Robert Jasiek
2016-03-15 11:25:45 UTC
A few years ago, seemingly convincing rumours have been spread saying
that, during the opening and middle game, Michael Redmond 9p could
make an accurate territorial positional judgement by reading ahead the
game using endgame-like sequences of 100 globally optimal plays. The
myth was born that using endgame-like sequences was a feasible method
for super-strong players for making an accurate territorial positional
judgement also during the opening and middle game.
Redmond's own territorial positional judgement during his live
commentaries of the 5 games of the match AlphaGo - Lee Sedol debunk
the rumour, which was very far from the truth. Besides, he only
occasionally showed hints of making non-territorial positional
judgement at all.
Whenever Redmond was supposed to make a territorial positional
judgement during the opening, middle game, early endgame or middle
endgame, he interrupted the unfinished task, only gave very rough
counts, said that making a territorial positional judgement was too
early or said that it was too difficult [for him] to be done at all at
the moment. When making a partial, local territorial positional
judgement, he used the core idea of minimal remaining territory after
reductions, which is also used by Cho Chikun and me. However, even
then Redmond did not apply much beyond the core. Instead, he had
difficulties relating, and calculating consistently for, different
parts of a position. Although I watched most of his comments, I did
not even once witness Redmond doing an accurate territorial positional
judgement of the whole position until the micro-endgame. His use of
the method of minimal remaining territory after reductions means that,
during the mentioned stages of the game, he does not use the rumoured
method of very long, global endgame-like sequences.
Nevertheless, he reported how he had studied the endgame: he had taken
pro games, removed the last 30, 50, 70 or 100 moves before the final
scoring positions, printed out the created positions and then imagined
endgames for them. He explained that 100 moves had been too hard, 70
already very hard and 50 significantly less easy than 30. Surely this
method of study is worth trying for improving one's late endgame.
However, it is not the method he uses for territorial positional
judgement during earlier stages of the game.
"100, endgame, counting territory, Redmond" must have been the
keywords causing the rumour, and the people creating it might have
misunderstood, overestimated his skill and confused positional
judgement during the micro-endgame with territorial positional
judgement during the opening, middle game, early endgame or middle
endgame.
Myth debunked!
How about the other myth of perfect endgame (starting during the early
middle game) of Edo players, when games were played with unlimited
thinking times?
that, during the opening and middle game, Michael Redmond 9p could
make an accurate territorial positional judgement by reading ahead the
game using endgame-like sequences of 100 globally optimal plays. The
myth was born that using endgame-like sequences was a feasible method
for super-strong players for making an accurate territorial positional
judgement also during the opening and middle game.
Redmond's own territorial positional judgement during his live
commentaries of the 5 games of the match AlphaGo - Lee Sedol debunk
the rumour, which was very far from the truth. Besides, he only
occasionally showed hints of making non-territorial positional
judgement at all.
Whenever Redmond was supposed to make a territorial positional
judgement during the opening, middle game, early endgame or middle
endgame, he interrupted the unfinished task, only gave very rough
counts, said that making a territorial positional judgement was too
early or said that it was too difficult [for him] to be done at all at
the moment. When making a partial, local territorial positional
judgement, he used the core idea of minimal remaining territory after
reductions, which is also used by Cho Chikun and me. However, even
then Redmond did not apply much beyond the core. Instead, he had
difficulties relating, and calculating consistently for, different
parts of a position. Although I watched most of his comments, I did
not even once witness Redmond doing an accurate territorial positional
judgement of the whole position until the micro-endgame. His use of
the method of minimal remaining territory after reductions means that,
during the mentioned stages of the game, he does not use the rumoured
method of very long, global endgame-like sequences.
Nevertheless, he reported how he had studied the endgame: he had taken
pro games, removed the last 30, 50, 70 or 100 moves before the final
scoring positions, printed out the created positions and then imagined
endgames for them. He explained that 100 moves had been too hard, 70
already very hard and 50 significantly less easy than 30. Surely this
method of study is worth trying for improving one's late endgame.
However, it is not the method he uses for territorial positional
judgement during earlier stages of the game.
"100, endgame, counting territory, Redmond" must have been the
keywords causing the rumour, and the people creating it might have
misunderstood, overestimated his skill and confused positional
judgement during the micro-endgame with territorial positional
judgement during the opening, middle game, early endgame or middle
endgame.
Myth debunked!
How about the other myth of perfect endgame (starting during the early
middle game) of Edo players, when games were played with unlimited
thinking times?