Jump to content


Spartacus
Photo

'GO' Rules


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#16 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,633 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 24 June 2009 - 05:34 AM

"Endgame (Yose)

In the endgame, if the game is close, moves that are small are still worth some points, some more than others. One must chose which of these moves is more urgent to play based not only on the points it may gain, but on whether that move is sente. Yose refers to a specific kind of endgame play, which yields a reduction for your opponent.

Generally, in the endgame, all the territory is staked out - there is no more to be gained.
However, there are still points to be made, as well as possible ways of reducing small amounts of your opponents territory. A simple example would be a move that is Dame (neutral point for you) but when its filled in, its sente, requiring white to fill a stone in his territory to answer. We say this is 'a one point reduction, with sente.' "

http://www.japan-101...imple_rules.htm

#17 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,249 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Diego, CA

Posted 12 January 2012 - 07:48 PM

I am fascinated mostly because I am apparently too dense to comprehend this game. :tomatoes

#18 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,633 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 13 January 2012 - 03:36 PM

I know. Then for me suddenly a penny dropped and I had a glimpse of possibilities. Then it took me a looong time to go to no handicaps with those who taught me to where I had a real win. Even then black remains black till three victories in a row.
It's really in the playf the clarity comes. Put a note up on a local notice board and sooner or later you'll find a group of players. Or challenge me to a game. Or Norman for that matter. He got pretty good.

#19 Norman Pratt

Norman Pratt

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 294 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Essex

Posted 15 January 2012 - 12:26 AM

The complexity of 'Go' is demonstrated by that fact that it has proved difficult to get a computer to play it convincingly (in contrast to, say, what happened with Chess.) I believe that this is still the case, and that the 'Go' experts still defeat any computer competition. Having said that, what progress I have made recently has been by playing a computer version of 'Go', using a 13 X 13 board, and by playing getting to learn some of the many different patterns that crop up. (At the moment the computer's memory generally wins over mine, but my memory is improving!)

#20 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,633 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 16 January 2012 - 02:25 PM

Good to hear from you, Norman. Yeah, the complexity is phenomenal (there is a Professor in China that's written a, to me, very good 19 x 19 software, it should be, it was, available as a free download. I never bested it but I'm totally outclassed by low dan players too, though perhaps not with the same sense of doom...) Japanese players have tried to increase it to (the history is one of continually increasing lines) 21 (for symmetry) and found it too complex, so 19 seems to be a real ceiling.
Now shapes is good one. Fundamental. It's good to consider the shape of the strength they project as well particularly early when setting up in the beginning part.
A kind of off beat story here is how after ambassadors brought the game from China to Japan it took the Japanese some time to begin to beat the Chinese and I think one part was they recognised what kind of particular 'power' the central point (which has no corresponding mirror point on the board) exerts.

#21 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,633 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 12 October 2012 - 05:35 PM

Probably the main difference between Sun Tzu's 'The art of War' and the art of GO is that deception is not possible in GO. ( the feint is a clever strategy but not often talked about in GO literature (in the Sun Tzu vernacular) but The Art of War is built on it : as deception.)

Players decieive their selves in GO.

Technically anyone can win a game and the simple rules and the handicap system levels the playing field to the extent that in the end there is no opponent but self.

edit clarification

Edited by John Dolva, 12 October 2012 - 05:48 PM.


#22 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,633 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 27 November 2012 - 05:22 PM

For those interested in learning this game here is a site dedicated to it. The features are pretty amazing. One can play as guest or join. Very well moderated and very helpful chatroom.

http://www.gokgs.com/applet.jsp

#23 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,633 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:47 PM

Probably the main difference between Sun Tzu's 'The art of War' and the art of GO is that deception is not possible in GO. ( the feint is a clever strategy but not often talked about in GO literature (in the Sun Tzu vernacular) but The Art of War is built on it : as deception.)

Players decieive their selves in GO.

Technically anyone can win a game and the simple rules and the handicap system levels the playing field to the extent that in the end there is no opponent but self.

edit clarification


I continue to contemplate this aspect of GO and Sun Tzu.

Finding myself in possession of a couple of copies of it with commentary and slightly differing translations (of the Art of War), I feel clearer about this point.

However. There are many players (you'll find them at the site above) who, I think, start out with viewing the game as such and incorporate what can be learnt in order to achieve War oriented goals and, I think, risk missing out on the true essence of a game of GO which always end up being a battle with self and therefore an avenue for self discovery. This inner contemplation takes time. Specifying a game with no time limit (in the game options) reduces the numbers of people who will take you on. Many prefer to perfect fast play which tends to be formulaeic as a consequence whereas the careful player can beat a better player simply through implementing basics and understanding the natural evolution of a game and adopt a strategy that is pre-emptively responsive rather than defensive. IOW having, in the final analysis more SENTE.

Anyway that's roughly where I'm at re this matter at this point.

edit typo

Edited by John Dolva, 15 January 2013 - 06:48 PM.


#24 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,633 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 16 January 2013 - 05:03 PM


Probably the main difference between Sun Tzu's 'The art of War' and the art of GO is that deception is not possible in GO. ( the feint is a clever strategy but not often talked about in GO literature (in the Sun Tzu vernacular) but The Art of War is built on it : as deception.)

Players decieive their selves in GO.

Technically anyone can win a game and the simple rules and the handicap system levels the playing field to the extent that in the end there is no opponent but self.

edit clarification


I continue to contemplate this aspect of GO and Sun Tzu.

Finding myself in possession of a couple of copies of it with commentary and slightly differing translations (of the Art of War), I feel clearer about this point.

However. There are many players (you'll find them at the site above) who, I think, start out with viewing the game as such and incorporate what can be learnt in order to achieve War oriented goals and, I think, risk missing out on the true essence of a game of GO which always end up being a battle with self and therefore an avenue for self discovery. This inner contemplation takes time. Specifying a game with no time limit (in the game options) reduces the numbers of people who will take you on. Many prefer to perfect fast play which tends to be formulaeic as a consequence whereas the careful player can beat a better player simply through implementing basics and understanding the natural evolution of a game and adopt a strategy that is pre-emptively responsive rather than defensive. IOW having, in the final analysis more SENTE.

Anyway that's roughly where I'm at re this matter at this point.

edit typo

In rereading I see I need to rephrase some.

"better": better really means degree. Reaching level -5 is not that hard. The slog up the ladder to 9-Dan is a long one. With experianece and study a fast game can facilitate the rising in ranking without necessarily nurture the individual creativity that a fundamentally good player can use to defeat higher ranking players without adhering to formulaes or known sequences and tested responses. (This is what I mean by formulaeic play). Part of this is what can make GO so beautiful. It is far, far more complex than chess and perhaps all games are unique, like a snowflake.

#25 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,633 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 27 November 2013 - 01:11 PM

 

 

Probably the main difference between Sun Tzu's 'The art of War' and the art of GO is that deception is not possible in GO. ( the feint is a clever strategy but not often talked about in GO literature (in the Sun Tzu vernacular) but The Art of War is built on it : as deception.)

Players decieive their selves in GO.

Technically anyone can win a game and the simple rules and the handicap system levels the playing field to the extent that in the end there is no opponent but self.

edit clarification


I continue to contemplate this aspect of GO and Sun Tzu.

Finding myself in possession of a couple of copies of it with commentary and slightly differing translations (of the Art of War), I feel clearer about this point.

However. There are many players (you'll find them at the site above) who, I think, start out with viewing the game as such and incorporate what can be learnt in order to achieve War oriented goals and, I think, risk missing out on the true essence of a game of GO which always end up being a battle with self and therefore an avenue for self discovery. This inner contemplation takes time. Specifying a game with no time limit (in the game options) reduces the numbers of people who will take you on. Many prefer to perfect fast play which tends to be formulaeic as a consequence whereas the careful player can beat a better player simply through implementing basics and understanding the natural evolution of a game and adopt a strategy that is pre-emptively responsive rather than defensive. IOW having, in the final analysis more SENTE.

Anyway that's roughly where I'm at re this matter at this point.

edit typo

 

In rereading I see I need to rephrase some.

"better": better really means degree. Reaching level -5 is not that hard. The slog up the ladder to 9-Dan is a long one. With experianece and study a fast game can facilitate the rising in ranking without necessarily nurture the individual creativity that a fundamentally good player can use to defeat higher ranking players without adhering to formulaes or known sequences and tested responses. (This is what I mean by formulaeic play). Part of this is what can make GO so beautiful. It is far, far more complex than chess and perhaps all games are unique, like a snowflake.

 

 

I continue to contemplate this. When I read my clarification I think it is not. Perhaps that's a problem with having english as a second language hwere I think in a mix of grammar and end up writing things that are not all that clear while it seems clear to me. The point I was trying to make is that there seem to be two ways that people play GO. Some people take winning quick too seriously and there are those that take each move of a game seriously. I find more success when I play slowly and thoughtfully.



#26 Norman Pratt

Norman Pratt

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 294 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Essex

Posted 09 March 2016 - 10:49 AM

http://www.theguardi...game-go-contest

 

From The Guardian Wednesday 9 March 2016 
 
Google’s computer program AlphaGo defeated its human opponent, South Korean Go champion Lee Sedol, on Wednesday in the first game of a historic five-game match between human and computer. 
 
AlphaGo’s victory in the ancient Chinese board game is a breakthrough for artificial intelligence, showing the program developed by Google DeepMind has mastered one of the most creative and complex games ever devised.
 
Commentators said the match was close, with both AlphaGo and Lee making some mistakes. The result was unpredictable until near the end. Lee’s loss was a shock to South Koreans and Go fans. The 33-year-old initially was confident of a sweeping victory two weeks ago, but sounded less optimistic a day before the match.
 
“I was very surprised because I did not think that I would lose the game. A mistake I made at the very beginning lasted until the very last,” said Lee, who has won 18 world championships since becoming a professional Go player at the age of 12. Lee said AlphaGo’s strategy was “excellent” from the beginning.
 
Yoo Chang-hyuk, another South Korean Go master who commentated on the game, described the result as a big shock said that Lee appeared to have been shaken at one point. Hundreds of thousands of people watched the game live on TV and YouTube. The remaining four more matches will end on Tuesday.
 
Computers conquered chess in 1997 in a match between IBM’s Deep Blue and chess champion Garry Kasparov, leaving Go as “the only game left above chess” Demis Hassabis, Google DeepMind’s CEO, said before the game.
 
Top human players rely heavily on intuition and feelings to choose among a near-infinite number of board positions in Go, making the game extremely challenging for artificial intelligence.
 
AI experts had forecast it would take another decade for computers to beat professional Go players. That changed when AlphaGo defeated a European Go champion last year, in a closed-door match later published in the journal Nature. Since then, AlphaGo’s performance has steadily improved. “We are very excited about this historic moment. We are very pleased about how AlphaGo performed,” said Hassabis.
 
DeepMind’s team built “reinforcement learning” into AlphaGo, meaning the machine plays against itself and adjusts its own neural networks based on trial-and-error. AlphaGo can also narrow down the search space for the next best move from the near-infinite to something more manageable. It can also anticipate long-term results of each move and predict the winner.
 
AlphaGo’s win over a human champion shows computers can mimic intuition and tackle more complex tasks, its creators say.
 
Google throws down the gauntlet. But can anyone beat its computer at Go?


#27 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,633 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 12 March 2016 - 08:11 AM

Thanks' Norman.

 

______________

 

Wow - Amazing - this'll be studied for years.

 

I understand Lee is 9 Dan.

I wonder if AlphaGo wins three in a row whether Lee'll get a handicap.

 

Game 1

 

AlphaGo wins

 

Start at 28 minutes:

 



#28 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,633 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 13 March 2016 - 12:54 AM

If you watch the above game on youtube (recommended) you'll find links to the other games + commentaries.

Looks like this will revolutionise the the game. AlphaGo does not get tired or emotional. It pedantically zips through possibilities, giving an appearance of intelligence. This superior reach is introducing moves that will be studied and likely dramatically change the way humans will play the game, significantly at least at the top level.

I wonder if the game should be played with no time restrictions at all for a human to have a chance. Also should Lee at this point have a handicap.

What are the implications in game play, politics, economics, the art of war, the study of history, sociology .  .  .  ?



#29 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,633 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 14 March 2016 - 12:41 AM

Creative Genius Lee beats AlphaGo Game 4.

 

edit add :

 

5 min replay. Watch for move 78.

 

 

edit add 2 : Just a thought. I was pondering Lee's second game opening , noting how his first two moves were kind of skewed symmetrically and later after the third how the only point on the board that doesn't have a mirror is the centre point. A story goes how Japanese players realised this a long time ago and an ambassador to the Chinese court was able to use that to advantage.

Now the break point is move 78 to which AlphaGo responded with a stone in the centre point. Apparently that was a mistake that led to defeat. Could it be that it exposes a flaw in AlphaGo?

 

 

edit add 3 : If AlphaGo plays better as white, how would AlphaGo respond to a first play by black in the center?


Edited by John Dolva, 14 March 2016 - 03:55 AM.


#30 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11,633 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 15 March 2016 - 01:06 PM

AlphaGo wins game 5.

 

Stunning. As commentator said, a new era for GO is ushered in.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users