I never use analysis and usually have it turned off. And the score info given by clicking on the captures is perfectly fine; that’s the score on the board, anything more is playing part of the game for you.
3 Likes
Whether you personally use it or not is not important here. However, you do call me specifically a cheater, as per your comments.
I thought it was obvious that “you” wasn’t “you specifically”.
In any case, we can all claim whatever, since only we can know what we do or not. So, as I said, not important here.
Still, according to your thought process analysis is way worse than score estimate, since it allows a player to visualize stones not on the board and certainly not only on their mind.
If SE is such a grave sin for Go purists, I wonder why analysis and variations are not a ticket straight to Go hell. (actually, as I said, it’s elitist strong player mindset, but I’m not surprised they are blind to the obviousness of it).
1 Like
So it’s our entire disagreement a matter of definitions? I don’t consider a community allowing or disallowing something to be any more an indicator of cheating than laws are an indicator of morality. If our entire disagreement is in our definitions, then we can clear this up easily, but I think the disagreement is deeper than that.
SE is a much lesser form of cheating than AI, and I don’t bother complaining that Dwyrin uses SE because it doesn’t affect my enjoyment of his videos, and because it’s acceptable by the rules of the sites he plays on, which makes it analogous to ignoring someone who is doing something you consider immoral, but which is perfectly legal, because it doesn’t affect you and there wouldn’t be much point to it.
1 Like
If I did, that was either a typo or poor wording. Yeah, English using the same words for its second person and informal “one” pronouns is a pain sometimes.
1 Like
Hm, I’d argue that communities usually dictate morality and not laws. (not strictly related to the topic at hand)
3 Likes
Considering that OGS even has a checkbox specifically to turn on or off these aids, I don’t see at all how you can say that using SE is dishonest or unfair (synonyms for cheating). Imagine OGS had a special game mode where you could get 5 hints from the AI during the game. In that case even this AI help wouldn’t be cheating.
You could argue that it’s bad for improving or that you don’t like that it’s allowed, but I don’t think at all that you can call it cheating.
3 Likes
The 5 AI moves variant would be unranked, though.
1 Like
Real Go is played without a board at all because the board is a crutch that helps you visualize stones played (just like analysis helps you visualize possible variations). True Go is played in your mind, without any external cues or hints. And having a board with all the moves played - that’s like half of the mental work done. I understand that it’s common to play with a board nowadays and it’s pretty much required to get you up to the level where you can play for real, but can we really call people who play like that Go players?
11 Likes
I mean, I do want to work my way up to 19x19 blind go, though…
4 Likes
Let say we get an improved SE.
Imagine a close game in the endgame, how useful will be SE.
The information delivered can make a DDK play like a Dan player.
Take the analysis tool. It will never change a DDK into a Dan player.
That’s why I opened the topic focused on SE.
The way we play go change with the technology, I can understand the use of the analysis tool online, because in this situation, it doesn’t annoy the opponent as before. Imagine hiding the board, putting down variations while your opponent go have a coffee… Not really the way we played in real life.
I’m not sure if it’s positive or not for the quality of the games, at least some players have fun in using it.
Now SE is a different story.
3 Likes
I’d believe, from my limited knowledge, that being able to read several moves ahead and consider overlapping variations AND keep track of all that makes the difference in high ranks (I’m pretty sure there are some posts about this in the forums) much more than a “what’s the score and what areas are open to interpretation?”, but what do I know.
1 Like
I actually made that argument, facetiously of course, in a Forum thread a couple years ago, but no one got it. Indeed, as I recall, it sparked outrage.
3 Likes
I’m out of popcorn, but I want that link.
3 Likes
I think it’s a strong indicator that analysis board is much closer to being able to see the board instead of playing go-the-mathematical-abstraction in terms of external help. But while I do find definitions of go such as Tromp-Taylor beautiful, I think using a board and stones, or simulating such on a computer, is very much within the bounds of legitimacy.
2 Likes
Even if you can explore a bit more variations and a bit deeper (maybe?) the DDK main problem will still be to select which move he has to explore, as exhaustivity is not really the way it works.
2 Likes
Or, even if you know what the score is and how areas are divided, the problem will still be to decide what to do with that information. Like, actually play.
Score estimate is a snapshot of the board, nothing more, nothing less. It’s not playing. I repeat: it is not playing. Analysis is playing; it’s putting stones on the board and playing out outcomes. Theoretically, someone could just play out every possible move under the sun and choose the best one, but that is not score estimate, that is using AI (let’s not hide behind our pinkies here).
You want to call people cheaters, go off; I get to call purists pretentious as well.
1 Like
Thanks for spurring me to look up the link. I don’t usually bother, as I don’t consider myself a research bureau for debaters. Except when I am moderating, I write posts from memory (sometimes inaccurate, I admit), and people can take it or leave it, it makes no difference to me.
However this is different, and fortunately, it wasn’t as hard to find as I had thought. This is the link: Game analysis...a crutch?. I have three posts there, which must all be read to get the full effect. Rereading it, I remain very happy with it as a piece of writing and still stand firm in the philosophy expressed.
3 Likes
It’s played. A good SE will play (good) moves (in the right order) to determine the score. Don’t think a score just as a set of points, it’s a result of reading.
Analysing is just a help to see more but that’s quite a small help. Thinking is still on your side. Approaching go by exhaustivity has always been a failure (see old go softwares).
2 Likes
I don’t think it works the way you think it works. During the game, the SE doesn’t show you moves that lead up to the score, it’ just shows you the score. So, even if it’s doing the reading for itself (which I kinda doubt), as you say, it certainly doesn’t share.
Also, I’m done with this topic, be judgmental all you want, it’s still not cheating.
1 Like
You are right, but there’s more: all of us are just able to think moves of our own level. I can’t imagine tricks and smart moves above my rank.
Likewise I can’t spot weaknesses that I don’t know how to exploit.
So when I use analysis I can’t actually be stronger than my rank. The valuable help is just to check more moves and variations than I could “read” in my mind only. That’s a lot anyway.
Yes, it does. That’s how it states which group is alive and which is dead.
1 Like