Life In 19x19

Life in 19x19. Go, Weiqi, Baduk... Thats the life.
https://lifein19x19.com/

The traditional and modern approach of go evaluations

https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?t=7890

Page 1 of 3

The traditional and modern approach of go evaluations

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:52 am
by lovelove
Traditional

- Thinking more about abstract concepts like shape, efficiency, solidness, how stones work together, whole board thinking. Go players with this approach often think that "good looking" positions will naturally bring a good result.


Modern

- There are two main points in this approach: territory and thickness. How to evaluate is rather simple: just count the territory of each sides and decide who is thicker. This sometimes brings a different result from that by the traditional evaluation.


Below diagram shows how plays can be different by the way of approach.

It should be blacks turn. Where would he play?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bcm1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bcm1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . a 1 . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This (or 'a') is the traditional "good move". It is an extension from both corners, which makes this "efficient". Stones are working well together, and black can make a good framework by several possible jumps from the stone on left side.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bcm1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , 2 . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This is the modern move. White will split immediately and black will approach either 'a' or 'b'. The reason of playing this move is simple: black has a lot of territory. Modern (pro) players prefer something visible and immediate.

Look at this one, too. The below position can happen both in 3-4 and 4-5 (outdated) joseki. It was considered joseki before, because black has territory and white has a solid good shape. However, nowadays white plays this way only in very special situations, since the local result is considered inferior for white. The reason why is again simple: white hasn't enough territory compared to black.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bcm1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . X X O . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . X , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Re: The traditional and modern approach of go evaluations

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:36 am
by lemmata
Hi lovelove,

Thanks for the interesting post. I've seen Gu Li play that modern opening you showed and always wondered about it. I don't know if he was the first, but his is the first I remember. I wanted to learn about it but couldn't really find anything.

I have a question about the joseki in the final diagram. From what I have read in books, the position is joseki because of something other than shape. They tend to warn users about the dearth of territory for white in this joseki. According to such books, white plays this joseki when
  1. There are a couple white stones on the left side that work well with the knight's move on the 4th line;
  2. and/or white has a reason to counter black influence on the bottom side.

So my question is this: Don't you think that what you call a modern (post-90s?) opinion about the joseki is actually something that has been accepted wisdom since the 70s? Has the opinion changed in more subtle ways? Has the same opinion been reached using different reasoning?

Re: The traditional and modern approach of go evaluations

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:42 am
by lovelove
I'm sure the last diagram is no more joseki, and the main reason is lack of territory for white. I don't know more than that. I heard this couple times from BadukTV after mid 2011, when I started to have interest in go.

Re: The traditional and modern approach of go evaluations

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:41 am
by Bill Spight
lovelove wrote:Traditional

- Thinking more about abstract concepts like shape, efficiency, solidness, how stones work together, whole board thinking. Go players with this approach often think that "good looking" positions will naturally bring a good result.


Modern

- There are two main points in this approach: territory and thickness. How to evaluate is rather simple: just count the territory of each sides and decide who is thicker. This sometimes brings a different result from that by the traditional evaluation.


Below diagram shows how plays can be different by the way of approach.

It should be blacks turn. Where would he play?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bcm1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bcm1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . a 1 . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This (or 'a') is the traditional "good move". It is an extension from both corners, which makes this "efficient". Stones are working well together, and black can make a good framework by several possible jumps from the stone on left side.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bcm1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , 2 . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

This is the modern move. White will split immediately and black will approach either 'a' or 'b'. The reason of playing this move is simple: black has a lot of territory. Modern (pro) players prefer something visible and immediate.

Look at this one, too. The below position can happen both in 3-4 and 4-5 (outdated) joseki. It was considered joseki before, because black has territory and white has a solid good shape. However, nowadays white plays this way only in very special situations, since the local result is considered inferior for white. The reason why is again simple: white hasn't enough territory compared to black.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bcm1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . X X O . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . X , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


I think that these discussions are a bit unfair to "traditional" thinking. I put traditional in quotes because often the thinking being criticized is fairly modern. One thing that we have to remember is that there are trends, even fads, in thinking about joseki and fuseki. I have been surprised, for instance, by the return of the kosumi response in the following diagram.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , 1 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |[/go]


For a long time it was considered too slow.

It is true that current pro style tends to be more territory oriented than it was some decades ago. At the same time, there is a good bit of experimentation with center-oriented play. It is hard to say that any style is best.

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


While I am sure that some people would play on the right side, it seems to me that, from a "traditional" whole board viewpoint, the top side is urgent. And I think that, 40 or 50 years ago, a lot of pros would have played :b1:. Experience, however, suggests that :w2: has too good a relation to the :wc: stone.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . 1 . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


So tradition plus experience might indicate a play like :b1:.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , X . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


The new play is quite interesting. It is also on the top side (whole board thinking), but is more territory oriented. To me, the difference between this diagram and the previous one is a matter of style.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . X X O . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . X , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


As for this shape, the Suzuki-Kitani Small Joseki Dictionary, which dates to the mid-twentieth century, so is "traditional" in this context, does not call this joseki. Instead, it says that it is a common shape, and notes that White is behind in territory.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc Traditional joseki
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . X X O . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . X , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . O , X . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . O X X . . . . X . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]


It does show these shapes as joseki, however. :)

Re: The traditional and modern approach of go evaluations

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 1:26 pm
by logan
Yes, it's an inaccurate & incorrect distinction. Professionals have been counting territory and thickness since...at least the days of Sansa (16th c.). Some played territory styles and others preferred to build early thickness. It was just a matter of style. In addition, it could be well argued that the thinking before the advent of contemporary Go schools was a lot more varied. Some people did develop ways of evaluating the board that were more abstract than simple counting and this lead to more varieties of unique styles.

The top contemporary Go schools (Korean in particular) tend to pump out players who are more locally creative than globally, so the shapes in their games have been adapted to facilitate this style & strength.

We must be careful of people who grew up in this latter system and have been colored into thinking of certain things as gospel, when actually they're more fad than fact.

Re: The traditional and modern approach of go evaluations

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:51 pm
by lemmata
logan wrote:We must be careful of people who grew up in this latter system and have been colored into thinking of certain things as gospel, when actually they're more fad than fact.

There have always been fads in go, so the fact that there are fads today is not really unusual. However, as usual, Lee Sedol has a very interesting take on this. He has said that the real reason young players have the same style is because [EDIT: trying to become a pro is risky]. Training to be a pro in Korea is like going all-in on the first hand at the table of life. You have to go all-in because the competition is too fierce. However, even after going all-in, your chances are not very good because so few are allowed to become pros each year. According to Lee Sedol, this makes the young pro-wannabes play go that is only geared toward getting through the pro-selection tournament (making their styles too similar in the process). If I remember correctly, Lee Sedol is a proponent of making it slightly easier to become a pro. [EDIT: I remembered incorrectly! He thinks that it is too easy! I think... If I remembered correctly this time] This is only anecdotal evidence and not a scientific argument, but it makes you realize that, whether he is correct or not, Lee Sedol always thinks about things on a deeper level than other pros do.

That said, I think that professionals have far more awareness of the difference between fad and fact than amateurs do. What a pro says casually, an amateur will often repeat with zealous conviction absent in the original statement. Amateurs have always done this. Why? Because it is F U N and our privilege. :D Who doesn't like a good debate? The more popular commentators on Baduk TV are the ones who like to express exaggerated opinions every now and then.
The top contemporary Go schools (Korean in particular) tend to pump out players who are more locally creative than globally, so the shapes in their games have been adapted to facilitate this style & strength.
This seems unfair to the Koreans. How many players in history have been noticeably creative on a global scale? Only a select few geniuses in each era have managed to do that. Weaker players copy the strongest players of their era. This has always been true.

Re: The traditional and modern approach of go evaluations

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:58 pm
by jts
Lemmata, is the idea supposed to be that there is a specific style of Go that gives an unusual advantage due to the structure of their pro exams (the way risky fighting works better in blitz games), or that they study the style they expect to fight against and end up playing in that style because they're familiar with it?

Re: The traditional and modern approach of go evaluations

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:26 pm
by RobertJasiek
"Go evaluations" in the thread subject suggests something general for game positions, but the OP's example positions show only very early openings / corner sequences. In general, evaluations are a much broader topic than allowing only studies of the very early game.

I do not see at all the OP's distinction between what he calls "traditional" and "modern" evaluation. Both "shape, efficiency, solidness, how stones work together, whole board thinking [etc.]" and "territory and thickness" must be evaluated. In fact, much more can also be evaluated: options, choices, influence etc. There are various methods of evaluation from local to global, from short- to long-term, bottom-up or top-down.

Rather than proclaiming a conflict between traditional and modern, in practice, for a particular position, one must identify the more versus less relevant factors. In an evaluation approximation, one can then possibly simplify and ignore the almost immaterial factors for the particular position.

The OP tries to argue for his opening example that what he calls modern evaluation considered only territory and thickness. Sorry, but no professional would overlook, e.g., sizes of empty regions and the stones' influence on them!

The OP argues about a particular joseki that it was considered outdated because of too little territory for White. If he said "currently unpopular", it would be a very different matter. Locally, the shape is as much a joseki as before. Black has more territory but also more aji in his shape pretending to construct this territory. White has more outside influence. If we assume 11 points of territory for Black and 6 points for White, the territory count is 5. If we assume 2 outside black influence stones and 4 white influence stones with significant outside influence, the influence stone difference is -2. In my joseki evaluation of territory versus influence, this results in the ratio |5/(-2)| = 2.5, which is perfectly the mean of the allowed value range 1.5..3.5. The aji in Black's shape corresponds to the assumption that 2 black stones do not have significant outside influence, e.g.:

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


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W aji II
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . X 7 3 2 . X X O . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . 5 4 1 X , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]


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


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W aji IV after checking extension
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . O . X . 1 . . X X O . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . X , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W no significant aji but territory count 3
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . X X O . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . X , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W faster white shape with aji
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . X X O . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . X , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]


Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W territory after peaceful sente reductions
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . C C C C C . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . C C C C C . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . X . . . C X X O C |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . X , O C C |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O C |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . C C |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

Re: The traditional and modern approach of go evaluations

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:09 pm
by lovelove
The OP tries to argue for his opening example that what he calls modern evaluation considered only territory and thickness. Sorry, but no professional would overlook, e.g., sizes of empty regions and the stones' influence on them!


Robert, I don't think I said "only" territory and thickness...

What I meant is that the modern pros think more practical in a go game, "mainly" focusing on territory and thickness. For example, like, 'If I make a B2 bomber, and still make a lot of territory, that's okay.' Or also look at the diagram below.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wm1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . 1 . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

White 1 doesn't make sense in the traditional opening theory, but that move has become quite obvious in this position, because, regardless of any other concepts, this gives white a lot of territory from the beginning, and black can have a hard time to catch up komi. The next diagram is how it usually continues.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bm1 next black 'a' white 'b'
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . 1 3 X 9 . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . X 7 O 2 4 5 8 . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . a . . 6 . 0 . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . b . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Re: The traditional and modern approach of go evaluations

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:19 pm
by lemmata
jts wrote:Lemmata, is the idea supposed to be that there is a specific style of Go that gives an unusual advantage due to the structure of their pro exams (the way risky fighting works better in blitz games), or that they study the style they expect to fight against and end up playing in that style because they're familiar with it?
I wish I knew. :D I read the words and repeated them, but their meaning can only be guessed. As far as I know, plenty of time is given in the pro exams.

PS: I think I misquoted Lee Sedol about making the pro exams easier. I think he actually wants them to be harder! :D Silly me. I always get confused. So that must mean that I might remember other things incorrectly, too! However, I am pretty sure that the enormous risk that one takes by trying to be a pro was one of the things he mentioned before in interviews.

Re: The traditional and modern approach of go evaluations

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:35 pm
by lovelove
RobertJasiek wrote:
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . X X O . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . X , O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]

I can't explain like you why this is or is not joseki, but I don't think I need to, and josekipedia.com seems to agree with me, along with the BadukTV pro commentators.

Re: The traditional and modern approach of go evaluations

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:59 pm
by Bill Spight
lovelove wrote:
The OP tries to argue for his opening example that what he calls modern evaluation considered only territory and thickness. Sorry, but no professional would overlook, e.g., sizes of empty regions and the stones' influence on them!


Robert, I don't think I said "only" territory and thickness...

What I meant is that the modern pros think more practical in a go game, "mainly" focusing on territory and thickness. For example, like, 'If I make a B2 bomber, and still make a lot of territory, that's okay.' Or also look at the diagram below.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Wm1
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . O . . . . . X . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . X . 1 . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

White 1 doesn't make sense in the traditional opening theory


Oh, come on! Of course it does. The Black wall on the right is too strong for White to wait. You are making a caricature of traditional go thinking.

Re: The traditional and modern approach of go evaluations

Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 12:06 am
by lovelove
Bill Spight wrote:Oh, come on! Of course it does. The Black wall on the right is too strong for White to wait. You are making a caricature of traditional go thinking.

:sad:

Re: The traditional and modern approach of go evaluations

Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 12:07 am
by RobertJasiek
lovelove wrote:What I meant is that the modern pros think more practical in a go game, "mainly" focusing on territory and thickness.


Ok, this makes more sense, provided they / we presume the basics connection, life and regions, and if thickness also implies consideration of influence.

lovelove wrote:josekipedia.com seems to agree with me, along with the BadukTV pro commentators.


Do they merely state what is current (Korean) fashion or do they also offer their explanations and, if so, which?

Re: The traditional and modern approach of go evaluations

Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 12:37 am
by Kirby
jts wrote:Lemmata, is the idea supposed to be that there is a specific style of Go that gives an unusual advantage due to the structure of their pro exams (the way risky fighting works better in blitz games), or that they study the style they expect to fight against and end up playing in that style because they're familiar with it?


Korean professional games are not all "blitz" games, contrary to the idea that has been impressed upon this forum.

One of Lemmata's most important points, in my opinion, is the following:
Lemmata wrote:That said, I think that professionals have far more awareness of the difference between fad and fact than amateurs do. What a pro says casually, an amateur will often repeat with zealous conviction absent in the original statement. Amateurs have always done this.


I think the same applies to many aspects of professional go - including what time settings are actually used in what types of matches - on this forum.
All times are UTC-07:00
Page 1 of 3

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited