Life In 19x19

Google Translate wrote:(Forward)
Can today's top human Go players, such as Ke Jie, have played ancient Go players?
Author: BionicMed

Long technical post warning!

Let me talk about the conclusion first: almost strictly equal in chess power. Fan and Shi are far superior to ordinary nine-duan chess under the ancient rules.

What are we talking about when we are talking about "the next passing"? The majestic layout strategy? A meticulous mid-market idea? Qunzhu must be more stereotyped than intrigue officials? Or is it a story off the court, a legendary chess legend created by legendary drama?
Obviously neither. Chess is chess. The only thing that can evaluate chess power is stronger chess power.

So what kind of chess ability can be evaluated as a master of Fan Shi Ersheng level? Industry 3 Industry 4 "Post Bar God"? Chong Duan boy, local hero? Or is it a profession? If a junior profession respects ancient law and a senior profession disagrees with it, is the latter necessarily correct?

Obviously, only the strongest chess player can get the most accurate answer. I was fortunate enough to participate in the continuation of the official weight of Katago, the strongest open source Go AI on the market. It took two weeks to analyze the simulations of Ke, Fan Shi, Xiaoli and Coulee one by one through computer simulations of 100,000 each step. 40 chess records, and strive to get the least deviation conclusion.
KatagoS289B40F384 and S571B40F256 have a professional sense of pure chess. With one hundred thousand calculations, it surpassed the forty stages of human chess. Using LizzieYzY analysis software, we can draw the following analysis conclusions:
Attachment:
1.png
1.png [99.6 KiB | Viewed 269 times]

(Picture 1)

Note 1: When the Hu chess record 2, Ke Jie chess record 1, 5, there is a problem with the software, so the data is not used;
Note 2: In the 10 rounds of Danghu Lake, the highest uncertainty was 45.6 and the average highest was 26.9. Ke Jie's 9th-dan rounds had the highest uncertainty of 33.6 and the average was 21.4;
Note 3: When the lake analysis is ancient chess rules + paste 7.5 meshes to avoid false height; contemporary is adaptive rules; analysis calculation is 100,000/step.

Analysis conclusion:
In general, Ke Jie's 9th Duan score is 66 under the contemporary rules, which is slightly better than Fan Sheng's overall rating of 62.4, and one grade better than Shi Sheng's 59.7 points.
Regardless of the layout, Ke Jie's mid-game score is around 58, which is slightly weaker than Fan Sheng and slightly stronger than Shi Sheng.

From the analysis of high-level data, there is a bonus of 85% of the first choice for the opening 60 hands. Ke Jie's sense of correctness (first choice) is 1.5% higher than that of Fan Sheng, and Shi Sheng is 2.8% higher. The gap is small. The opening factor is slightly weaker than the second holy.
In contrast, the 7% difference between the three choices indicates that contemporary top players such as Ke Jie 9duan have accurate calculations, due to relatively few mistakes due to long-term training and competition.
But is this really the case? From the uncertainty, we can see that the battle of ancient chess is more intense, and in this context, Fan and Shi's evil hands lose slightly less average points than Ke Jie. So who makes fewer mistakes is still open for discussion.

In the era without AI, it is undoubtedly shocking that Er Sheng was able to play in Jufan Kuaiqi with data that was not significantly weaker than Ke Jie's 9-dan, and even the accuracy of the mid-game and the calculation of the road were even more closely matched. Reaching this data under the premise that the situation is significantly more complicated than contemporary times, undoubtedly strongly refutes the "Fan Shiye 5 Theory".
Excluding the hypothesis of "Fan Shi learns AI" by Guan Gong and Qin Qiong, only from the content of chess, the two saints have exceeded the average level of the world championship in the post-AI era. In the face of the pre-AI era, such as Nie Ma, Liu Chao, Xiao Li and other masters, the data is beyond.

After reaching this conclusion, many chess players refuted my conclusion. I will summarize the refutation into the following three points. Readers are also welcome to make other suggestions and discuss together.
1. Most ancient chess theories have "metaphysics" content, and the theory of chess is not correct.
2. Although the ancients were infinitely powerful, they were wrong.
3. The scores of chess with more battles are much higher.

In order to refute these three arguments, I additionally found the ten rounds of the 9th dan, the peak of human chess in the pre-AI era, the 10 rounds of the 9th dan, the essence of human power and the master of ghost hands, and the ten rounds of the 9th dan of the peak of human power, Gu Li, together with chess friends. Explore.
Attachment:
2.png
2.png [98.77 KiB | Viewed 269 times]

(Figure II)


Analysis sample:
Attachment:
3and4.png
3and4.png [546.46 KiB | Viewed 269 times]

(Picture 3) (Picture 4)

I often hear the older generation talk about chess and say that Li Changhao's 9th dan official is the best in the world, and he has nothing to do with his skills. However, according to AI data, when compared with the next generation of "peerless double arrogance"-Gu Li 9th Duan and Li Shishi 9th Duan, Li Changhao 9th Duan not only has the lowest official score, but also the average number of meshes lost per step is not that small. The data shows that Lee Chang-ho's 9th-dan lead may not be the official, but the mid-game.

It is worth mentioning that in the pre-AI era, only Gu Li Jiudan scored more than 60 points. From the point of view of coincidence, opening and mid-game, Coulee 9th dan is far ahead. Perhaps from the AI ​​point of view, in ancient Li Shifan chess and other games, the content of Gu Li's chess is slightly better than that of Li Shishi's 9th dan. The smallest loss of head and the super-high one-choice overlap all reflect his bold skills. , Intuitive and keen technical characteristics.

Another counter-intuitive statistic shows that Lee Sedol's 9th Dan is better among the three, and the start is not as good as Lee Chang-ho's 9th Dan. From the perspective of short-term trends, the 9th dan of Lee Chang-ho is the pinnacle of the "previous generation" of humans, while Xiao Li and Gu Li are the pinnacles of mankind in the "pre-AI era". Therefore, there is nothing to say that "Go is developed". error.

However, from a long-term trend, after the emergence of AI, the peak level of humanity may not be as much as imagined. Facing the fact that Fan Xiping’s data goes hand-in-hand with Gu Li’s 9th dan and Shi Xiangxia’s data is similar to Er Li, perhaps we should rethink the conclusion of the development of Go. Perhaps the improvement of Go in hundreds of years is not significant, only a few. Some geniuses are slowly extending the limits of mankind slightly, and they are being pushed back by more erroneous "progressive thinking".

I think back to the Go forums, post it, and even know how demeaning the two sages of ancient chess (Fan Xiping, Shi Xiangxia), I still feel a little bit laughable. I wonder if the two saints, known for their battles, already had the top level of human beings (before and after the emergence of AI) hundreds of years ago, and labeling it as "At most industry 5" can actually make the locals powerful? Did the players of Kie 3 and Kie 4 who criticized the “unintelligible” opening of Guqi also think that the opening of Ersheng will surpass the big and small Lee in the AI? Although high-eyes and low-hands are necessary steps for hand-eye coordination, "seeing the three moves of high chess" is also a standing motivation for progress, but in the face of the unknown, perhaps keeping an open perspective can get closer to the truth.

I don’t know that many people in the chess world who don’t understand ancient chess say that "the ancients could not surpass karma 6, and it has nothing to do with their talents." Without the influence of AI and no public discussion of the competitive atmosphere, Ersheng achieved a quasi-full encirclement of the most peak human data in the pre-AI era only through chess and exploration, and it is the best of human beings after learning AI tricks. When the peak of Ke Jie's 9th Duan is completely powerful on paper, what should he say? Although the data is not a chess skill, it has completely reached the level of the strongest nine-segment data, and how can the ancient sage, who has never met with AI, only have the level of karma 5 and karma 6?

Note: All contemporary chess records are played at the peak of the players, and most of them are quality games in the finals of the competition. The author of the private message can obtain the original file for analysis.

SoDesuNe wrote:

Google Translate wrote: The data shows that Lee Chang-ho's 9th-dan lead may not be the official, but the mid-game.

pgwq wrote: ...KatagoS289B40F384与S571B40F256...

Amigo wrote:我在哪里可以下载这些网络？
where can i download these networks?

apetresc wrote:

Amigo wrote:我在哪里可以下载这些网络？
where can i download these networks?

All published Katago networks are here, with an explanation of the best ones to use for practical purposes here.

John Fairbairn wrote:Very well done! Although I'm sure we will eventually need a rigorous analysis, by people more used to dealing with statistics than I am, of your method and your interpretation of the results, I already feel confident in saying that your claim that the ancient players are worthier of much more respect than they usually get is one that several of us on this forum will find easy to accept. The Japanese have done a similar exercise for players going back to Honinbo Dosaku and have reached a similar conclusion, and some of us here have done similar things on a small number of games for individual players. The results seem similar to yours, but your exercise goes into impressive detail.

Indeed, I think that in some ways it is easier to make the claim for the old Chinese players, for two reasons. One is that you appear not to have made an adjustment yet for group tax. If that's correct, I think you will find that they score much better (especially, but not just, in the opening) than your figures show. The other reason is that in the case of old Japanese players we have no commentaries or theory books written by the players themselves, and so it is difficult to know how the players thought. In the case of China we have both hundreds of commentaries and theory books. We not only can see how they thought but we can also see that they thought in ways which seem to find a remarkable parallel in AI play. To give one example that is fascinating me at the moment and which I have studied in some detail, there is the term 照应 which is especially common in 不古编 (published in 1682!!). For the benefit of readers not familiar with these commentaries, this refers to a concept of proffering a helping hand to friendly groups, but since the helping hand extends over the whole board and in multiple directions, it works in a very AI-like way. Perhaps a better way of looking at it is like setting up a lighthouse (照 = to shine) offering help to ships in distress, or just plain reassurance, on the vast ocean of the board.

I hope it also needless to add that the enormous technical skill of the old Chinese players has been recognised even outside China. Apart from the tsumego problems of Xuanxuan Qijing, for example, their skill in actual games has been recognised. One good example is 中国古棋譜散歩 (A promenade through old Chinese go manuals) by Watanabe Hideo 7-dan.

What many people here would like to see now is your analysis of Go Seigen (Wu Qingyuan). He is not so ancient, but he did study old Chinese manuals and many people, both professional and amateur, have noticed that he too played in an AI way.