That kind of blind spot is pretty brilliant but more of a technical hack from a Go perspective. Shin is world #1 and won “the normal way”, i.e. playing good moves
It is the same. If you are not a pro punishing deviations is quite difficult (but can occasionally be easy like I'm sure it can be in chess with hanging pieces). The most obvious difficult punish example is just finding unintuitive ways to capture or suppress their stones (analogy: multi move trick captures or getting a better position). But it can be more subtle, sometimes the answer to a deviation is just to not directly punish, but just accept that their shape is slightly inefficient. But if you know they deviated incorrectly, you can be tempted to try to attack hard to directly punish when the line doesn't exist (and then you overplay). Another example of a difficult punish is to just ignore their move and make progress on a different of the board, challenging them to prove their move was actually a threat. You can kind of do that in chess with parallel pawnstorms, but it is much more common in Go.
You can think of joseki as “local opening”. Like, in a vacuum, this is known by study / AI to be an even result for black and white. It’s just like a chess opening, there’s no calculation up to a certain point. And it doesn’t exist in the midgame, it’s not similar to forced sequences which exist in both games; it’s much more like choosing French closed vs open or gambit/gambit declined. The one thing is (and this is huge), since Go board is very big, existing stone formations on other parts of the board influence the value of joseki and make certain ones more advantageous for black or white. To my knowledge this doesn’t really exist in chess, because the opening is already the entire board.
However, when Shin executed the 50 move flying knife, the board was pretty much empty. So there is really no need for calculation, both Shin and the AI know it’s locally optimal. But getting to play a very long locally optimal sequence is good for the weaker player, so they have less “real” moves to lose EV on. Notably Shin probably can’t open with the flying knife in one corner past a certain point in the game, even if that corner were completely empty - the rest of the board positions would change the end values of the variants.
If the AI could know this, they might play a variant that ends 30 moves sooner but is 0.01 pts worse. Then they would have more time to mess Shin up through organic new moves (which the AI will be better at of course).
Sounds like the counter is a strategy Magnus Carlsen has been known for in chess: get out of theory, probably on a bit weaker foot than the other player, to then crush them on raw power.
The feeling among the go players I know is that the match had been kind of a setup for the human to win.
It's an equivalent of playing in chess with a bishop handicap and a computer playing deterministic chess so that a human can prepare a forced sequence into a winning endgame.
Shin is an absolutely amazing player and not anyone could have achieved that, but nobody really feels like he won vs a computer team that tried its best.
I don't know absolutely anything about Go but your description of how josekis work- how their optimality makes their evolution deterministic and how they develop better on empty boards or break up against obstacles, makes me think about Conway's game of life. Cool.
Yeah, this is probably better for a game like Go where evaluating raw point differentials is a common thing that professionals (and even strong amateurs) do.
As a Go player myself, I agree that Go-wise this result isn't impressive. But isn't the point that it's an "attack" on the AI? Like for password leaks, failed hash functions, etc, we don't care that it's 100% broken, just that there are tiny artifacts that can be exploited.
I strongly agree, in addition statements like "Before social media advertising would have to hitch a ride with some content produced for something else. Billboards, newspapers, television shows, and magazines all tried to provide a use value to their customers and audiences" are pretty incorrect. As bad as many people agree Facebook is for mental health, it was clearly created for and does provide value. The author does a fairly poor job of carrying out the argument without form-fitting irrelevant details to their desired narrative.
Wait, I think you’re misunderstanding a bit. The culture of professionalism ALREADY inherently represses non-straight people (and allows straight people privilege to be who they want). For example, men suits women dresses. There is no culture of professionalism that I know of that gives the privilege to all people. Like a dress code would be fine if it wasn’t obviously biased towards certain culture standards (in this case, western/white, straight).
Edit: to put it another way, professionalism in the case of clothing for example would be more fair if there could be a professional qipao, or professional burka, rather than only a professional western option aka the suit.
I don’t understand the logic here. Yes, of course a wealthy person will be able to pay for procedures and avoid going broke. Isn’t this universally true? Perhaps you meant the US is poorly designed for poor people, which is not something you can say about every country.
reply