• Six Years Back, The Last-Ever Meat Victory vs A.I. In an Even Game

    From Hal Womack 3-dan@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 5 14:16:07 2022
    https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/03/the-invisible-opponent/475611/

    How Google's AlphaGo Beat a Go World Champion
    Inside a man-versus-machine showdown

    By Christopher Moyer
    MARCH 28, 2016

    [The number of potential legal board positions is greater than the number of atoms in the universe.

    ...Demis Hassabis, DeepMind’s founder

    ...Other Korean professionals joke that they’re envious of Lee, that they feel the DeepMind Challenge Match is the easiest million dollars a top-level player could ever make.

    ... As you are reading this, AlphaGo is improving. It does not take breaks. It does not have days when it just doesn’t feel like practicing, days when it can’t kick its electronic brain into focus. Day in and day out, AlphaGo has been rocketing
    towards superiority, and the results are staggering.

    ...Gu Li, one of Lee’s long-term friends and rivals, comments on Chinese TV that Lee is fighting “a very lonely battle against an invisible opponent.”

    ...Then comes Lee’s move 78, which will come to be called his “Hand of God” move.

    ...In the end, finding no moves that improve its chances of winning, it [A.I.] begins playing nonsense moves, moves that actually reduce its own points. Finally, it resigns.

    ...Go is constantly evolving. What’s considered optimal play changes quickly. Humans have been honing our collective knowledge of the game for more than 2,500 years—the difference is that AlphaGo can do the same thing much, much faster.]
    ------------------------------------------------

    I, Womack, call the A.I. program "TopBot" and the game itself "turff". Lee Sedol himself subsequently retired from playing professional _baduk_.

    How much of a handicap would #1 meat need to beat TopBot? When, if ever, will we find out?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sobriquet@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 6 16:37:08 2022
    On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 11:16:08 PM UTC+1, Hal Womack 3-dan wrote:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/03/the-invisible-opponent/475611/

    How Google's AlphaGo Beat a Go World Champion
    Inside a man-versus-machine showdown

    By Christopher Moyer
    MARCH 28, 2016

    [The number of potential legal board positions is greater than the number of atoms in the universe.

    ...Demis Hassabis, DeepMind’s founder

    ...Other Korean professionals joke that they’re envious of Lee, that they feel the DeepMind Challenge Match is the easiest million dollars a top-level player could ever make.

    ... As you are reading this, AlphaGo is improving. It does not take breaks. It does not have days when it just doesn’t feel like practicing, days when it can’t kick its electronic brain into focus. Day in and day out, AlphaGo has been rocketing
    towards superiority, and the results are staggering.

    ...Gu Li, one of Lee’s long-term friends and rivals, comments on Chinese TV that Lee is fighting “a very lonely battle against an invisible opponent.”

    ...Then comes Lee’s move 78, which will come to be called his “Hand of God” move.

    ...In the end, finding no moves that improve its chances of winning, it [A.I.] begins playing nonsense moves, moves that actually reduce its own points. Finally, it resigns.

    ...Go is constantly evolving. What’s considered optimal play changes quickly. Humans have been honing our collective knowledge of the game for more than 2,500 years—the difference is that AlphaGo can do the same thing much, much faster.]
    ------------------------------------------------

    I, Womack, call the A.I. program "TopBot" and the game itself "turff". Lee Sedol himself subsequently retired from playing professional _baduk_.

    How much of a handicap would #1 meat need to beat TopBot? When, if ever, will we find out?

    Yet, bizarrely, we still don't have any AI yet that can explain go or that is even able to come up
    with a basic concept like 'atari' or 'ladder' from scratch (that is, starting with just the rules of
    go regarding the moves one is allowed to play).

    Surely the art of teaching go is not that much more difficult than the art of playing go?
    AI systems that can play go are much less useful than AI systems that can explain go
    and boil it down to the essential concepts, to facilitate and optimize the learning process
    to master go (both for AI systems learning from the experience of other AI systems, rather
    than their own experience and for assisting humans to learn and understand go).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robert Jasiek@21:1/5 to sobriquet on Mon Mar 7 22:35:36 2022
    sobriquet wrote:
    the art of teaching go is not that much more difficult than the art of playing go?

    Of teaching very basic concepts, maybe. Advanced concepts require
    sophisticated intelligence, for which AI is not ready.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sobriquet@21:1/5 to Robert Jasiek on Mon Mar 7 22:52:48 2022
    On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 10:35:38 PM UTC+1, Robert Jasiek wrote:
    sobriquet wrote:
    the art of teaching go is not that much more difficult than the art of playing go?
    Of teaching very basic concepts, maybe. Advanced concepts require sophisticated intelligence, for which AI is not ready.

    Nonsense. AI has already demonstrated that it can easily beat people at the game of go (regardless of their 'sophisticated' level of intelligence).
    It's just that humans are rather clueless about the nature of intelligence and that kind of explains why we don't have AI yet that can communicate at a conceptual level.
    Human intelligence is much more a matter of having huge numbers of people clowning around and collectively accumulating scraps of knowledge over many generations rather than single brilliant individual figuring out everything from
    scratch (like the current AI approach, where a single AI system starts learning from scratch all by itself to reach 9d level skills).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robert Jasiek@21:1/5 to sobriquet on Tue Mar 8 16:53:33 2022
    sobriquet wrote:
    AI has already demonstrated that it can easily beat people at the
    game of go

    Of course, but this is not conceptual explanation in
    human-understandable terms.

    It's just that humans are rather clueless about the nature of intelligence and >that kind of explains why we don't have AI yet that can communicate at a >conceptual level.

    Not quite. Proof play, theorem application and expert systems are
    examples of ways in which AI and humans can communicate in
    human-understandable terms.

    Human intelligence is much more a matter of having huge numbers of people >clowning around and collectively accumulating scraps of knowledge over many >generations rather than single brilliant individual figuring out everything from
    scratch (like the current AI approach

    Human intelligence involves both: accumulating scraps of knowledge and brilliant individuals' thinking. For the latter, read, e.g.,
    Combinatorial Game Theory (by Siegel, quite a bit of the contents
    applies to Go) and my book Endgame 5 - Mathematics, which contains 149
    theorems and their proofs, of which 2/3 are mine.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sobriquet@21:1/5 to Robert Jasiek on Tue Mar 8 08:32:57 2022
    On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 4:53:34 PM UTC+1, Robert Jasiek wrote:
    sobriquet wrote:
    AI has already demonstrated that it can easily beat people at the
    game of go
    Of course, but this is not conceptual explanation in
    human-understandable terms.

    There is no reason whatsoever to assume that computers wouldn't excel at
    that, if only humans figured out how to come up with a framework that allows them to learn this skill.

    It's just that humans are rather clueless about the nature of intelligence and
    that kind of explains why we don't have AI yet that can communicate at a >conceptual level.
    Not quite. Proof play, theorem application and expert systems are
    examples of ways in which AI and humans can communicate in human-understandable terms.

    It's certainly not hardware limitations that preclude computers from attaining high-level conceptual information processing skills. So sooner or later it's bound
    to arise (as computers transition from the skill or recognizing cats in pictures and
    movies to reasoning about the concept of a cat).

    Human intelligence is much more a matter of having huge numbers of people >clowning around and collectively accumulating scraps of knowledge over many >generations rather than single brilliant individual figuring out everything from
    scratch (like the current AI approach
    Human intelligence involves both: accumulating scraps of knowledge and brilliant individuals' thinking. For the latter, read, e.g.,
    Combinatorial Game Theory (by Siegel, quite a bit of the contents
    applies to Go) and my book Endgame 5 - Mathematics, which contains 149 theorems and their proofs, of which 2/3 are mine.

    Books are outdated. I prefer videos. People's brilliancy can only come to fruition if they
    build upon the enormous wealth of accumulated knowledge from their forebears. You can't expect any individual human to come up with something like quantum field theory
    by themselves, if they were raised by monkeys on a deserted island.
    So it would be silly to expect such feats from AI systems gaining knowledge from
    experience completely independently.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robert Jasiek@21:1/5 to sobriquet on Tue Mar 8 18:15:44 2022
    sobriquet wrote:
    Books are outdated. I prefer videos.

    Both have their purposes but describing books as outdated is improper. Typically, books can have much denser contents than videos. If you
    watch all go endgame videos, you can learn only 1% of all endgame
    theory.

    People's brilliancy can only come to fruition if they
    build upon the enormous wealth of accumulated knowledge from their forebears.

    This is usually so but very much of my discoveries is built from
    ground up.

    You can't expect any individual human to come up with something like quantum field theory
    by themselves,

    Einstein is an example of building the theory of relativity mostly by
    himself seemingly out of nowhere. (It is possible though that his wife contributed and Einstein might have failed to credit this; we cannot
    know.)

    IIRC, Boltzmann's entropy theory is another such example.

    Quantum field theory just happens to be one of the countless common
    examples of a theory developed by many.

    So it would be silly to expect such feats from AI systems gaining knowledge from
    experience completely independently.

    At least it would be silly to expect that AI would discover a
    particular theory without prior directional guidance - instead it
    might discover some entirely different theory in the future:)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sobriquet@21:1/5 to Robert Jasiek on Tue Mar 8 10:27:56 2022
    On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 6:15:47 PM UTC+1, Robert Jasiek wrote:
    sobriquet wrote:
    Books are outdated. I prefer videos.
    Both have their purposes but describing books as outdated is improper. Typically, books can have much denser contents than videos. If you
    watch all go endgame videos, you can learn only 1% of all endgame
    theory.

    No way. Books are static. Videos are dynamic and can show animations.
    That by itself makes books pretty much useless, compared to the power
    of the video format (just like a picture can reveal more than a thousand
    words, an animation can reveal more than a thousand pictures), but
    interactive educational software can be an even way more powerful
    format, as it can present information in an interactive way that
    continually matches up the level of detail with background knowledge
    of the user, to optimize the learning experience.

    People's brilliancy can only come to fruition if they
    build upon the enormous wealth of accumulated knowledge from their forebears.
    This is usually so but very much of my discoveries is built from
    ground up.
    You can't expect any individual human to come up with something like quantum field theory
    by themselves,
    Einstein is an example of building the theory of relativity mostly by
    himself seemingly out of nowhere. (It is possible though that his wife contributed and Einstein might have failed to credit this; we cannot
    know.)

    IIRC, Boltzmann's entropy theory is another such example.

    Quantum field theory just happens to be one of the countless common
    examples of a theory developed by many.

    That is the rule rather than the exception. People like Newton, Einstein and Boltzmann
    are the exception and even they usually acknowledge they were very much contributing some small but very significant pieces to the bulk of the puzzle that was provided by others.

    So it would be silly to expect such feats from AI systems gaining knowledge from
    experience completely independently.
    At least it would be silly to expect that AI would discover a
    particular theory without prior directional guidance - instead it
    might discover some entirely different theory in the future:)

    It would be nice to have a population of evolving AI systems with some selective
    pressure towards the development of language, so they can learn both from their own experience and the experience of their peers. Combining neural networks
    and genetic algorithms somehow.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robert Jasiek@21:1/5 to sobriquet on Wed Mar 9 08:29:00 2022
    sobriquet wrote:
    Books are static. Videos are dynamic and can show animations.
    [...]
    interactive educational software can be an even way more powerful
    format,

    Usually, videos are also static in the sense that their contents is
    defined on creation and does not change dynamically on viewing, quite
    like printed books.

    Books, videos and software can be used together one's flexible mind or
    physical / virtual go boards.

    The interaction of ebooks or software alone does not provide contents
    that is not there. What matters the most is what and how much contents
    a medium presents at all.

    Dynamic go boards in ebooks or software allow studying variations and
    their positions move after move that are not included or shown
    explicitly. This may, or may not, be richer than printed books (e.g.,
    some of my books show every relevant move or position and study and
    explain ALL relevant variations and decisions.

    For comparison, the most detailed ebooks I have seen study less, rely
    on the reader to study all remaining relevant variations and decisions
    on his own. Such ebooks show too few sample decisions so almost all
    readers won't know how to find all missing relevant decisions on their
    own. They can't be missing any relevant decisions in my related books
    because they already contain ALL of them.

    Furthermore, replaying moves and positions in ebooks or softwares
    encourages lazy thinking instead of training visualisation, tactical
    reading and positional judgement.

    A technically more powerful because more dynamic format does not
    guarantee better, or more complete, teaching.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From sobriquet@21:1/5 to Robert Jasiek on Wed Mar 9 03:57:41 2022
    On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 8:29:02 AM UTC+1, Robert Jasiek wrote:
    sobriquet wrote:
    Books are static. Videos are dynamic and can show animations.
    [...]
    interactive educational software can be an even way more powerful
    format,
    Usually, videos are also static in the sense that their contents is
    defined on creation and does not change dynamically on viewing, quite
    like printed books.

    Books, videos and software can be used together one's flexible mind or physical / virtual go boards.

    The interaction of ebooks or software alone does not provide contents
    that is not there. What matters the most is what and how much contents
    a medium presents at all.

    Dynamic go boards in ebooks or software allow studying variations and
    their positions move after move that are not included or shown
    explicitly. This may, or may not, be richer than printed books (e.g.,
    some of my books show every relevant move or position and study and
    explain ALL relevant variations and decisions.

    For comparison, the most detailed ebooks I have seen study less, rely
    on the reader to study all remaining relevant variations and decisions
    on his own. Such ebooks show too few sample decisions so almost all
    readers won't know how to find all missing relevant decisions on their
    own. They can't be missing any relevant decisions in my related books
    because they already contain ALL of them.

    Furthermore, replaying moves and positions in ebooks or softwares
    encourages lazy thinking instead of training visualisation, tactical
    reading and positional judgement.

    A technically more powerful because more dynamic format does not
    guarantee better, or more complete, teaching.

    You're right that books have been around much longer, so there is a
    wealth of information available in books that has yet to become available
    in other formats.
    But AI developments go in leaps and bounds and we might not be that
    far off from AI software that is able to crunch down a huge bunch of
    books (in ebook format) to the essential conceptual structure and
    makes this information accessible through a convenient interface that
    can generate parts of this structure at an appropriate level of detail
    based on the way the user has been interacting with it so far.
    I don't think videos are somehow necessarily limited in scope and breadth
    of the amount of detail they can cover, since you can make arbitrarily long videos and split them up in convenient parts, though so far videos make
    it hard to quickly locate very specific topics within a video. AI could potentially help with that as well, so you can envision an AI system that
    can quickly retrieve all the relevant sections of content in book or video format when presented with a query to elucidate a particular aspect.

    Ultimately, what matters most is that the person or system explaining the
    topic has a very effective way of conveying that content in the most
    insightful way, but video can be a more engaging and pleasing format potentially (since personal presentation adds quite a bit of nuance, like
    in the way people speak or their body language) as it is closer to natural in-person interaction.
    I'm also interested in learning content in general and topics like math and go are
    good subjects that are quite abstract and challenging to master.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robert Jasiek@21:1/5 to sobriquet on Wed Mar 9 15:28:05 2022
    sobriquet wrote:
    books have been around much longer, so there is a
    wealth of information available in books that has yet to become available
    in other formats.

    It is not just the information that has been available for a long time
    in books. In recent years, some go research has exploded in scope. In
    the last 5 years, the amount of endgame evaluation theory has been
    multiplied by a factor between 2 and 10.

    But AI developments go in leaps and bounds and we might not be that
    far off from AI software that is able to crunch down a huge bunch of
    books (in ebook format) to the essential conceptual structure and
    makes this information accessible through a convenient interface that
    can generate parts of this structure at an appropriate level of detail
    based on the way the user has been interacting with it so far.

    Possibly.

    I don't think videos are somehow necessarily limited in scope and breadth
    of the amount of detail they can cover, since you can make arbitrarily long >videos and split them up in convenient parts,

    As a wild first guess, presenting the contents of Endgame 5 -
    Mathematics in videos presented well for the typical viewers would
    result in at least 500 hours.

    Ultimately, what matters most is that the person or system explaining the >topic has a very effective way of conveying that content in the most >insightful way, but video can be a more engaging and pleasing format

    I have viewed some videos explaining advanced physics. What such
    videos do is to omit 99% of the theory and explain 1% to the
    mathematically at least somewhat educated layman. This works because
    the viewer does not need to learn more than he can from effortlessly
    watching the videos. However, go skill is not like that. One cannot
    only pick the cherries and expect to become much stronger. Instead,
    one must also invest hard effort into skills and advanced theory.

    I'm also interested in learning content in general and topics like math and go are
    good subjects that are quite abstract and challenging to master.

    Precisely:)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichD@21:1/5 to Robert Jasiek on Wed Mar 9 11:51:38 2022
    On March 9, Robert Jasiek wrote:
    In recent years, some go research has exploded in scope. In
    the last 5 years, the amount of endgame evaluation theory has been
    multiplied by a factor between 2 and 10.

    Can you provide any such endgame examples, which would be
    misplayed 5 years ago, where the new improved theory analyzes correctly?

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robert Jasiek@21:1/5 to RichD on Wed Mar 9 23:58:23 2022
    RichD wrote:
    Can you provide any such endgame examples, which would be
    misplayed 5 years ago, where the new improved theory analyzes correctly?

    The theory is not specifically designed for this purpose but rather is
    designed to handle all ordinary examples correctly. Nevertheless,
    there are some positions that fit your desire. Here is one from
    Endgame 4 - Global Move Order, p. 52f, Example 9, refuting the
    previous very popular advice of always seeking tedomari.

    Finding this first counter-example took 4 days. Note that the largest
    drop does not occur at the end, the starting player decides who gets
    tedomari and his only correct choice gives tedomari to the opponent.
    All drops play their role and we must make the right decision at
    branches, which is the correct theory here. Studying variations,
    resulting counts and related decisions at branches is an exercise.

    X X X O O O O . O . O X X X . X
    X X X O X X O O O O O O O X X X X
    X X X O X X O X X O X X O O O O X
    X X X O X X O X X O X O O O X . X
    X . O O X X O X X O X O X O O O X
    . O O O X X O X X O X O X O X O X
    X X O O X X O X X O X O X O X O X
    X X X O X X O X X O X O X O X O X
    X X X O X X O X X O X O X O X O X
    X X X O X X O X X O X O X O X O X
    . O O O . O O . O O . O . O . O X
    X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

    Move value M = 18.25.
    Follow-up move value F = 13.5.
    Environment's move values 18, 16, 9, 6, 5, 1.
    Correct order: 18.25 - 18 - 16 - 13.5 (opponent's tedomari) - 9 -...
    Resulting count = -77.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robert Jasiek@21:1/5 to All on Fri Mar 11 10:59:21 2022
    Let me continue endgame examples that were, or often were, misjudged 5
    years ago but can be judged correctly with the new theory.

    A frequent cause of misjudgement is wrongly assessing the type of a
    local endgame. Previously, almost nobody knew how to verify the type
    but everybody just guessed it, only Bill Spight seemed to know and
    thermography circumvented types by slopes of mappings. However,
    graphical or algebraic thermography is a tool for mathematicians
    developed and refined during the previous decades and essentially
    inapplicable while playing a game. My book Endgame 3 - Accurate Local Evaluation has made Bill's ideas for identifying and verifying types
    available for everybody. This is Example 1 on p. 6.

    X X X X O .
    . O O O O .
    X X . O . .
    . O O O O O
    X X X X X O
    . . . . X .

    Determine the move value! (Use modern endgame theory aka miai counting
    aka move value per excess play.) To determine the correct move value
    for the purpose of avoiding mistakes in your games, determine the
    correct type local gote or local sente or "ambiguous". Previously,
    amateurs and professionals have made frequent mistakes for such
    questions applied to the most ordinary shapes.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robert Jasiek@21:1/5 to All on Sat Mar 12 14:07:30 2022
    Hint:

    X X X X O .
    . O O O O .
    X X . O . .
    X O O O O O
    X X X X X O
    . . . . X .

    Black follower's count B = -4

    (This is the average of 0 and -8.)

    X X X X O .
    . O O O O .
    X X . O . .
    O O O O O O
    X X X X X O
    . . . . X .

    White follower's count W = -14

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robert Jasiek@21:1/5 to All on Sun Mar 13 15:29:01 2022
    Hint 2:

    X X X X O .
    . O O O O .
    X X . O . .
    X O O O O O
    X X X X X O
    . . . . X .

    The follow-up move value is F = (0 - (-8)) / 2 = 4.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robert Jasiek@21:1/5 to All on Mon Mar 14 16:57:24 2022
    Is everybody still struggling to decide whether it is a local gote or
    sente?

    X X X X O .
    . O O O O .
    X X . O . .
    . O O O O O
    X X X X X O
    . . . . X .

    initial position

    X X X X O .
    . O O O O .
    X X . O . .
    X O O O O O
    X X X X X O
    . . . . X .

    Black follower's count B = -4

    X X X X O .
    . O O O O .
    X X . O . .
    O O O O O O
    X X X X X O
    . . . . X .

    White follower's count W = -14


    Hints 3:


    . . . . O .
    O O O O O .
    X X . O . .
    X O O O O O
    X X X X X O
    . . . . X .

    Territory difference = -4. Prisoner difference = -4.
    Sente follower's count S = -8.


    X X X X O .
    . O O O O .
    X X . O . .
    . O O O O O
    X X X X X O
    . . . . X .

    initial position (repeated)


    Initial position's and Black's tentative sente move value
    M_sente = S - W = -8 - (-14) = 6.


    Initial position's tentative gote move value
    M_gote = (B - W) / 2 = (-4 - (-14)) / 2 = 5.


    Which is the move value? Why? For the reason, you can choose from four alternative, correct answers.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robert Jasiek@21:1/5 to All on Wed Mar 16 06:46:43 2022
    X X X X O .
    . O O O O .
    X X . O . .
    . O O O O O
    X X X X X O
    . . . . X .

    We have calculated

    Black's tentative sente move value M_sente = 6,

    tentative gote move value M_gote = 5,

    (Black's) follow-up move value F = 4.


    (White's follow-up move value, that is the follow-up move value after
    White's first play, is 0.)


    The initial local endgame belongs to the type of local endgames in
    which a gote sequence might be continued as a sente sequence. The
    initial local endgame is a local gote with the move value

    M := M_gote = 5 because


    M_sente > M_gote > F <=> 6 > 5 > 4.


    The three conditions are equivalent so we can verify the type local
    gote by each of them:

    M_sente > M_gote



    M_sente > F



    M_gote > F.

    Black's tentative sente move value is larger than the tentative gote
    move value.

    Black's tentative sente move value is larger than the follow-up move
    value.

    The tentative gote move value is larger than the follow-up move value.


    A local gote is characterised by decreasing move values: its move
    value M is larger than its follow-up move value F.


    We must not trust a visual impression of threatening to connect the
    larger string. Such does not necessarily mean a local sente. Instead,
    we determine the type of the local endgame by a value condition.

    It is insufficient to calculate some tentative move value. We must
    also verify or refute it by a value condition. Almost all teachers and
    players do it wrongly by only calculating some tentative move value
    and guessing that it would have the correct type and be the correct
    move value. Except for earlier thermography and Bill Spight's earlier
    insight, correct evaluation including verification has only arisen
    during the last 5 years.


    X X X X O . O O
    . O O O O . O O
    X X . O . . O .
    . O O O O O O X
    X X X X X O O X
    . . . . X . X X

    Black to move.

    The simple gote on the right side has the gote move value 4.5.

    X X X X O . O O
    . O O O O . O O
    X X . O . . O .
    1 O O O O O O X
    X X X X X O O X
    . . . . X 2 X X

    As we have determined, the left local endgame is a local gote. It can
    be correct to reply elsewhere because the follow-up move value can be
    smaller than a move value elsewhere on the board, as here.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)