Thanks for the effort. I tried for a little bit, seems it could be useful. I some situations though it tends to say there is a better movement when, in fact, the movement is only more common, but the other move is also part of a joseki. Some situations have many valid possibilities.
I put quite some work into this. Nice to see you like it.
For a joseki trainer, I think it's good that it's a bit overcorrect. If you choose a move that is, say only choosen 10% in the games, but there is another move that is choosen 50%. You should not get away without being able to reproduce the much more common move, not?
OTOH that would mean it should ask for ALL COMMON MOVES. Your answer would only be counted as correct when you know all moves.
My honest and unbiased as I can make it feedback. Is spaced repetition feedback in a duo lingo sort of way sounds very useful my struggle using similar apps have not tried yours yet is a too open ended question criticizing my move choice when in most board states it ends with a slightly better point differential tak the hospital rights approach Knights to the other side attach rather than diving into the corner with a knights.
Ill spend some time with this and give you some feedback a similar seeming project I recently encountered was a site called I believe lemmingfuseki.
Just read a few other comments realizing the website is lemmingfuseki. My personal challenge is it currently has a really slow response rate.
I am on a cell phone with veryeh data while I enjoyed the memorization problems I thought it was better to use 101 weiqi as the problems loaded faster.
And still wonder the question of how your system decides between joseki and a strong move. In the first 10 questions being told a modern joseki is incorrect is of putting.
I played out many games, counted the joseki positions, and inverted all the positions in which white played, so they are all counted for black to play.
So I suppose the initial and most important question is how your app decides what is and is not joseki.
Also you dont seem to have linked a website but an image.
I used KataGo to play >90k games, using different networks, zhizi and human net, for the human net I used pre alpha-go dan policy and the newer dan policy. Then all corner positions were counted and the common ones declared joseki. I'm using the 11x11 part of the board, as to include some context. I excluded a pattern when too many of the plays were an the open border of that 11x11 area. Also I dropped some (10%) of the patterns when two positions were too similar (setup stones and moves, just deviate by setup stones at the open border)
Yes it directly answers what I asked if the answer is a bit technical for me to have full comprehension.
So joseki is determined by AI based on self play but limited not to whole board thinking but the nearest 11x11? Sorry this is rather technical apologies.
What does pre and post alpha go dan policy mean.
I find this really interesting I while I have some minor criticism am not a detractor of the project as I really like some of the other tools just had a bad initial experience with the joseki trainer. I really think you should in your own time expand on the memorization part of the app. It has a lot of value and should eventually stand on its own imo.
No, I'm just taking the 11x11 from all four corners.
KataGo humanSL is really great. It can simulate human play from 20k to 9d, or professional play from 1800 to 2023. I configured it to imitate human dans, I mean 1d..9d.
OK so an accurate summary is you used bots viewing positional layouts limiting what they took into account (quite reasonable) as it is go (famously a game with more variationsn than atoms in the known universe.) to 11x11
And used developed bots that have human like play patterns.
I hate to make you repeat yourself but this is one of those things that is unfortunately so amazingly technical.
Just a question, how are my progress saved (if they are saved)? I see I can change my username, but I never registered. Are they saved locally in my device?
If you come back tomorrow it will remember what you answered wrong today and ask you again and again later. At least it works well in a real browser, haven't tested the one in the reddit app.
I don't understand what the numbers mean. On the b5-3 w3-4 for example, the points around 10-4 are marked "1", inviting the taiga is marked "8", shoulder hit "71", etc. Is it something like win-percentage for the robot's first choice and point-losses or win%-losses for the rest? Can such things really be spoken about in the abstract/without board context? Very confusing.
I built the Joseki database from a large number of games. The numbers on the fields mean what percentage of games continued on this local play.
Josekis ignore the rest of the board. When evaluating Josekis one doesn't normally talk about changes in winrate but changes in points. I'm estimating the cost of passing, How many points would you lose if the opponent played here first? In the normal opening context this is around 12 or 13 points, two times the komi. And also I estimated how far off each move is from optimal play.
You can see that when I pick a non-optimal move, like the 2 here.
Josekis ignore the rest of the board. When evaluating Josekis one doesn't normally talk about changes in winrate but changes in points. I'm estimating the cost of passing, How many points would you lose if the opponent played here first? In the normal opening context this is around 12 or 13 points, two times the komi. And also I estimated how far off each move is from optimal play.
I know all this, my question was what your website is doing. The tsumego explorer on your website uses AI evaluation heavily so I wasn't sure if this was doing something similar; encouraging to hear that you're using a games database. What kinds of games are in your database? ps.waltheri.net does something similar but lets you filter the era that the searched games come from.
In general, my concern about joseki-studying apps is that there are plenty of situational joseki that take a local loss for better influence in a particular direction or for sente. It's hard to capture information like "needs a ladder" or "gives influence on the left" from numbers, but cost of passing does seem like it captures some really useful information about sente.
I built a database of go games myself, using different KataGo networks, the overly strong zhizi, but also the humanSL network, which I configured to use all dan ranks, pre and post alpha go. Yes, this could be extended to include games from real humans.
Yes, the presence of ladder is lost. I thought a bit that it could be captured, but it would be awkward to display in a Joseki learning tool. Maybe I'm thinking too complicated.
It's a coping mechanism. People are scared and unsure what to feel about the AI cataclysm that is truly upon us. Some choose to hate it now and be on "the right side"
Memorizing joseki is utterly pointless. If you don’t understand why those moves are the best moves, you won’t be able to answer correctly when your opponent inevitably diverges from what you memorized. And if you know why those moves are the best you will be able to play them without memorizing.
Not sure what rank you're at. I used to think the same way, but the higher I go into the Dan ranks, the more I realize how useless all of the josekis are.
It doesn't even help for learning shapes since the right shape is always situation dependent. Just reviewing your games with AI is like an order of magnitude better for learning shapes
It is useful for learning haengma, tesuji, urgency, etc. But it does seem inarguable that joseki-memorization (especially in this context, devoid of studying the joseki) is one of the least efficient ways to spend your study time. Ditto "memory" trainer.
5
u/EvidenceTerrible6353 9h ago
Thanks for the effort. I tried for a little bit, seems it could be useful. I some situations though it tends to say there is a better movement when, in fact, the movement is only more common, but the other move is also part of a joseki. Some situations have many valid possibilities.
Thanks again!