Life In 19x19

Kirby wrote:Someone who just learned the rules of go, having a strong capacity for holding variations in their mind, might very well be able to read a good number of moves wide and deep. But the moves they are choosing to read are unlikely to be very good, and it's unlikely that they'll end up with a good result, even if they read, say 15~20 sequences - they were just all the wrong sequences.

In contrast, a pro player has the intuition and instinct to play a most-likely-to-be-correct move almost instantly, without really "reading" deep or wide.

There was a study done at some point that came to the conclusion that chess players read the most (that is, have the greatest number of nodes in their search tree) at expert level (probably the equivalent of 1-2d in go). Weaker players didn't have the ability to read more than that, and masters didn't need to because they did so much pruning, and didn't painstakingly consider and discard moves and variations that they could tell were irrelevant.

dfan wrote:

Kirby wrote:Someone who just learned the rules of go, having a strong capacity for holding variations in their mind, might very well be able to read a good number of moves wide and deep. But the moves they are choosing to read are unlikely to be very good, and it's unlikely that they'll end up with a good result, even if they read, say 15~20 sequences - they were just all the wrong sequences.

In contrast, a pro player has the intuition and instinct to play a most-likely-to-be-correct move almost instantly, without really "reading" deep or wide.

There was a study done at some point that came to the conclusion that chess players read the most (that is, have the greatest number of nodes in their search tree) at expert level (probably the equivalent of 1-2d in go). Weaker players didn't have the ability to read more than that, and masters didn't need to because they did so much pruning, and didn't painstakingly consider and discard moves and variations that they could tell were irrelevant.

This makes sense if you think of reading variations as a tree. A pro can just go from the trunk to the top, if we argue that the top of the tree is the right move. An amateur takes detours at lower branches and spends time reading through the twigs that a pro passes over getting to the higher branches, close to the correct move.

I've come to this conclusion myself - where I think my opponent's move might be is very often not what actually happens

I'm using the "analyse game" function on OGS with enthusiasm, but I think I don't see the best moves.

However it is interesting that, when playing against myself with the analyse function, I find it much easier to kill my own groups than my opponent's.
I think this shows that my opponent has the better/stronger position.

(Does one say "opponent"?)

Jika wrote:(Does one say "opponent"?)

Yes, your entire comment was perfect idiomatic English.

Hades12 wrote: This makes sense if you think of reading variations as a tree. A pro can just go from the trunk to the top, if we argue that the top of the tree is the right move. An amateur takes detours at lower branches and spends time reading through the twigs that a pro passes over getting to the higher branches, close to the correct move.

Sure. And at the very start of the game as black, I'm "reading" 361 branches, right?

I feel like there should be different English words to distinguish between move selection guided by intuition or logic, and consciously considering alternatives that aren't brought about immediately by intuition. Maybe it's a part of visualization. Or maybe we could call it "iteration"? Or maybe "calculation"?

I'd like to allow the term "reading" to include shortcuts or heuristics obtained through intuition and/or other means, since that's often what happens at higher levels of play.

Kirby wrote:

Hades12 wrote: This makes sense if you think of reading variations as a tree. A pro can just go from the trunk to the top, if we argue that the top of the tree is the right move. An amateur takes detours at lower branches and spends time reading through the twigs that a pro passes over getting to the higher branches, close to the correct move.

Sure. And at the very start of the game as black, I'm "reading" 361 branches, right?

I feel like there should be different English words to distinguish between move selection guided by intuition or logic, and consciously considering alternatives that aren't brought about immediately by intuition. Maybe it's a part of visualization. Or maybe we could call it "iteration"? Or maybe "calculation"?

I'd like to allow the term "reading" to include shortcuts or heuristics obtained through intuition and/or other means, since that's often what happens at higher levels of play.

361 factorial. Good luck!

Kirby wrote:Sure. And at the very start of the game as black, I'm "reading" 361 branches, right?

Well, only 55, right?

Bill Spight wrote:
Well, only 55, right?

Bill is talking about symmetry --- all rotations and reflections are equivalent. The only unique point for the first move is the center point. All others at least four equivalents and most have eight.

Mike Novack wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:
Well, only 55, right?

Bill is talking about symmetry --- all rotations and reflections are equivalent. The only unique point for the first move is the center point. All others at least four equivalents and most have eight.

However simple it may be, reducing search space for symmetry is a form of heuristic, reducing search space like we've been discussing - isn't it?

Anyway, I'm just joking about the whole thing - the main thing I'd like to say is that it'd be good to distinguish between the conscious calculation that can happen during reading vs. intuition, shortcuts, heuristics, and logic/knowledge based shortcuts that happen during the process of "reading".