reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:20 am

Applebaps wrote:RE: the complications invited by AI play - this is the crux of why I tend to look askance at AI's advice, to be honest. At a fundamental biological level, our brains are built "to keep us alive", not "to play Go". AI's brains are built from the ground up "to play Go." Chess had this same problem, where computers would happily enter into "sharp" or complicated positions from which extensive calculations were required but which offered a lot of tactical flexibility.

It sounds like you may be confusing top go bots with stockfish-like chess engines, which rely upon tactical superiority. Even today's top go bots are inferior to even dan level humans in local deep search. Their superiority relies mainly upon "intuition" and global strategy.

Applebaps · Post by **Applebaps** » Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:23 am

Bill Spight wrote:
Applebaps wrote:RE: the complications invited by AI play - this is the crux of why I tend to look askance at AI's advice, to be honest. At a fundamental biological level, our brains are built "to keep us alive", not "to play Go". AI's brains are built from the ground up "to play Go." Chess had this same problem, where computers would happily enter into "sharp" or complicated positions from which extensive calculations were required but which offered a lot of tactical flexibility.
It sounds like you may be confusing top go bots with stockfish-like chess engines, which rely upon tactical superiority. Even today's top go bots are inferior to even dan level humans in local deep search. Their superiority relies mainly upon "intuition" and global strategy.

No, I'm thinking specifically of Leela Zero and AlphaGo Zero here. They do have global strategy but they also love to start fights and mess up the board, treating influence as if it means nothing, moyos as if they're already reduced, and they cut cut cut all day knowing they'll win the ensuing fight.

I've played a LOT against these engines. I'm not dismissing them out of ignorance.

John Fairbairn · Post by **John Fairbairn** » Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:36 am

I think this discussion has reached a point where we start going round in circles. At least I feel it's time for me to leave it.

FWIW what I go away with is a feeling that the debate can be summed up as follows:

1. Side A: We can learn from AI but it will take a long time. Side B: Agreed.

2. Side B: We can learn from humans and can learn NOW. Sheldonian Side A: Disagree! How can a bunch of frightened dinosaurs even begin to think not using science can possibly work? Their approach has only got them to 9-dan level. Almost as bad as being an engineer from MIT! And that's my spot.

My vote goes to Penny.

Uberdude · Post by **Uberdude** » Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:43 am

Applebaps wrote: No, I'm thinking specifically of Leela Zero and AlphaGo Zero here. ...
I've played a LOT against these engines.

You've played against AlphaGo Zero? Lucky you!

TelegraphGo · Post by **TelegraphGo** » Wed Dec 11, 2019 12:55 pm

John Fairbairn wrote:I think this discussion has reached a point where we start going round in circles.

Agreed - since it feels like people have founds the positions they feel comfortable with, so should we now actually make a decision on what to do about old SL pages? Perhaps we should start a poll, or series of polls, with a bunch of options ranging from the extremes of rewriting with primarily AI analysis to leaving them 100% alone?

I find it fascinating and highly peculiar that anyone would choose not to consult Go Seigen's opinion. Gossip can be found everywhere and anywhere, Go Seigen's opinion cannot. It feels like opting not to take a free shot on goal - sure, the goalie might block it, but what if they don't? It's likely none of us would understand what he had to say, but what if some small part of us did, just a little bit more than before? I'd pay money per move to show him specific positions and hear him say no more than "L8". Luckily, I don't have to pay, because Leela is free! A few robotic tendencies are easy enough to ignore, when I can actually teach myself lessons that I used to have to go to Asia to learn.

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:58 pm

John Fairbairn wrote:I think this discussion has reached a point where we start going round in circles. At least I feel it's time for me to leave it.

FWIW what I go away with is a feeling that the debate can be summed up as follows:

1. Side A: We can learn from AI but it will take a long time. Side B: Agreed.

2. Side B: We can learn from humans and can learn NOW. Sheldonian Side A: Disagree! How can a bunch of frightened dinosaurs even begin to think not using science can possibly work? Their approach has only got them to 9-dan level. Almost as bad as being an engineer from MIT! And that's my spot.

My vote goes to Penny.

An argument similar to Side B could be made as to why we should try to learn from our amateur club members, and not from professionals. After all, for many of us, folks at our local go club are more accessible than professionals. And if you're not the strongest person in the club, you could learn from them.

Same thing with the earlier post here:

I find the argument about being shown a new move by a bot as a reason to value bots spurious.

Yes, it's interesting, if you like that kind of thing. Yes, it probably is a better move.

But you get that kind of insight over and over again in playing over human pro games. With the humans you also, in many cases, get a useful human commentary as to why it is a good move.

In fact, over the years the one thing that has improved my game much more than anything else is playing over a pro game and seeing a move to which my reaction is: "Oh, I didn't know you could do that!"

You could say, "I find the argument about being shown a new move by a pro as a reason to value professional opinion spurious. Yes, it's interesting, if you like that kind of thing. Yes, it probably is a better move. But you get that kind of insight over and over again in playing over amateur dan player games. With our amateur dan playing friends you also, in many cases, get a more personal commentary as to why it is a good move."

---

It is true that it's a little bit harder to talk to computers than it is to talk with humans. But for folks that aren't living in Asia or going to pro events, it's also a little bit harder to get insights from pros, when compared to getting insight from your amateur friends. Yeah, a professional go player might write a book or two. But what about all of those questions you have that the pro hasn't covered?

Generally speaking, bots can play better than pros, and pros can play better than our amateur go-playing friends. If you're interested in learning, the ideal would be to have perfect communication with the top bot so that it could explain everything to you. We're not really there yet. It's a lot easier to talk to folks who are more accessible - even to ask questions here on L19 to get amateur opinions. If you ask questions here on L19, there are sure to be mistakes in the responses. It doesn't mean that it's worthless to ask - you might learn something nifty, anyway. If you want more accuracy, you should go higher up the skill ladder - ask a pro if needed. If you need more accuracy than that, a bot might be able to point out pro mistakes.

---

I personally think it's all useful - asking questions here on L19, talking with pros, playing pros, analyzing stuff with bots. We don't have to have one or the other. But you'll be getting different benefits from different mediums. Bots are very high on the accuracy scale. A little bit lower on the explanation scale. L19ers may be able to talk to you all day. But we might not be that accurate in everything we write

Jujube · Post by **Jujube** » Wed Dec 11, 2019 2:32 pm

TelegraphGo wrote:
John Fairbairn wrote:I think this discussion has reached a point where we start going round in circles.
Agreed - since it feels like people have founds the positions they feel comfortable with, so should we now actually make a decision on what to do about old SL pages? Perhaps we should start a poll, or series of polls, with a bunch of options ranging from the extremes of rewriting with primarily AI analysis to leaving them 100% alone?

I find it fascinating and highly peculiar that anyone would choose not to consult Go Seigen's opinion. Gossip can be found everywhere and anywhere, Go Seigen's opinion cannot. It feels like opting not to take a free shot on goal - sure, the goalie might block it, but what if they don't? It's likely none of us would understand what he had to say, but what if some small part of us did, just a little bit more than before? I'd pay money per move to show him specific positions and hear him say no more than "L8". Luckily, I don't have to pay, because Leela is free! A few robotic tendencies are easy enough to ignore, when I can actually teach myself lessons that I used to have to go to Asia to learn.

Isn't it interesting that Go Seigen was fond of two space high enclosures, attachments, and paid much attention to who had sente. Remind you of anything? He was standing above everyone else quite clearly.

My opinion about the Sensei's Library pages: run them through strong AI. If the variation is clearly wrong, then sorry, it is wrong. And, if you meet an opponent who knows the refutation, then the opponent will have gained. That much to me is very clear. Therefore, those articles should have a clear warning at the top of the page pending a rewrite or a change of circumstances on the board that AI agrees with. As for advice (words), well, it is a community wiki. Advice can be subjective. But as a minimum, the variations must stand up to scrutiny!

I was discussing with a friend at the club the following which I will leave with you to ponder: we have had sweeping changes in Go theory, from old times where corners were left empty and 4-4 was not a move, to new fuseki, to the 70's where the taisha, magic sword and avalanche were so popular, and now we have AI. The question is: will there be any more sweeping changes? Computers have already told us what to play. Maybe we have reached the destination. This is, broadly, how to play Go.

xela · Post by **xela** » Wed Dec 11, 2019 2:49 pm

John Fairbairn wrote:In real life, those old wives were your mothers and grandmothers, and they did a pretty good job of getting you where you are today.

Don't forget the curmudgeonly grandpa characters, reminding young people today that they understand nothing. When it becomes time for me to play that part, I'll be glad I had such good role models :-)

Honestly John, it's great to have you here, stopping us kids from getting too complacent.

John Fairbairn wrote:It's long lane that has no loaf on the bread.

Thanks, this has made my day!

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Wed Dec 11, 2019 5:22 pm

John Fairbairn wrote:I think this discussion has reached a point where we start going round in circles. At least I feel it's time for me to leave it.

FWIW what I go away with is a feeling that the debate can be summed up as follows:

1. Side A: We can learn from AI but it will take a long time. Side B: Agreed.

2. Side B: We can learn from humans and can learn NOW. Sheldonian Side A: Disagree! How can a bunch of frightened dinosaurs even begin to think not using science can possibly work? Their approach has only got them to 9-dan level. Almost as bad as being an engineer from MIT! And that's my spot.

My vote goes to Penny.

My view is this. We can learn from AI now, and we already have done so. We can learn from humans now, and many of us have already done so. Some of what we learned from humans we now have to unlearn, and the sooner the botter. (I intended to write better, but I like the pun.

)

Knotwilg · Post by **Knotwilg** » Sun Dec 15, 2019 5:32 am

OK, here's another one, which is too interesting not to discuss:

We have the SL page "Learning joseki loses two stones in strength" : https://senseis.xmp.net/?LearningJoseki ... esStrength

It warns against blindly playing joseki and always carefully thinking about the meaning of your moves. This is important advice which is here to stay.
The page features an example by the famous professional Fujisawa Hideyuki:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W Joseki but kikasare $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . 5 . . . | $$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . 1 . . 6 . . | $$ | . X . X . . X . . , 2 . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . X O O O . . . . . . 3 . . . . . | $$ | . . . . X X . . . . a . . . . 4 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Fujisawa is quoted to say that the choice of

and especially

is not good in this position. White should attack the black stone at the top with A. The result is "kikasare", i.e. White is forced, by her own choices, into a low position and

is turned into a kikashi/forcing move/reducing move.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W Active play $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . | $$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . 1 . . 6 . . | $$ | . X . X . . X . . , 2 . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . X O O O . . . . . . 3 . . . . . | $$ | . . . . X X 7 . . . 9 . . . . 4 . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

The page recommends to lean with

and then cap with

The advice makes total sense. In an influential position, you surround, rather than undercut. Go is the surrounding game.

The problem is that after many playouts LZ doesn't support this view.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W Taking sente $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . O . . . | $$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . O . . X . . | $$ | . X . X . . X . . , X . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . X O O O . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

First of all, what LZ really wants to do here is be the first to play in the open asymmetric corner. So she settles the top with

, which apparently makes

urgent and so she can turn to the lower right with

is not usually on our radar. I paused at 6,3k and 54,6% for White

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W Playing actively $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . O . . X . . | $$ | . X . X . . X . . , X . 2 . . X . . . | $$ | . . . X O O O . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . X X 1 . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Now to the leaning maneuver. LZ doesn't think this is locally sente and has Black counterattack with

. I won't post the lengthy preferred sequence here but it leads to White sacrificing the top stones to build a center.

After 7,3k playouts, this counterattack gives Black 54%

So, with respect to LZ's preferred slide, this diagram 8,6% worse (by LZ's probabilities) and there's an effective switch in who's the favorite.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W Playing actively $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . O . . X . . | $$ | . X . X . . X . b , X . a . . X . . . | $$ | . . . X O O O . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . X X 1 . . . 3 . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

What if we grant White

to be sente and feed Fujisawa's advice to the bot? Then Black will sabaki starting with A then B. As a result, White will have influence to tackle the right side. The evaluation is Black 49,8% after 7k playouts.

The result is better but still with respect to LZ's preferred slide, Fujisawa's lean & cap is 4,2% worse (by LZ's probabilities) and instead of WHite being the favorite, the chances are now even.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W Kikasare again $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . O . . X . . | $$ | . X . X . . X . . , X . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . X O O O . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . X X 3 . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Now to the "catenaccio joseki" as SL has baptized it. LZ develops two different ideas for Black next. The first, as above, is very similar to her original idea with the smaller slide, taking sente to play

. After 6k playouts, White has 53,6%. Almost equivalent (with less playouts) is to pay

at

directly. The big slide, with this follow up, is marginally worse (1%) than the top choice of the small slide.

The second is more difficult to interpret.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$W Kikasare again (2) $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . O . . X . . | $$ | . X . X . . X . . . X . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . X O O O . . 5 . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . X X 3 . 2 . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 6 O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This more forceful variation shifts Black's attention to the lower left with

for reasons I don't understand. Given the variations, there are relationships between the elephant's eye, sacrificing it to link up at the top, and playing on the left side.

%%%%%

What to take away from this analysis?

To rehash the metrics:
- LZ's top choice, the small slide, gives White 54,6%
- the "blindly played catenaccio joseki" which Fujisawa scorns, gives White 53,6%
- Fujisawa's recommendation to play actively, leaning and capping, gives White 50,2%
- and if Black counterattacks, ignoring the lean, the result even drops to 46%

Of course we can say, what works for Fujisawa works for me, or we shouldn't care about the crazy things LZ says, we can still learn from conventional wisdom, carefully developed knowledge by professionals, crystallized into clear guidelines. And if we play by yesterday's pros standards, we are still at least 6d today. And as there is more such material, it's probably easier or better for us to learn that consistent path, rather than trying to figure out what the bots tell us.

But the things LZ tells us are not all over the place. Yes, there's a diagram here which suggests implications that I don't understand. But otherwise they are consistent with each other and consistent with other bots' stories. They tell a different story than the one we have developed by interpreting conventional wisdom for better or worse. Not "surround", "attack for profit (a potential profit being influence") ... but "settle fast", "play elsewhere asap", ...

The capping play in particular is under scrutiny. We know it blocks the path to the centre. It may force our opponent to live small while we take influence. The bots see that as a lost opportunity to take territory (where the opponent lives) and don't value influence as universally as (we understood) before.

Myself I may still lean and cap. But I find it interesting that the bots say: settle and play elsewhere.

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:04 am

"not blindly playing joseki and always carefully thinking about the meaning of your moves" is right but "Learning joseki loses two stones in strength" is wrong if the previous citation is applied. Then it is rather "gains three ranks".

"LZ doesn't think this is locally sente": Uh, no. LZ considers global sente here. Locally, it might be sente for human analysis but maybe LZ does not use any such local analysis. LZ thinks globally, wouldn't you agree?

Clear guidelines by professionals? I have hardly ever found them clear. It has been easier to develop my own clear guidelines than to follow those of professionals, such as "Follow the natural flow of the game like water!" (Saijo Masataka et al).

6d by conventional wisdom? Could be. I have had a similar thought yesterday: pincers are ok up to 6d but 7d really prefer corner territory.

"settle and play elsewhere": nicely identified but bots might also "not settle to play elsewhere":)

Knotwilg · Post by **Knotwilg** » Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:17 am

RobertJasiek wrote:"not blindly playing joseki and always carefully thinking about the meaning of your moves" is right but "Learning joseki loses two stones in strength" is wrong if the previous citation is applied. Then it is rather "gains three ranks".

Correct. I think that's what the page implies. You could interpret it as "learning to then follow blindly loses 2 stones", "learning to become better at choosing good moves wins 3 stones".

"LZ doesn't think this is locally sente": Uh, no. LZ considers global sente here. Locally, it might be sente for human analysis but maybe LZ does not use any such local analysis. LZ thinks globally, wouldn't you agree?

Right. What I meant to say was "contrary to the pro advice, this move is not sente, i.e. the local answer is not best answer". I wrote "not locally sente", which is confusing.

Clear guidelines by professionals? I have hardly ever found them clear. It has been easier to develop my own clear guidelines than to follow those of professionals, such as "Follow the natural flow of the game like water!" (Saijo Masataka et al).

I have been equally frustrated with Kageyama's Lessons in the Fundamentals, which often come down to "in order to play well, play well". But I'm making a synthesis here, quoting opposing views in the debate "should we revise conventional wisdom with bot analysis".

"settle and play elsewhere": nicely identified but bots might also "not settle to play elsewhere":)

Indeed

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:31 am

Many thanks, Knotwilg.

This is a position which impressed me greatly from Fujisawa's book. And Fujisawa was a remarkable player.

In fact, this example and the one recently discussed by Uberdude at viewtopic.php?p=251601#p251601 both illustrate an idea I got from Sakata, which is to ask the question, Can I get more? In both cases Fujisawa goes for more, but LZ says, You ask for too much. Maybe so, but asking myself it I can get more was worth one stone to me as a dan player.

My main takeaway from your discussion of LZ's play has to do with sente.

Knotwilg wrote:
$$W Playing actively
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . O . . X . . |
$$ | . X . X . . X . . , X . 2 . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . X O O O . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . B B 1 . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W Playing actively $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . O . . X . . | $$ | . X . X . . X . . , X . 2 . . X . . . | $$ | . . . X O O O . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . B B 1 . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]
Now to the leaning maneuver. LZ doesn't think this is locally sente and has Black counterattack with .

Well, OC

is not sente, once LZ does not reply.

I do recall being surprised when Fujisawa said it was, but Fujisawa is Fujisawa.

OC, LZ is only LZ, but I can back up LZ's non reply. Without reading it out, I can see that even if Black has to give up the

stones he lives in the corner. Edit: Well it is not global sente, anyway.

$$W Taking sente
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . a 1 . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . O . . X . . |
$$ | . X . X . . X . . , B . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . X O O O . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W Taking sente $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . a 1 . . . O . . . | $$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . O . . X . . | $$ | . X . X . . X . . , B . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . X O O O . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . X X . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]
First of all, what LZ really wants to do here is be the first to play in the open asymmetric corner. So she settles the top with , which apparently makes urgent and so she can turn to the lower right with

is a nice, solid play that avoids the thinness of the joseki play at a. The need for

is not obvious to me. Food for thought.

For me, one nice thing about LZ and other bots not offering explanations is that I am forced to think for myself. For instance, if LZ had shown Fujisawa's leaning attack, I would have thought about what White was threatening instead of just saying, Oh yeah.

$$W Kikasare again
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . O . . X . . |
$$ | . X . X . . X . . , X . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . X O O O . . . . . . O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . X X 3 . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W Kikasare again $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . X O O O . . . . . . . O . . X . . | $$ | . X . X . . X . . , X . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . X O O O . . . . . . O . . . . . | $$ | . . . . X X 3 . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . O 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . | $$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

For instance, LZ shows the turn,

as sente, but now I can see that Black replies at

, not because White's threat on the left is greater, but because, after the exchange,

-

, White's threat on the top side is smaller.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:40 am

Knotwilg wrote:
RobertJasiek wrote:"settle and play elsewhere": nicely identified but bots might also "not settle to play elsewhere":)
Indeed

My impression is that today's top bots tenuki more than humans do, but they do not always bother to settle first.

John Fairbairn · Post by **John Fairbairn** » Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:57 am

Myself I may still lean and cap. But I find it interesting that the bots say: settle and play elsewhere.

In compiling the Go Wisdom appendix/index for Games of Shuei, I was struck (and surprised) by how often the theme of "settling" came up in various commentaries - over 100 examples. It was interesting to me also that gowan, who knows Japanese, mentioned the phrase kettei uchi recently. One of the problems with reading translated texts is that different translators may use different (i.e. inconsistent) terms for the same original, consistent term. I think it may be fair to say, therefore, that the concept settling appears as a more prominent concept in the Japanese used by pros than in the English read by western amateurs. In other words, the pros are not as out of synch with bot play as those amateur readers. So, well spotted.

But rather than continuing to misrepresent what pros say, my sense of the 100+ comments is not that they are recommending settling over tenuki or anything else, or vice versa. It is rather that they identify a grander strategic aim and recommend settling as a way of achieving that (e.g. rather than start a direct attack, they will settle their own weak groups first - but there is quite a range of applications). Again, I infer that pros are not necessarily as out of synch with bots as some amateurs imply.

"Learning joseki loses two stones in strength" is wrong if the previous citation is applied. Then it is rather "gains three ranks".

In similar vein, criticising Japanese pros for what they haven't said is really what is wrong. The usual Japanese proverb doesn't even mention two stones - it just says you become weaker. But the Japanese proverb begins "joseki oboete", and if you look up oboeru in a good J-E dictionary such as the Green Goddess this is how it begins: "commit to memory; fix in one's mind; remember; know; get by heart; memorise." Nelson begins: "remember; memorise". So where does the sense of "learn" (= understand) come from?

Life In 19x19

reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism

Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism

Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism

Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism

Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism

Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism

Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism

Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism

Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism

Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism

Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism

Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism

Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism

Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism

Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism

Re: reviewing SL articles using LZ and criticism