Re: Why are our instincts so bad?
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 9:01 am
My intuition: Q10 and let white figure out how he wants to consolidate this entire area.
Life in 19x19. Go, Weiqi, Baduk... Thats the life.
https://lifein19x19.com/
John Fairbairn wrote:But what we also found was that, when we did a game that included one or two amateurs - even good ones, e.g. at the World Ama - our speed fell dramatically. Close to double the time was needed. We talked about this many times and were quite clear about the explanation. When doing a pro game we had a reliable intuitive feel for where the next move would be. That meant finding the move on a dense diagram was not specially hard - we knew where to focus. The only real problems came when ko threats were scattered round the board (or, of course, as quite often happens, if moves are missing from the printed source). In amateur games, however, moves just followed each other without any rhyme or reason apparent to us, so we had to waste time laboriously scanning the whole board, over and over again.
John Fairbairn wrote:Our conclusion was that we had both developed a good feel for pro play. This does not mean, of course, that we could read like pros or explain exactly what the pro was thinking. In fact we didn't know ourselves what was enabling us to focus so often and almost unerringly on the next area of play. The only logical inference, supported by many other things such as the repeated advice of pros to play over pro games, was that we had played over enough games to train (but unwittingly, without any conscious study-type thoughts at the time) our sub-conscious into acting like a reasonably reliable machine. For pro games. Pro games only.
longshanks wrote:intuition
ɪntjʊˈɪʃ(ə)
noun
[list=]the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning.
"we shall allow our intuition to guide us"
a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.
"your insights and intuitions as a native speaker are positively sought"[/list]
I personally don't think that people are born with an instinct to play Go. I think they acquire knowledge to play Go either through study or lots of play (or both). This becomes second nature after repetition in the same way as playing a musical instrument or learning a foreign language. At some point it becomes natural and we no longer think of it.
I think when a person plays with instinct/intuition in Go it's just subconscious learned reasoning. With that in mind perhaps playing moves with more conscious thought rather than 'it feeling right' should work better if we can understand the knowledge or insight that comes to us subconsciously. Perhaps it's our inability to know/remember why this shape looks bad that leads us to just call it intuition.
daal wrote:
D. Re-read John's text. Surrounding territory. Oh, what about firming up that corner that can still easily be ruined? Also looks like sente, so I could come back and play one of the other moves afterwards. This is my choice.
wineandgolover wrote:daal wrote:Who knows, you might be right, and I might be completely wrong, but if your goal is surrounding territory, you have another direction you can move in, without helping white.
Cassandra wrote:wineandgolover wrote:daal wrote:Who knows, you might be right, and I might be completely wrong, but if your goal is surrounding territory, you have another direction you can move in, without helping white.
Why do you exclude (implicitely) that "your goal is surrounding territory" might be applied to White ?
Just because it is "Black to play" ?
Probably one has to consider that (some of) White's three stones at right (may be after a correct sequence that is unknown to me) might not be optimally placed for surrounding an APPROPRIATE amount of White territory ?
Loons wrote:Just for the board being analysed, my intuition is G4 but on reflection I want to play Q2.
Forget Deep Blue; Deep Learning Became An IM In Three Days
You've heard the stats before about computations per second in man vs. machine matches -- millions and millions every time the carbon-based life form analyses two. Now programmers are upping their game by reducing the amount of "thought".
Throwing Moore's Law aside, this new computer program, "Giraffe", professes to analyse "much more like humans" according to the article and achieved IM strength in 72 hours. The secret? "Deep neural networks" that are also used in such processes as face and handwriting recognition.