I agree that playing strength should not be determinant for Go
aesthetics. Of course obvious mistakes are not pleasant, but I consider
close matches* with either close styles (symmetry) or very different
styles more important. Lopsided or early decided matches with big
captures, handicaps, complicated fights, comebacks, desperate invasions,
etc are not very pleasing.
Even if it is subjective there must be things like good shape, struggle
to get sente, fundamentals, etc that most people agree in, even if it
makes 6d look worse than 2d. (I'm way too weak a player to notice them
though)
* Not including MCTS programs playing for the 0.5 win.
On 01/12/2016 03:56 PM, Josef Moudrik wrote:
And do you find these "ugly yet working" moves aesthetically pleasing?
I think it all depends what do we mean by aesthetics. In my opinion, it is
not strength - the hard thing about go imo is that while the nice (shape,
..) do often work, sometimes, the ugly move works better - precisely as
Nick writes. It is probably hard to pinpoint; aesthetics could also be
discussed/defined on multiple levels:
* nice shape moves
* ease of uderstandability (I find professional games which are simple
aesthetically nicer than wild fights, big tenukis, or "wtf" moments that I
do not understand)
* interesting strategic developments (e.g. comeback)
* admiration of player heroism, fighting spirit, ...
All these are subjective points and they probably differ a lot based on the
viewer's own style and (maybe more) strength.
It would be interesting to make a questionnaire to have some base for what
do the players find nice. If we get some questions down, I am willing to
add it to the gostyle site.
Josef
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 4:12 PM Nick Wedd <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12 January 2016 at 13:29, Ray Tayek <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1/11/2016 7:10 PM, Gonçalo Mendes Ferreira wrote:
Hi, some time back I mentioned creating a program that evaluates the
aesthetics of a game of Go. Has anyone given it some thought? I'd love to
have a comparison between professional and amateur dan matches,
...
shape <http://senseis.xmp.net/?Shape> should be a candidiate. it's
frequency in a game should correspond to rank.
I would be interested to see if this is true. My own experience suggests
otherwise. When I watch 3-dan games, and 6-dan games, I think the 6-dans
make more empty triangles. The 3-dans are using shape as a guide (for the
previous moves, as well as the move in question), while the 6-dans don't
use such heuristics, they are able to read the stuff out.
Nick
thanks
--
Honesty is a very expensive gift. So, don't expect it from cheap people -
Warren Buffetthttp://tayek.com/
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
