Life In 19x19

Thanks for all your attention! I was just curious so forgive me if some of you felt offended! Even though my thought unchanged.

Just been looking at a long essay by Segoe Kensaku: "Democratisation of go and teaching methods". It begins with the sentence "When we contrast modern go with old go, the gap between them is such that they can hardly be compared."

He is talking more about teaching methods then go strength, but still one presumably impacts on the other. The basis of his argument is that in Edo times the Four Families taught only their own pupils and there was no sharing even with other pros. So not only was the old pool much smaller, it was divided into several discrete even smaller pools, with a stronger risk of stagnation.

Indeed, it is already known that Edo go went through several periods of stagnation.

Segoe was writing at a time when the democratic impact of newspapers and books, at least for those with disposable incomes, was perhaps as strong as the internet nowadays.

I would think that "Democratisation of go and teaching methods" has only led to a much greater number of people being able to play go rather than a quick rise in the go strength of pros.
On the other hand, I would think that modern pros have much more distractions compared with their ancient counterparts who probably study go in a monastic fashion.
While there is perhaps a greater development in the opening in modern go as it directly impacts fast modern games, I don't see modern professionals pondering go to such depth that they could construct a tsumego like Igo Hatsuyo-ron #120.

tchan001 wrote:I don't see modern professionals pondering go to such depth that they could construct a tsumego like Igo Hatsuyo-ron #120.

Ôhashi Hirofumi 6p once mentioned (having created over 2.000 own Tsume-Go at that time) that he would wish to be able creating a problem like Igo Hatsuyôron 120 once in his lifetime.

tchan001 wrote:I don't see modern professionals pondering go to such depth that they could construct a tsumego like Igo Hatsuyo-ron #120.

I think that comes down more to practicality than capability.

oren wrote:

tchan001 wrote:I don't see modern professionals pondering go to such depth that they could construct a tsumego like Igo Hatsuyo-ron #120.

I think that comes down more to practicality than capability.

If it comes down to practicality, it would appear that it is even more important for ancient players to focus on winning the game given Sakata's thought on "The fortunes of the hereditary houses to which they belonged depended upon the wins of those masters for their survival." Given the democratisation of go and go teaching methods leading to more people knowing how to play go, it's not hard to imagine modern professionals who have declining careers in tournament play could still make a good living teaching private lessons or writing books or giving lectures. Whereas the ancient players faced a matter of survival of their institution. So you would think that in terms of practicality, ancient players would have less time to ponder and construct tsumego like Igo Hatsuyo-ron #120.
In terms of modern tsumego composers, the best known are perhaps Kada Katsuji 9p, Maeda Nobuaki 9p, and Hashimoto Utaro 9p. They all compose wonderful tsumego, but just not as wonderful as Igo Hatsuyo-ron #120. So if they do pursue the height of tsumego creation and yet have not accomplished what the ancient had, can you really imply that they have the same capability?

tchan001 wrote:So you would think that in terms of practicality, ancient players would have less time to ponder and construct tsumego like Igo Hatsuyo-ron #120.

They didn't have Facebook back then.

tchan001 wrote:In terms of modern tsumego composers, the best known are perhaps Kada Katsuji 9p, Maeda Nobuaki 9p, and Hashimoto Utaro 9p. They all compose wonderful tsumego, but just not as wonderful as Igo Hatsuyo-ron #120. So if they do pursue the height of tsumego creation and yet have not accomplished what the ancient had, can you really imply that they have the same capability?

The amount of printing done today vs before and what the fans/go students want is different is what I am getting to there. I think any of the players mentioned could create an Igo Hatsuyoron 120 but the practical value of doing so is not there. Most modern composers want shorter and interesting tsumego they can compile into books or share with other pros to try out in reasonable time lengths. Not too many want to work on a ridiculously long single tsumego.

oren wrote:

tchan001 wrote:In terms of modern tsumego composers, the best known are perhaps Kada Katsuji 9p, Maeda Nobuaki 9p, and Hashimoto Utaro 9p. They all compose wonderful tsumego, but just not as wonderful as Igo Hatsuyo-ron #120. So if they do pursue the height of tsumego creation and yet have not accomplished what the ancient had, can you really imply that they have the same capability?

The amount of printing done today vs before and what the fans/go students want is different is what I am getting to there. I think any of the players mentioned could create an Igo Hatsuyoron 120 but the practical value of doing so is not there. Most modern composers want shorter and interesting tsumego they can compile into books or share with other pros to try out in reasonable time lengths. Not too many want to work on a ridiculously long single tsumego.

With a large population of amateur players, the creation of shorter and interesting tsumego into books for this audience is indeed most welcomed. Many pros are able to provide such tsumego with ease. But the idea of creating a tsumego like Igo Hatsuyo-ron #120 is not intended for this market. It is to leave behind a legacy of the limits of one's creative mind by creating a lifetime masterpiece.

Kada Katsuji has also created some very difficult tsumego which covers many pages of explanations along with branch tsumego which are related to main. And he is greatly recognized for his body of intense tsumego compositions. However his creations still pale in comparison to Igo Hatsuyo-ron #120.

If people weren't interested in a problem like Igo Hatsuyo-ron #120, why would Fujisawa Shuko according to SL call it "a lifetime masterpiece, with elegant shapes, a striking novelty of the theme, a precise balance of the fights, etc." and produce "his version of a solution with 1,000 hours work, including the assistance of some of his students".

If it wasn't interesting for fans, why would three amateurs continue to struggle to solve it while seeking professional validation of parts of their study for it's solution? If someone could successfully publish several books on a single problem that has not been fully solved yet, why would a book on an even more difficult and elegant tsumego not be worthwhile?

Why do people strive to be the best? Why do people strive to break world records? It is the urge to test and surpass the limits. If someone had the ability to create the most difficult and elegant tsumego in the world, why wouldn't they unless they couldn't?

wessanenoctupus wrote:this question was clearly answered when Sai came back to haunt Hikaru, and then proceeded to defeat the strongest modern player of all, Meijin Touya.

Why are we all still talking about it. Just watch that documentary Hikaru no go if you want all the details.

Sai is a ghost with centuries of experience. Heck, he was even alive when the Japanese were still playing in the ancient Chinese style and under ancient Chinese rules.

Having said this, I wonder how much of the influence of ancient Chinese Go theory shows up in modern-day Go, starting with Go Seigen's games.

Kirby wrote:

Bantari wrote:I hope my point is clear now.

I think you should read what I wrote before arguing against it.

I am saying, "All other things being equal" a larger pool leads to greater chance that the best players will be a part of that pool.

Point taken.
And you are correct, "all other things being equal" you are right. I have to learn to read more carefully.

In my defense:
In the context of this discussion, all other things are definitely NOT equal. So while *in theory* what you say is true, as a comment to comparing old pros to modern pros it is *in practice* not very relevant. I was arguing with what I preceived to be the relevance of your post. And my bad - I indeed did not notice that you were making an OT remark. Sorry.

PS>
To directly address what you say though, it is still not always the case. I would say it all depends on how you select your sample. For example: considering Go talent, you might select top 10% and top 20% as your population. And I will still argue that, while the second population will be much larger and all other things being equal, the top player(s) in both groups will still be equally strong.

So what you say is true ONLY when the pools are selected randomly. Which you did not really specifically say as far as I remember, and which is not the case in this case since people don't just randomly start playing Go.

Which is also sort-of, part-of, the argument I was trying to make.

Bantari wrote:PS>
To directly address what you say though, it is still not always the case. I would say it all depends on how you select your sample. For example: considering Go talent, you might select top 10% and top 20% as your population. And I will still argue that, while the second population will be much larger and all other things being equal, the top player(s) in both groups will still be equally strong.

So what you say is true ONLY when the pools are selected randomly. Which you did not really specifically say as far as I remember, and which is not the case in this case since people don't just randomly start playing Go.

Yes, you are talking about percentages now, which I also wrote about (you can see the original comment):

Kirby wrote:Percentages are a different story. If you want to be in the top 10% of a distribution, it might be similar difficulty to be in the top 10% between populations of different sizes.

We're just talking about math here. If you talk percentages, with equal distribution between groups, top 10% is probably similar between the two groups. If you're talking about absolute numbers, top 10 for example, top 10 will generally be more talented when the population is larger. Assuming equal distribution, no other factors, etc. And when I say "all other things being equal", this implies random sample. Otherwise, you've introduced variables into the sample.

Anyway, that's all I was saying from that comment I made over a month ago

I think if you were to take one of the Legendary greats and transport them here they would probably just have a heart attack, then spend a lot of time exploring the new world, rather than becoming the best at go...In the FUTURE!

To be honest, ever since I started go in 2011, I've been wondering just how well shusaku etc would fare in today's world. Would they be stronger than the top pros today? About as strong? Weaker? I've had a few debates throughout the years, and after listening to a lot of pro commentaries, I've come to the conclusion that Shuusaku, Dosaku, Huang Longshi etc, would not be competitive today. They would be top amateur level max.

Chinese and Korean pros today don't study games from the famous players of the past. I have heard directly (in commentaries and interviews) from Shi Yue and other pros that they respect the past masters, but their games are only good as a historical value, and are not really worth studying.

Recently, I've also been really interested in just exactly how strong AlphaGo is. Before the Lee Sedol matches, most go players thought Lee SEdol would win 5-0. I thought it would be 5-0 either way, but it was completely possible AlphaGo far surpassed humans already. But after the games, I wasn't sure if AlphaGo was "merely" top pro strength, and only won because Lee Sedol wasn't prepared and wasn't used to playing bots, or if AlphaGo really was much stronger than humans. And it seems many pros still thought that AlphaGo was beatable, with Chang Hao and Shi Yue saying that they think if they had more time to prepare, top pros would have a 50/50 chance against AlphaGo v18. So I was really on the fence.

However, yesterday, I saw an article on Sina quoting Ke Jie, saying something like "sooner or later, bots will be stronger than humans. Humans inevitably make mistakes, but that is part of what makes go interesting..."

It seems to me that Ke Jie is basically admitting that AlphaGo is in fact, too strong for humans now. Honestly I feel kind of sad, but...

idontgetit wrote: Chinese and Korean pros today don't study games from the famous players of the past. I have heard directly (in commentaries and interviews) from Shi Yue and other pros that they respect the past masters, but their games are only good as a historical value, and are not really worth studying.

Not ancient Japan, but when I was in BIBA On Sojin 7p did study Go Seigen's games.