It’s a very helpful site if either you or your reviewer, or both of you, don’t have the time, energy, or inclination to sit down and thrash the game out together for a straight 30 or 45 (or even 60+) minutes.
Sometimes it’s nice to have a more laidback environment where, for instance, one can check new comments in the morning with breakfast and coffee.
Like the difference between live and correspondence Go.
Heh, from Calvin Clark in the Uberdude thread:
Logical Brain: Look, Intuitive Brain. You have one job and only one job: to suggest moves that I wouldn’t otherwise consider. You don’t actually make the moves because you make basic mistakes that get us in trouble, so don’t let me catch you doing that.
Intuitive Brain: Shut up. I’m stronger than you.
Logical Brain: Only today. Not forever.
Hmm, here former British Champion Daniel Hu says references this diagram from a game between Sonoda Yuichi and Kiyonara Tetsuya, both 9p
[(12) at (21) – my bad, jlt]
and says “the result looks terrible for W and that is justified by tewari”.
Looking at the board very simplistically, I can tell that (16) is rather wasted but (19) is even more so. We have to remember that White has sente.
In this formation, though, White’s exchange (8)–(9) has come, it seems to me, to look retroactively dubious. If (25) had been on the board at the beginning, who would have exchanged those two moves in the corner with the top side compromised?
So, I can’t help preferring Black’s position here.
Then again, what is “terrible” to a Championship-level player? Perhaps not what a kyu would think.
Daniel elaborates that “the value of O17 seems 20% wasted, and B seems very efficient for territory”.
Quite an interesting game. Sonoda is, of course, known for his opening creativity and love of influence.
So Fairbairn was the correct one, then:
The territory on the left side is not yet secure (as you say yourself two moves later), and at present the Black corner has to be counted as less than 20 points. But Black has played one extra move in the corner (not to mention having also an extra move in the game). If we take the usual rule of thumb that a big point in fuseki is worth 15 points, and that is White’s right, that almost cancels out the corner, but in addition White has thickness from the corner exchange, so it hardly seems “terrible”.
That may be because the tiger’s mouth variation has lost popularity since AlphaGo Master.
With the solid connection, black tends to play a different probe/kikashi against white’s corner:
I agree commenting or reading comments on gokibitz is a pleasant way to spend the time, but for the purpose of improving one’s go skills I doubt how beneficial it is to post your games or review others’ games there.
I’m happy to share more thoughts of mine on that site if you want to continue the discussion (I guess it’s off topic). Otherwise just stop here.
I’m happy to share more thoughts of mine on that site if you want to continue the discussion
I’m interested – I can see why reviewing might not be all that helpful to the reviewer, but why is it not beneficial to post one’s games there, in your opinion?
I’ve learnt many things on GoKibitz (actually more as a reviewer being corrected by stronger commentators than as a reviewee, I think, although I’ve learnt a lot that way too).
I don’t know. Taking a single game maybe not, but I imagine if one rehosted the entire gogod collection there might be an issue since they’re trying to make money off that collection and have been doing so presumably for a while now.
GoGoD is commercial only due to the historical essays included.
The kifu themselves are, as said, completely public domain.
I’ve never heard of any successful copyright claim against the copying or publication of kifu, and the legal precedent of chess record publication in the USA (Agon vs Chess24, 2016) is favourable to their copyright-free status.
Uncommentated kifu – public
Commentated kifu – non-public
Tsumego without solutions – public
Tsumego with solutions – non-public
That’s my understanding of the matter.
It’s also worth recognising that GoGoD originated in the 1990s, before Internet sharing became such a big thing.
GoGoD = Games of Go on Disc. Presumably the customer sent money and Fairbairn / Hall sent them the titular disc, and what were they to do with that in the '90s? There would have been nowhere to put the data besides some obscure little Demon server.
On GK, reviewers only talk about things they are happy to talk about. For reviewees my feeling is they mostly learn things they are happy to learn, but that’s just my feeling. There is no commitment. I mean that’s the nature of kibitzing so there’s nothing wrong with it, but that also means for players who want to go as far as they can, posting their games is an inefficient way of learning.
For instance the discussion about the choice of direction in the opening can get really long but reviewers don’t talk much about the move where a vital tesuji is missed, while I think missing the tesuji is worth more attention. If we measure a piece of go knowledge in two dimensions: difficulty and importance, then, ideally, one should begin with the most simple and important things, gradually move on to difficult but important or simple but not very important knowledge. However, comments on GK are presented to you equally, which do not always follow this ideal scheme. Let alone there are some comments containing wrong information.
I as a reviewer am usually too lazy to get involved in an interesting discussion that may take a lot of time. Once I commented at a move saying it’s overplay and later gennan joined the discussion saying that the move wasn’t. I wanted to defend myself at first but gave up because there’s too much to say. I could have just shown what the AI preferred but I didn’t think that’s what the reviewee wanted to see.
Also some reviewees gave me a feeling that they didn’t completely trust me. I mean it’s good to have doubts but what was a bit frustrating to me was they didn’t even question me, which made me think they were not convinced the move I commented on was worth discussing.
As a comparison, a private tutoring, either free or paid, is more coherent and both reviewee and reviewer are more dedicated. The reviewer is more willing to share all they can and give a plan about what the reviewee should focus on at the moment; the reviewee is more ready to learn new things.
Well, just my subjective thoughts. I did find commenting there very pleasant.
AI did change things. For one thing, I comment much less on opening moves these days, because it has become clear to me that opening mistakes tend to be less important than I thought before AI.
KataGo may think than some opening move loses 1 point, but in a SDK or DDK game such a mistake is insignificant compared to middle game mistakes and endgame mistakes that lose dozens of points.
And very often my opening intuition turns out to be wrong. The opening move that I might prefer, can turn out to lose 2 points according to AI, while the game move only loses 1 point. So I don’t comment as much on the opening anymore.
What is left is mostly commenting on tactical mistakes, but tactical comments may be quite specific to the position and not as easily appliccable to future games by the reviewee.
I don’t remember that occasion, but it’s a pity that you didn’t correct my mistake. I prefer if people correct my mistakes, so I can learn something too.
I’m probably as stubborn as most players around my level, but I do think that my mind can be changed by convincing arguments.
Huh. Apparently GoGoD never stood for Games of Go on Disc.
Its proper name was Games of Go on Disk, using a somewhat American spelling despite both Fairbairn and Hall being English and GoGoD presumably being based in the UK.
It now goes under the title of Games of Go on Download.
Do you spell “floppy disk” or “floppy disc” in UK?
I personally use disc for everything, but some people use disc for optical and disk for magnetic media.
-sk is ofc the more regular form (risk, tusk, musk, task).
I didn’t realise this was an “Excerpts from Uberdude’s journal” thread!
I briefly made 2400 in the old rating system before some losses from the title match were submitted and pushed me back below to 2398 iirc. With the rating adjustments following gennan’s report I’m now above 2400 but that doesn’t feel a legit accomplishment of the goal as the goalposts moved. I’ve not won the championship again but have come second lots of times now.
Disregarding the overall increase in absolute EGF ratings from those adjustments, in the European rating list you are #33 of 133 active 4d players (declared rank). So whatever the absolute value of your current EGF rating (2427), you are in the top 25% of EGF 4d players, so quite a solid EGF 4d.
Don’t be so sure! The UK and EU have database rights protecting databases which needed Investment to compile. Taking one record¹ is probably fine but doing so repeatedly would likely be infringement.
Although the right has probably lapsed for old databases.
¹ assuming that record is not itself subject to copyright…
