
$$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . B . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

It seems to me that AlphaGo brings into question one of the oldest ideas in go, so old that it shows up in the oldest game records we have, the idea of a base. makes a base with and pincers , preventing it from making a base. For almost two millenia top players have cherished making a base, with some exceptions. Making a base is not just a question of making territory, but one of making a viable group. In addition, induces , while if White had made a base for with an approach at "a", Black would surely have replied. is thus a triple purpose move, and almost a double sente. How can it be a mistake???? It just might be one, though, eh?

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

On the critical side. is inducing really something you want to do, as it weakens the black stone above? (which has the white shimari looming in the distance, and as it's big and loose you don't want to play forcing moves from the outside to help sabaki like you would happily against a smaller and more solid shimari). And given white's central support the group doesn't feel so weak once it's jumped out. It's not as bad as the kyu player squeezing through a small gap, but topologically speaking it is rather similar. It certainly goes against the Takemiya or O Meien 'connecting over the top' style. Also you could say ends up too close and flat, because of the nice press shape weakness AlphaGo used. The 3-3 already has at least 1 eye in the corner and still has miai to extend to bottom or right side so is healthy enough.

AlphaGo thought this sequence was [near-]best for both (it was insistent on making the attach and bump exchanges, Ke Jie was reluctant to do so). Ke also noted the similarity to an alternative fuseki in which white played 2-space approach to the 3-3 (it rarely shoulder hits says Fan Hui, so at least that human knowledge of shoulder hit being special purpose only joseki I was aware of it agrees with) black 2-space answer, and white 2-space extend (low). Black's hoshi stone does look a bit weird, but I suppose it's fairly light, gets in the way of white's large-scale development, and could still come in handy to make white's group a cramped 2-space extension.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$Wc AlphaGo (white) vs Ke Jie, game 1 variation.
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . , . . . O . , O . . |
$$ | . . X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X O X O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . |
$$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . , 7 . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . . . . . . . . 4 8 X 5 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+[/go]

Bill, Agree with you about the importance of bases but I'm not quite sure I see how it's relevant here. The 3-3 stone makes a base on its own - that's its whole point. So 1 is not needed, and is even overconcentrated. Also, I can't see that it's a sensible pincer - the White jump is attacking Black above at least as much as Black is attacking White. And even if you do assert Black is attacking, he shouldn't be - at least if we follow Mizokami Tomochika's method of looking at the half-board: White has more stones than Black on the right, so Black should be playing prudently on this side (e.g. tenuki to the upper side), not attacking. Incidentally, my sense is that Mizokami's method seems to marry quite well with AlphaGo's style.

To go on to a different aspect, I was struck by the way Ke Jie talks about the game. To me, he sounds more like amateurs (strategically simplistic) than the way pros have traditionally talked. If so, is this to do with modern players being more tactically oriented than older players (e.g. shorter time limits, or just being at the top much younger and more impulsive?) Obviously he's quite superlative at playing that way, and we recently were saying the same thing about Yi Se-tol, but I do wonder whether there are strategic flaws in the modern style and AlphGo is picking them up.

To retreat into an amateur simplification: modern players favour shock and awe; AG prefers awe and shock.

Ke Jie won't be able to win the Samsung cup 3 years in a row: he lost to An Sungjoon 7p in the round of 16. Interestingly they played the same complicated 3-3 invasion sequence (which reverts to severe 3-4 high approach outside attach joseki) which Ke also lost with against Gu Zihao in the Chinese league two weeks ago.

Ke Jie will play Park Junghwan in the Round 19 of Chinese A League.

Park won by 1.5.

Don't think so - at least the Chinese version says W+0.25.

Ke also played a series of handicap games the day before against top young players. Interesting to see his play against high handicaps - reminded me very much of Go Seigen except that he did use an AG type 3-3 invasion.