4 ms·

I can try to explain for people not playing Go the most important thing that changed: The AI popularized a move that has been known since ages, but wasn't used

I can try to explain for people not playing Go the most important thing that changed: The AI popularized a move that has been known since ages, but wasn't used by strong humans much because it was considered a mistake (the early 33 invasion). The thing with this move is: It gives you a small advantage very early in the game, but gives your opponent a superior fighting position in exchange. This fighting position was considered better. Not early on, but in later stages of the game it oughtweights the small advantage taken early. Then came AI and it found out, given enough fighting power, it can mostly cancel that later game advantage. So the new move is actually a good one, but only if you have very strong fighting skills. AI has this, some very strong players as well. But for the rest of us, the pre AI strategy is often better because we can't handle the complexity. It is common to see casual players copying the AI style and digging their own grave while doing so.

PandaPanda150 5y ago
I'd like to add something: It is not necessary an error for humans to play this new AI opening strategy. If human players do the new AI move, an attack to cancel out the better fighting position is unavoidable. We've learned from AI how to attack and defend in this situation, so even human players are prepared and know what to do. So it is fair game for the two human brains again. The player who gets out of this fight with the worse position is on a rather high disadvantage for the rest of the game. So you can think of this new strategy as doubling the stake of the game very early on. For players who are really good at fighting and handle the complexity that will arise from this fight this strategy is a good choice.
inclemnet 5y ago
> But for the rest of us, the pre AI strategy is often better because we can't handle the complexity. > It is common to see casual players copying the AI style and digging their own grave while doing so. I think this point is greatly overstated. Amateur go style has always been modelled on professional play even though amateurs have no idea of the subtleties of it, and this was rarely bemoaned much in the past. It's easy to find examples of amateur players getting it wrong and turning a slightly-good position into a bad one, but this is true of just about anything and I think there's a lot of confirmation bias in associating it with AI moves in particular - it doesn't in itself mean they've disadvantaged themselves by trying. It also greatly overstates how bad it is to play the 3-3 early and not fight aggressively. Even if you don't worry about the fighting variations we're talking about a small number of points, much less than amateur games tend to swing via mistakes every few moves. This is also true about those professional-like lines that have always been mimicked but played imperfectly, and is probably a big reason the lack of amateur understanding of them never mattered too much. Plus let's not forget that both amateur players in the game are relatively bad at fighting, it's just about as hard for the defensive player to really get it right as for the offensive player to utilise their theoretical advantage. Overall I think the modern focus on AI-like play is much more of a fashion in line with other general shifts following what's professionally popular than a mistake. Players do pay attention to how well they do and associate it with specific moves and lines they recognise they don't understand well, but AI-inspired lines don't seem to have attracted any widespread cautiousness. > Then came AI and it found out, given enough fighting power, it can mostly cancel that later game advantage. Also worth noting that the AIs play the 3-3 invasion in a specific different way to what was the accepted human pattern, and this alone does make a big but understandable difference to how the shape commonly continues. It isn't that they only turned around the evaluation of the standard position through superhuman reading, they revealed a line that humans had undervalued but could then learn from.

PandaPanda150 5y ago

I'd like to add something: It is not necessary an error for humans to play this new AI opening strategy. If human players do the new AI move, an attack to cancel out the better fighting position is unavoidable. We've learned from AI how to attack and defend in this situation, so even human players are prepared and know what to do. So it is fair game for the two human brains again. The player who gets out of this fight with the worse position is on a rather high disadvantage for the rest of the game. So you can think of this new strategy as doubling the stake of the game very early on. For players who are really good at fighting and handle the complexity that will arise from this fight this strategy is a good choice.

inclemnet 5y ago

> But for the rest of us, the pre AI strategy is often better because we can't handle the complexity. > It is common to see casual players copying the AI style and digging their own grave while doing so. I think this point is greatly overstated. Amateur go style has always been modelled on professional play even though amateurs have no idea of the subtleties of it, and this was rarely bemoaned much in the past. It's easy to find examples of amateur players getting it wrong and turning a slightly-good position into a bad one, but this is true of just about anything and I think there's a lot of confirmation bias in associating it with AI moves in particular - it doesn't in itself mean they've disadvantaged themselves by trying. It also greatly overstates how bad it is to play the 3-3 early and not fight aggressively. Even if you don't worry about the fighting variations we're talking about a small number of points, much less than amateur games tend to swing via mistakes every few moves. This is also true about those professional-like lines that have always been mimicked but played imperfectly, and is probably a big reason the lack of amateur understanding of them never mattered too much. Plus let's not forget that both amateur players in the game are relatively bad at fighting, it's just about as hard for the defensive player to really get it right as for the offensive player to utilise their theoretical advantage. Overall I think the modern focus on AI-like play is much more of a fashion in line with other general shifts following what's professionally popular than a mistake. Players do pay attention to how well they do and associate it with specific moves and lines they recognise they don't understand well, but AI-inspired lines don't seem to have attracted any widespread cautiousness. > Then came AI and it found out, given enough fighting power, it can mostly cancel that later game advantage. Also worth noting that the AIs play the 3-3 invasion in a specific different way to what was the accepted human pattern, and this alone does make a big but understandable difference to how the shape commonly continues. It isn't that they only turned around the evaluation of the standard position through superhuman reading, they revealed a line that humans had undervalued but could then learn from.