The thing I like about go is there is this phase from abstract to concrete. In the beginning, you have this blank board with a plan in your mind of what you want to do. You start implementing your strategy, and the "world" (your opponent) starts throwing cold water on what ever you wanted to do. Then you work out the kinks and do the best you can with what you have. Very representative of real life in this sense.
"I'm going to be really sad when that day comes when they say they have the equivalent of Deep Blue in the Go world." Almost exactly three years later I just watched AlphaGO beet Lee Sedol. Guess it did happen in your life time!
I agree with the overall sentiment, but honestly, given how much the AI revolution has removed, and how little it has added in terms of viable strategies and moves, and given how it's dramatic superiority is rendering independent human development of the game impossible, it's still sad. Go is different, and that is ok, but even human vs human matches now require you to considder the AI techniques, and the diversity of viable strategies is down by a lot. Though I just had an idea... Even if the AI has advanced it's playstyle to make the ultimate go machine, it hasn't advanced all playstiles. So if we give the AI a style it has abandoned, set peramiters for it, and force the AI to optimize within the bounds of that style, what we learn could elevate those strategies so that even if you can't beat the best machine, you can beat the best human emulating that machine if you are better at implementing the AI improvements of your own style, like a system for personalizing AI to give it some identity... Omg, you know what, I'm exited about the future of go again, and far less sad and scared now! Hell yeah, let's put stones on boards!
@@lydiasteinebendiksen4269 I find it weird people care about AI beating humans even a little. Maybe it's because I also follow Esports, where nobody cares if the best players can't aim as perfectly as an aimbot.
@@Phoenix-pb4sm because up to very recent times it has been clear the most advanced computer in the world was the human brain. AI are approaching us and we don't like being less than best.
One thing i really really like a bout Go is the adrenaline. When i try to sell Go to my friends i always try to tell them about the insane rush, adrenaline and emotional roller-coaster that a good match is. And they never believe me :P Which is understandable since it is just some stones on a piece of wood. I'm a rock climber and i see so many similarities with Go and climbing. First there is the rush and the fear, then there is the never ending progression and variety. But the largest and most important similarity is the battle against the self. It is not about pushing the opponent into failure it is about pushing your self into victory.
I also climb and play go! Hadn't considered the similarities until you mentioned this, but it does make some sense. It's the same reason so many mathematicians and physicists seem to climb (and play go) too, I suppose
35:16 move 78 game 4 alphago vs Lee sedol. Lee sedol came as close on that move as any human ever will to the hand of God move. Gu li and several other top professionals thought it was the best move they they'd ever seen. The computer thought it was a one in 20,000 chance move and it melted the computer down.
I dont climb but you have just sold me on GO! Been watching some videos, but your comment here really nails down a philosophy behind it that I can really get behind. Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Sir!
I'm pretty sure playing Go is bad for my blood pressure. I really need to de emphasize the importance of the game, but oh my God do I ever get stressed playing Go.
I'm a pianist as well as a Go player, and this caused me to reflect on how the piano keys are like Go stones in terms of generating vast complexity from a small number of initial variables. Then it occurs to me the possible complexity posed by a piano is much larger than that of even Go.
Doesn't the piano only generally have 81 keys? And in Go, 361 open spots. So, considering the permutation and combinations, Go would have a larger complexity, woud it not?
Music is infinite. The piano yes, but also any musical instrument, even a single drum (look at the complexity of tabla!). Yet music is also composed of very simple parts, like the 12 tones in western music. That’s one thing I love about Go and music.
Schrodinger's cat was actually a tongue-in-cheek objection to the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, because the idea of a cat existing in quantum superposition is absurd.
I love to see people speak about their passions with enthusiasm, great video! Also kind of reminded me of this story of another game My Life of Starcraft - Day[9] Daily #100
I have a few additional points as to why I like it over every other game I've played/will play: All three of the following points are tightly correlated to other board/video games which require the constant pumping out of sequels/expansions/updates to keep the games interesting and engaging to the players (how many times can you beat a game before you get bored?) and to keep the cashflow going to the companies that develop them. These points aren't trying to blame the developers or the ADD behavior of the players themselves for my displeasure with these other games' faults. 1.) It is fundamentally unchanging. The only major changes have been agreeing on the board size and the addition of komi. Other than that, Go just evolves. All of the "old" joseki and fundamentals are still valid and taught. Some come and go with trends, but are all still valid. 2.) Not just progression in the level-up sense, but permanent progression. I will never be a 20kyu again. Compared to other board/video games where your progression and/or strategies become obsolete with an update/expansion (tweaking/expanding game mechanics) or release of a sequel. At that point you have to relearn how to play the game because it is essentially a new game. 3.) Go isn't just a fad. It's been around for thousands of years and is growing in popularity. When a sequel/expansion/update is applied to the game, it's only a matter of time until the "old" game becomes completely un-played or played by a very small cult following. 4.) Go isn't based on random chance. Similar to what you said about the game being against the self. I hate card games and some board games for this trait. There are some games which I have figured out enough to give me the best odds at winning. Best odds being the key phrase. But all of the skill aspects to these card/board games do not hold a candle to the RNG gods favoring the first-time player by giving them every card/roll they need sequentially and giving me nothing. Go is 100% based on your skill. That being said, there is a psychological element to game. If you or your opponent is in a bad mood, your play will reflect this. So you could theoretically "luck" into playing people who are in a bad mood and beat them when you otherwise couldn't. But it comes down to "who is better?" not "who is more lucky". 5.) It is the anarcho-capitalist (free market) game of the three games (other two being chess (statist/monarchist) and backgammon (run by the church)). Look at the terminology we use to describe the game as it progresses: Making exchanges, taking cash/profit, negotiation, building frameworks, taking enclosures, building influence, etc.
The metaphysics reflected in Go are SO astounding, and echo Nature and all of Reality in so many ways. The Reflection transformation, 'not' gives rise to opposites/difference, but two 'nots' cancel, and give rise to nothingness/sameness. B/W are the difference, opposites, the 'empty' board is the sameness/nothingness. Repetition is bad because Time cannot arise from it, hence the 'ko superstition'... So much to think about :)
I think from a game design perspective, the most important term to use when describing go is "emergence". In every game there's a balance between emergent gameplay and forced elements. If you compare a game like Half-Life to Starcraft, it's obvious that halflife has the entire experience designed for you and starcraft gives you a toolset to create your own. In these terms, Go is the ultimate example of emergence. Even chess has different rules for different pieces to create the experience.
Go, chess, or checkers players shouldn't use the argument of computer skill in evaluation of the worth of the game. Even after checkers was solved it doesn't simply allow all checkers pros to beat everyone. The number of possibilities in checkers is still beyond what a normal person could comprehend. But assuming Chess than Go are solved, this in no way should make players feel better or worse about the game. It is like saying there is no point in competitive running because a bicycle or a car can outrun everyone, or a forklift can lift million times more than the best weightlifter. Computer skill is not an argument.
thank you for the class! I'm a brazilian and started to have an interest in go this month. Your channel will be of a great help!! I hope the game gets better known in my country too. ^^
12 лет назад+1
i can't believe i watched the whole hour video. Good lecture.
Regarding playing Go against the "self": It goes a bit deeper than "discipline". Here, in its deepest connotation, "self" is the illusion of being a seperate ego-entity, and Nirvana is the No-Self. So apart from preliminaries of self-discipline, it is about treating Go as a search for Truth, in each board position or "situation". Meditating upon the "sole reality", the objective "best move"(much like in zazen you meditate upon the fundamental truth regarding who you are apart from everchanging stream of bodily form and thought-stream). This would, in my understanding, also be the truest meaning of the Divine Move. Divine Move is not some game changing move you make once in a lifetime to beat somebody. The former definition of Divine Move is deeper and makes it more "utopian" to find than the latter(can even Alpha Go's decisions be considered objectively/infallibly the best ? No, they are only consistently better than what our best human players can think of. But a better computer program can make better decisions. Stockfish was best amongst even chess engines, but now Alpha Zero beats it handily(it's the extension of Alpha Go that uses neural network approach to mastering Go, chess and shogi, all 3 games). So, in pursuit of pure search for truth of every position, where first the opponent disappears from your consciousness and then you yourself disappear, the material translation of your striving i.e. the go board and the stones disappear and only a "seeking" remains, you can reach enlightnment, as you can, through any activity or circumstance where you become "total" within yourself. From that poise of conciousness, which is the Solution incarnate, you can see the truth of not just Go, but anything in life. One immediately practical benefit one can find in one's go/chess performance from playing from a meditative state of mind is: apart from the obviously improved concentration and calmness, one is less likely to be caught up in a linear thinking stream and miss threats or advantages.
I think one of the nice things about computers being better than humans at go is that this had to take an entirely new style of learning compared to chess engines. We had to teach them to develop a similar sense of "this looks right" as we develop. Vs in chess, you can get very far with relatively simple alpha-beta pruning.
From 20:00 they talk about computer-go and Nick predicts that its soon when a computer beats a Professional. Before 2020. It was in October 2015 when Fan Hui was beaten by Alphago.
about 16-17 minutes in: ai basically works on "feel" as well the workings of a neural network are really vague, we've resorted to them because like us, the computers can't crunch the logic directly (because of the sheer size of the board) edit: 39 minutes in according to deleuze, art is the only intersubjectivity art communicates the diversity of souls and the unique worlds they envelop second edit: 52 minutes in this is oddly relatable and deleuze does talk about something like this in chess the players make moves like commanders looking over a battlefield in go the moves kind of happen to you "it" moves
I do not know if you still read this but here it goes: estimated number of Atoms in the Universe is between 10^78 and 10^82, the possible moves in go are 1.74×10^172 but only 1,19% are legal(no stone in a dead position) so really they are 2.08x10^170. and from the mathematical point of you you start from this really big set of possibilities and every move reduces the set. So sorry no quantum physics involved if you want is a sequence of event that brings you to the result. That it is even great for us because you get to do a review of a game and there are not review possible in Quantum physics.
Not only can we no longer beat computers at go, 4000 years of studying go and computers found new ways of playing go never thought of... Well at least you had many more reasons
56:00 -- Sandbagging at a tournament is unforgivable to me -- there is only one exception to that rule. The sandbagger who isn't aware of his own level and arbitrarily registers as a 1K because he plays that rank online on OGS or something, might be guessing and if he wins all his games vs 1k's in a tournament I would not hold that against him. Tournaments are so brutal from what I have seen on streams from the AGA. I don't know how I'd stack up to somebody who's trained in longer games and reading when I'm forced to play 90 min. per side. My rank might become 2 stones weaker or 1 stone stronger in such a case. I want to play in a tournament someday, because I live in an area where there are none nearby. Driving 500 miles+ isn't something I want to do just to play someone.
ogs has really high elo compared to chess where draws are possible and tournament systems try to adjust for that so sandbagging unknowingly is less likely than when i got stomped at my first tournament
ruclips.net/video/GmlSSSN7C78/видео.html if you look at this video, you can see the board position at 1:14. nash has 37 consecutive stones all put in one place and no territory, and it's already into the midgame or early end game. He would have lost by 200 points or so. Either he or the director clearly didn't understand the rules of go and was just being stubborn. Either way, I don't want to watch this movie.
There's always THAT ONE BLOWHARD who must make a futile attempt to prove how smart he is by hijacking a talk with his incoherent armchair ramblings. Let the speaker speak.
Ok, I like the video and all but the statement "when you play go you'd be using a bigger portion of your brain than if you would if you played chess" is just a false statement based on ignorance about chess. Chess also requires the entire available thinking capacity of the brain of a given player. There are micro strategies and macro strategies in chess and the number of possible positions while smaller than in Go is still incomprehensible for any human being. Shame on you Sibicky!
StopFear Yes, shame indeed. "Cognitive Brain Research 1 (2002) Research reportA functional MRI study of high-level cognitionII. The game of GOXiangchuan Chen , Daren Zhang , Xiaochu Zhang , Zhihao Li , Xiaomei Meng ,* Sheng He , Xiaoping HuDepartment of Neurobiology and Biophysics ,University of Science and Technology of China , Hefei , Anhui , 230027, PR ChinaHospital of Anhui Medical University , Hefei , Anhui , 230027, PR ChinaDepartment of Psychology ,University of Minnesota , Minneapolis ,MN 55455, USACenter for Magnetic Resonance Research ,University of Minnesota , 2021 Sixth Street SE , Minneapolis ,MN 55455, USAAccepted 26 July 2002AbstractGO is a board game thought to be different from chess in many aspects, most significantly in that GO emphasizes global strategy more than local battle, a property very difficult for computer programs to emulate. To investigate the neural basis of GO, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used to measure brain activities of subjects engaged in playing GO. Enhanced activations were observed in many cortical areas, such as dorsal prefrontal, parietal, occipital, posterior temporal, and primary somatosensory and motor areas."
This depends on the type of Chess player I believe. One of my favourite chess players is Mikhal Tal. He was an incredibly creative player that created really complex situations which simplified into him winning or losing. Against a computer, he would probably lose because they aren't phased by complex situations.
It seems that you don't know anything about Xiang Qi, too. Computers have been dominating Xiang Qi already, from much earlier. The truth is, as soon as a computer become able to win a chess game against strongest chess player, it can win a Xiang Qi, too, almost straightforwardly. :P Go was the last famous board game a computer couldn't win despite so many efforts.
@@Xpertman213 Exactly. AlphaGo is beating the best of humans without using any of the "artistic" right brained processing. Magnus Carlsen, the current World Chess Champion is known for his "intuitive" play. He says that he often knows the move to make, and uses logic just to confirm it. Almost all super grandmasters have that element in their play. There is a documentary on Judith Polgar on youtube, dunno if it is still available, where she expresses similar things. Both chess and go are too complex for human brain to "solve" computationally. Hell! even checkers qualifies there. It does not matter if one game has million million million possiblities, and the other has billion billion billion possiblities. Beyond a certain level of complexity, everything is clubbed as "too complex" by the brain.
Speaking of the simplicity leading to immense complexity leading back to simplicity made me think of the same thing I love about the Dragon Fractal. Check it out: /watch?v=wCyC-K_PnRY
Go as a "game against self"? That is nonsense. That is a philosophy that can be applied literally to anything and has nothing specifically to do with Go. Any open information game is a "game against self".
I absolutely don't agree. Never mind the fact that I'm Go there is rarely a "best"move but there are very frequently "equivalent" or "differently balanced" moves that you have to choose for yourself the ones that your priorities have decided is the "best option", you also learn about your own personal failings every time you pick a bad move. There are lots of bad moves, and you'll be making a lot of them, and each one tells you something about how you think and what you prioritize and how you should change yourself to make better decisions. Go explodes quickly into this orchestra of higher concepts, and how you navigate those concepts tells you an immense amount about yourself.
@@andriypredmyrskyy7791hard agree. Fan Hui said Go is like a mirror, and both him and Lee Sedol went through major personal growth after being beaten by AlphaGo. The game forced them to confront and overcome their assumptions that they were the best by showing them that there was more to learn. They both went through a stage of denial before coming around to accepting the harsh truth that was their own failures in the games. Because of this I see go as deeply representative of personal growth in human life. Like Fan Hui said, each game is reflective of YOU. A better opponent simply reveals the flaws you didn’t know you had, and then it is still up to you to accept these and grow from them.
Had he ever been a real person, Jesus Christ (aka Horus aka The Sun - see "The History of God" on RUclips) would have been disappointed to hear that people are going around saying that Go is a metaphor for life. Because it is more of a metaphor for religion. Although there are indeed some parallels between Go and bacteriology, such as familial swarms of individuals competing with other swarms for finite resources, Go - unlike Bridge - does not involve communication and cooperation between people (except in pair Go, where players laugh at the idiocy of their partner's moves and kick each other under the table). Whereas the intelligence of bacterial swarms, ant colonies, and colonies of eucaryote cells called people, is an emergent property of collective intelligent individual behaviours, Go swarms are helplessly under the rigid control of the two Grand Designers (white God vs black Satan) on either side of the board, who never cross the road to show mercy to an ailing Samaritan on the other other side. Blessed are the monomaniacal ruthless, for they shall enter the Kingdom of Go Heaven.
Gave you 5 plus minutes to sway me, but I'm going to stick with chess. Not sure, but judging what little I saw/ heard in that 5 minutes you could probably have put together a 20 minute version to make your case. Anyway, I'm not going to waist my hour with scattered, random thoughts or painfully poor lecture execution.
This wasn't as much a lecture as it was a discussion. That's fine. He just records the sessions he does at the go center. It's a close knit community that welcomes anyone. You don't need to understand.
The thing I like about go is there is this phase from abstract to concrete. In the beginning, you have this blank board with a plan in your mind of what you want to do. You start implementing your strategy, and the "world" (your opponent) starts throwing cold water on what ever you wanted to do. Then you work out the kinks and do the best you can with what you have. Very representative of real life in this sense.
"I'm going to be really sad when that day comes when they say they have the equivalent of Deep Blue in the Go world." Almost exactly three years later I just watched AlphaGO beet Lee Sedol. Guess it did happen in your life time!
19:57 Nick, don't be sad because of AlphaGo. It is not the end of Go, it is a new Era of Go. :)
I agree with the overall sentiment, but honestly, given how much the AI revolution has removed, and how little it has added in terms of viable strategies and moves, and given how it's dramatic superiority is rendering independent human development of the game impossible, it's still sad. Go is different, and that is ok, but even human vs human matches now require you to considder the AI techniques, and the diversity of viable strategies is down by a lot.
Though I just had an idea... Even if the AI has advanced it's playstyle to make the ultimate go machine, it hasn't advanced all playstiles. So if we give the AI a style it has abandoned, set peramiters for it, and force the AI to optimize within the bounds of that style, what we learn could elevate those strategies so that even if you can't beat the best machine, you can beat the best human emulating that machine if you are better at implementing the AI improvements of your own style, like a system for personalizing AI to give it some identity... Omg, you know what, I'm exited about the future of go again, and far less sad and scared now! Hell yeah, let's put stones on boards!
@@lydiasteinebendiksen4269 I find it weird people care about AI beating humans even a little.
Maybe it's because I also follow Esports, where nobody cares if the best players can't aim as perfectly as an aimbot.
@@Phoenix-pb4sm because up to very recent times it has been clear the most advanced computer in the world was the human brain. AI are approaching us and we don't like being less than best.
yeah, now we have ro ot sensai
One thing i really really like a bout Go is the adrenaline. When i try to sell Go to my friends i always try to tell them about the insane rush, adrenaline and emotional roller-coaster that a good match is. And they never believe me :P Which is understandable since it is just some stones on a piece of wood.
I'm a rock climber and i see so many similarities with Go and climbing. First there is the rush and the fear, then there is the never ending progression and variety.
But the largest and most important similarity is the battle against the self. It is not about pushing the opponent into failure it is about pushing your self into victory.
Rock climber and go player. Confirmed ^^
I also climb and play go! Hadn't considered the similarities until you mentioned this, but it does make some sense. It's the same reason so many mathematicians and physicists seem to climb (and play go) too, I suppose
35:16 move 78 game 4 alphago vs Lee sedol. Lee sedol came as close on that move as any human ever will to the hand of God move. Gu li and several other top professionals thought it was the best move they they'd ever seen.
The computer thought it was a one in 20,000 chance move and it melted the computer down.
I dont climb but you have just sold me on GO! Been watching some videos, but your comment here really nails down a philosophy behind it that I can really get behind. Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Sir!
I'm pretty sure playing Go is bad for my blood pressure. I really need to de emphasize the importance of the game, but oh my God do I ever get stressed playing Go.
I'm not afraid of the day humans lose to computers because for me the point of Go is playing against humans.
I'm a pianist as well as a Go player, and this caused me to reflect on how the piano keys are like Go stones in terms of generating vast complexity from a small number of initial variables. Then it occurs to me the possible complexity posed by a piano is much larger than that of even Go.
Doesn't the piano only generally have 81 keys? And in Go, 361 open spots. So, considering the permutation and combinations, Go would have a larger complexity, woud it not?
Sam Kwon But in piano you can play more that once a note, in go you cannot play twice on the same spot unless there is a capture
Go is really a powerful game, i mean is so abstract that can relate with infinite different experiences.
Music is infinite. The piano yes, but also any musical instrument, even a single drum (look at the complexity of tabla!). Yet music is also composed of very simple parts, like the 12 tones in western music. That’s one thing I love about Go and music.
Schrodinger's cat was actually a tongue-in-cheek objection to the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, because the idea of a cat existing in quantum superposition is absurd.
Just a quick note: the observer effect (Shrodingers cat) and the uncertainty principle are two completely unrelated phenomena.
THANK YOU !!!
I love the concept of aji, of finding hope in a seemingly hopeless situation. That has many more applications to it than just a game.
I love to see people speak about their passions with enthusiasm, great video! Also kind of reminded me of this story of another game My Life of Starcraft - Day[9] Daily #100
I have a few additional points as to why I like it over every other game I've played/will play:
All three of the following points are tightly correlated to other board/video games which require the constant pumping out of sequels/expansions/updates to keep the games interesting and engaging to the players (how many times can you beat a game before you get bored?) and to keep the cashflow going to the companies that develop them.
These points aren't trying to blame the developers or the ADD behavior of the players themselves for my displeasure with these other games' faults.
1.) It is fundamentally unchanging. The only major changes have been agreeing on the board size and the addition of komi. Other than that, Go just evolves. All of the "old" joseki and fundamentals are still valid and taught. Some come and go with trends, but are all still valid.
2.) Not just progression in the level-up sense, but permanent progression. I will never be a 20kyu again.
Compared to other board/video games where your progression and/or strategies become obsolete with an update/expansion (tweaking/expanding game mechanics) or release of a sequel. At that point you have to relearn how to play the game because it is essentially a new game.
3.) Go isn't just a fad. It's been around for thousands of years and is growing in popularity.
When a sequel/expansion/update is applied to the game, it's only a matter of time until the "old" game becomes completely un-played or played by a very small cult following.
4.) Go isn't based on random chance. Similar to what you said about the game being against the self.
I hate card games and some board games for this trait. There are some games which I have figured out enough to give me the best odds at winning. Best odds being the key phrase. But all of the skill aspects to these card/board games do not hold a candle to the RNG gods favoring the first-time player by giving them every card/roll they need sequentially and giving me nothing.
Go is 100% based on your skill. That being said, there is a psychological element to game. If you or your opponent is in a bad mood, your play will reflect this. So you could theoretically "luck" into playing people who are in a bad mood and beat them when you otherwise couldn't. But it comes down to "who is better?" not "who is more lucky".
5.) It is the anarcho-capitalist (free market) game of the three games (other two being chess (statist/monarchist) and backgammon (run by the church)).
Look at the terminology we use to describe the game as it progresses:
Making exchanges, taking cash/profit, negotiation, building frameworks, taking enclosures, building influence, etc.
AI in 2013: 6-dan. AI in 2018: YOU SHALL CALL ME MASTER OF THE GO UNIVERSE!!!
Kind of amazing that it only took five years from this lecture for Alpha Go to beat top professionals.
The metaphysics reflected in Go are SO astounding, and echo Nature and all of Reality in so many ways. The Reflection transformation, 'not' gives rise to opposites/difference, but two 'nots' cancel, and give rise to nothingness/sameness. B/W are the difference, opposites, the 'empty' board is the sameness/nothingness. Repetition is bad because Time cannot arise from it, hence the 'ko superstition'... So much to think about :)
hey nick! you & your videos rock! thanks for showing me the world of Go!
I think from a game design perspective, the most important term to use when describing go is "emergence". In every game there's a balance between emergent gameplay and forced elements. If you compare a game like Half-Life to Starcraft, it's obvious that halflife has the entire experience designed for you and starcraft gives you a toolset to create your own.
In these terms, Go is the ultimate example of emergence. Even chess has different rules for different pieces to create the experience.
38:55 "The Divine Reaver Drop" omg i'm dying
Watching this as a human for the first time in late 2019 :(
Same.
Go, chess, or checkers players shouldn't use the argument of computer skill in evaluation of the worth of the game. Even after checkers was solved it doesn't simply allow all checkers pros to beat everyone. The number of possibilities in checkers is still beyond what a normal person could comprehend. But assuming Chess than Go are solved, this in no way should make players feel better or worse about the game. It is like saying there is no point in competitive running because a bicycle or a car can outrun everyone, or a forklift can lift million times more than the best weightlifter. Computer skill is not an argument.
thank you for the class! I'm a brazilian and started to have an interest in go this month. Your channel will be of a great help!! I hope the game gets better known in my country too. ^^
i can't believe i watched the whole hour video. Good lecture.
So Dan never roots for the home team. Why doesn't that surprise me? What a contentious guy.
Regarding playing Go against the "self": It goes a bit deeper than "discipline". Here, in its deepest connotation, "self" is the illusion of being a seperate ego-entity, and Nirvana is the No-Self. So apart from preliminaries of self-discipline, it is about treating Go as a search for Truth, in each board position or "situation". Meditating upon the "sole reality", the objective "best move"(much like in zazen you meditate upon the fundamental truth regarding who you are apart from everchanging stream of bodily form and thought-stream). This would, in my understanding, also be the truest meaning of the Divine Move. Divine Move is not some game changing move you make once in a lifetime to beat somebody. The former definition of Divine Move is deeper and makes it more "utopian" to find than the latter(can even Alpha Go's decisions be considered objectively/infallibly the best ? No, they are only consistently better than what our best human players can think of. But a better computer program can make better decisions. Stockfish was best amongst even chess engines, but now Alpha Zero beats it handily(it's the extension of Alpha Go that uses neural network approach to mastering Go, chess and shogi, all 3 games).
So, in pursuit of pure search for truth of every position, where first the opponent disappears from your consciousness and then you yourself disappear, the material translation of your striving i.e. the go board and the stones disappear and only a "seeking" remains, you can reach enlightnment, as you can, through any activity or circumstance where you become "total" within yourself. From that poise of conciousness, which is the Solution incarnate, you can see the truth of not just Go, but anything in life.
One immediately practical benefit one can find in one's go/chess performance from playing from a meditative state of mind is: apart from the obviously improved concentration and calmness, one is less likely to be caught up in a linear thinking stream and miss threats or advantages.
I think one of the nice things about computers being better than humans at go is that this had to take an entirely new style of learning compared to chess engines. We had to teach them to develop a similar sense of "this looks right" as we develop. Vs in chess, you can get very far with relatively simple alpha-beta pruning.
Shobu is also surprisingly complex give the size of its board.
From 20:00 they talk about computer-go and Nick predicts that its soon when a computer beats a Professional. Before 2020. It was in October 2015 when Fan Hui was beaten by Alphago.
now in 2016 there is a good candidate for "deep blue for go"
Go is currently my new favorite cellular automata
about 16-17 minutes in:
ai basically works on "feel" as well
the workings of a neural network are really vague, we've resorted to them because like us, the computers can't crunch the logic directly (because of the sheer size of the board)
edit: 39 minutes in
according to deleuze, art is the only intersubjectivity
art communicates the diversity of souls and the unique worlds they envelop
second edit: 52 minutes in
this is oddly relatable
and deleuze does talk about something like this
in chess the players make moves like commanders looking over a battlefield
in go the moves kind of happen to you
"it" moves
"The point is not to crush your partner..." Dan strikes again
I do not know if you still read this but here it goes:
estimated number of Atoms in the Universe is between 10^78 and 10^82,
the possible moves in go are 1.74×10^172 but only 1,19% are legal(no stone in a dead position) so really they are 2.08x10^170.
and from the mathematical point of you you start from this really big set of possibilities and every move reduces the set. So sorry no quantum physics involved if you want is a sequence of event that brings you to the result.
That it is even great for us because you get to do a review of a game and there are not review possible in Quantum physics.
Backgammon is man x fate; Chess is man x man; Go is man x himself.
Not only can we no longer beat computers at go, 4000 years of studying go and computers found new ways of playing go never thought of... Well at least you had many more reasons
A moo cow is a female bovine (as opposed to a female moose or a female whale). It's not as childish a term as most people think. :)
since no one here has asked... what is the game that you designed that is coming out this summer?
56:00 -- Sandbagging at a tournament is unforgivable to me -- there is only one exception to that rule.
The sandbagger who isn't aware of his own level and arbitrarily registers as a 1K because he plays that rank online on OGS or something, might be guessing and if he wins all his games vs 1k's in a tournament I would not hold that against him.
Tournaments are so brutal from what I have seen on streams from the AGA. I don't know how I'd stack up to somebody who's trained in longer games and reading when I'm forced to play 90 min. per side. My rank might become 2 stones weaker or 1 stone stronger in such a case.
I want to play in a tournament someday, because I live in an area where there are none nearby. Driving 500 miles+ isn't something I want to do just to play someone.
ogs has really high elo compared to chess where draws are possible
and tournament systems try to adjust for that
so sandbagging unknowingly is less likely than
when i got stomped at my first tournament
Is that Andrew Jackson I hear at 7:30 ?
I also wondered this, but I think the voice is ever so slightly different.
Hard to tell at 2x speed though.
I think the best first move is the 6-6 point ... or at least a 6p thought it was playable (see O Rissei vs Ohashi Hirofumi on 2/21/13)
19:50 in before alphago
Ah...yes.
Can I have a recommendation for playing online that is friendly to totally new players please?
I've always loved the online Go server (OGS). It's got interactive tutorials and puzzles and the chat is very friendly
Does anyone know name of the book that mentioned in 30-35 mins?
The Go Consultants by John Fairbairn.
Ok, Nick.. You must make a Beer Go Video!
watching in 2023 after learn about how humanity has lost all rights to earth because we lost Alpha go
ruclips.net/video/GmlSSSN7C78/видео.html if you look at this video, you can see the board position at 1:14.
nash has 37 consecutive stones all put in one place and no territory, and it's already into the midgame or early end game. He would have lost by 200 points or so. Either he or the director clearly didn't understand the rules of go and was just being stubborn. Either way, I don't want to watch this movie.
holy shit. Go really is like quantum mechanics.
There's always THAT ONE BLOWHARD who must make a futile attempt to prove how smart he is by hijacking a talk with his incoherent armchair ramblings. Let the speaker speak.
computers will beat humans at go "by 2020" u heard it here first
Ok, I like the video and all but the statement "when you play go you'd be using a bigger portion of your brain than if you would if you played chess" is just a false statement based on ignorance about chess. Chess also requires the entire available thinking capacity of the brain of a given player. There are micro strategies and macro strategies in chess and the number of possible positions while smaller than in Go is still incomprehensible for any human being.
Shame on you Sibicky!
StopFear Yes, shame indeed.
"Cognitive Brain Research 1 (2002)
Research reportA functional MRI study of high-level cognitionII. The game of GOXiangchuan Chen , Daren Zhang , Xiaochu Zhang , Zhihao Li , Xiaomei Meng ,* Sheng He , Xiaoping HuDepartment of Neurobiology and Biophysics ,University of Science and Technology of China , Hefei , Anhui , 230027, PR ChinaHospital of Anhui Medical University , Hefei , Anhui , 230027, PR ChinaDepartment of Psychology ,University of Minnesota , Minneapolis ,MN 55455, USACenter for Magnetic Resonance Research ,University of Minnesota , 2021 Sixth Street SE , Minneapolis ,MN 55455, USAAccepted 26 July 2002AbstractGO is a board game thought to be different from chess in many aspects, most significantly in that GO emphasizes global strategy more than local battle, a property very difficult for computer programs to emulate. To investigate the neural basis of GO, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used to measure brain activities of subjects engaged in playing GO. Enhanced activations were observed in many cortical areas, such as dorsal prefrontal, parietal, occipital, posterior temporal, and primary somatosensory and motor areas."
This depends on the type of Chess player I believe. One of my favourite chess players is Mikhal Tal. He was an incredibly creative player that created really complex situations which simplified into him winning or losing. Against a computer, he would probably lose because they aren't phased by complex situations.
It seems that you don't know anything about Xiang Qi, too. Computers have been dominating Xiang Qi already, from much earlier. The truth is, as soon as a computer become able to win a chess game against strongest chess player, it can win a Xiang Qi, too, almost straightforwardly. :P Go was the last famous board game a computer couldn't win despite so many efforts.
@@Xpertman213 Exactly. AlphaGo is beating the best of humans without using any of the "artistic" right brained processing. Magnus Carlsen, the current World Chess Champion is known for his "intuitive" play. He says that he often knows the move to make, and uses logic just to confirm it. Almost all super grandmasters have that element in their play. There is a documentary on Judith Polgar on youtube, dunno if it is still available, where she expresses similar things.
Both chess and go are too complex for human brain to "solve" computationally. Hell! even checkers qualifies there. It does not matter if one game has million million million possiblities, and the other has billion billion billion possiblities. Beyond a certain level of complexity, everything is clubbed as "too complex" by the brain.
I got into go because of the anime Hikaru no Go
Speaking of the simplicity leading to immense complexity leading back to simplicity made me think of the same thing I love about the Dragon Fractal. Check it out: /watch?v=wCyC-K_PnRY
A.Beautiful.Mind.2001.Playing.Game.Go.Weiqi
Go as a "game against self"? That is nonsense. That is a philosophy that can be applied literally to anything and has nothing specifically to do with Go. Any open information game is a "game against self".
I absolutely don't agree.
Never mind the fact that I'm Go there is rarely a "best"move but there are very frequently "equivalent" or "differently balanced" moves that you have to choose for yourself the ones that your priorities have decided is the "best option", you also learn about your own personal failings every time you pick a bad move. There are lots of bad moves, and you'll be making a lot of them, and each one tells you something about how you think and what you prioritize and how you should change yourself to make better decisions.
Go explodes quickly into this orchestra of higher concepts, and how you navigate those concepts tells you an immense amount about yourself.
@@andriypredmyrskyy7791hard agree. Fan Hui said Go is like a mirror, and both him and Lee Sedol went through major personal growth after being beaten by AlphaGo. The game forced them to confront and overcome their assumptions that they were the best by showing them that there was more to learn. They both went through a stage of denial before coming around to accepting the harsh truth that was their own failures in the games. Because of this I see go as deeply representative of personal growth in human life.
Like Fan Hui said, each game is reflective of YOU. A better opponent simply reveals the flaws you didn’t know you had, and then it is still up to you to accept these and grow from them.
a "Holstein"
so much sperg in the crowd
Had he ever been a real person, Jesus Christ (aka Horus aka The Sun - see "The History of God" on RUclips) would have been disappointed to hear that people are going around saying that Go is a metaphor for life. Because it is more of a metaphor for religion.
Although there are indeed some parallels between Go and bacteriology, such as familial swarms of individuals competing with other swarms for finite resources, Go - unlike Bridge - does not involve communication and cooperation between people (except in pair Go, where players laugh at the idiocy of their partner's moves and kick each other under the table).
Whereas the intelligence of bacterial swarms, ant colonies, and colonies of eucaryote cells called people, is an emergent property of collective intelligent individual behaviours, Go swarms are helplessly under the rigid control of the two Grand Designers (white God vs black Satan) on either side of the board, who never cross the road to show mercy to an ailing Samaritan on the other other side.
Blessed are the monomaniacal ruthless, for they shall enter the Kingdom of Go Heaven.
Gave you 5 plus minutes to sway me, but I'm going to stick with chess. Not sure, but judging what little I saw/ heard in that 5 minutes you could probably have put together a 20 minute version to make your case.
Anyway, I'm not going to waist my hour with scattered, random thoughts or painfully poor lecture execution.
This wasn't as much a lecture as it was a discussion. That's fine. He just records the sessions he does at the go center. It's a close knit community that welcomes anyone. You don't need to understand.