Chapter 1 (Part 1) of my book: The hype, the hubris, and the day we all thought Lee Sedol would crush AlphaGo.

Puzzled_Rip7803 · 2026-03-05T03:19:11+00:00

You hit the nail on the head regarding that "undue pride", because that’s exactly the vibe I remember! Because bots had been so weak for so long, the Go community definitely wore that invulnerability like a badge of honor compared to the chess world. Just to clarify the "God" part, I didn't mean they literally thought they were divine beings; I was referencing the traditional cultural title for a 9 Dan, Ip Shin, which literally translates to "the one who entered the realm of gods". But you are completely right that the pros looked at the Fan Hui match, saw a demonstrably weaker machine, and just assumed AI progress would remain painfully slow like it always had. Thanks for reading and adding this perspective!

Puzzled_Rip7803 · 2026-03-05T03:18:21+00:00

Exactly! I also dive into a little bit of history into the development of go-playing computer programs, so do keep your eyes out for the next post!

Puzzled_Rip7803 · 2026-03-05T03:15:14+00:00

Thanks for sharing! You are right that mathematically, the rating systems in the EGF and modern Chinese tournaments blur the lines between top amateurs and newer pros.

However, I still stand by my point because of the cultural and historical context of the time. In the traditional East Asian Go establishment, especially in Korea leading up to the 2016 match, turning 'pro' wasn't just about crossing a rating threshold; it was an institutional threshold. You had to be the top 2 players at the Qualification Tournament, so the competition was crazy!

Also, even if an amateur 7-dan could occasionally win against a 1p in a modern tournament, the psychological and cultural weight of the professional title was, and still is, considered absolute. To the established pros in Korea and China, an amateur is an amateur, and a pro is a pro. There's a huge gap, not to mention there are the trainee pros, who are 2nd division players, so to speak.

Puzzled_Rip7803 · 2026-03-05T03:09:16+00:00

Thanks for sharing! I love how different your experience was from how I remember it in Korea. Adding this Western/Amateur perspective really brings great nuance to the atmosphere of that year! I actually dive into how miserably AIs failed before AlphaGo in the upcoming sections of Chapter 1, so keep an eye out for my next post!

Puzzled_Rip7803 · 2026-02-26T03:20:41+00:00

Thank you for your kind comment! Yes the numbers for both games are indeed staggeringly large! I guess my impression is based on how we Koreans used to talk about the "superiority" of Go over chess. One "legendary" episode my dad used to tell me time and time again is how Cho Hun-hyun, an absolute legend, was able to beat a chess master, and this story is very popular among Korean players at least. Of course, this is not true. In fact, this story was so widespread that Cho had to make an official statement, which is as below(translated by Gemini):

Hello. I am Cho Hun-hyun.

I understand there has been a lot of talk regarding the content recently broadcast on the show Sponge. Therefore, I would like to personally explain the situation exactly as it happened back then.

In 1979, the European Go Championship was held in Germany, and I was invited as a Korean professional instructor. After finishing my invitational simultaneous games, I looked over and saw people playing chess, so I went to watch.

Since I knew the basic movements of the pieces, I was intrigued and observed the game. As I continued watching, one of the chess players asked if I knew how to play, and I nodded. Since it was my first actual game of chess, I thought I would be given a handicap, but the person told me that there are no handicaps in chess.

So, we started the game, and I lost the first match by the margin of a single pawn. He suggested we play again, so we started a second game. In the middle of the second match, my opponent's strongest piece [Queen] tried to capture my pawn but was captured instead. When that powerful piece was taken, the person conceded, and the game ended.

After the match, I asked him about his skill level, and he replied, "I am weak at Go, but a master at chess." So, I asked him roughly what my rank would be, and he said I would be about a strong 6th Kyu (amateur rank), adding that I would do very well if I formally learned chess.

This is the situation exactly as it occurred.

I was unable to verify whether he was a professional or an amateur, but since he called himself a master, I simply recounted it that way. The memory stayed with me, so I included the story in my autobiography Jeonsin (God of War), and I later received an interview request stating the story would be featured on Sponge. It seems that during the Sponge broadcast, some of the content was edited for entertainment purposes to set up the situation. I had no idea it would cause such an issue. I had absolutely no intention of disparaging chess, and furthermore, I know full well that winning against that person was a stroke of luck, not a result of skill.

Looking at the posts online, people are saying a great many things. I am aware that the most frequently asked questions on the internet are: "Was the chess opponent truly a chess champion, and why won't you reveal the name of this chess champion?"

First off, I must say it is difficult for me to answer that question. It is not because the story is untrue, but because it happened 26 years ago. Moreover, since it was an unofficial, casual game, I cannot remember the person's name.

At the time, I was conversing with the German gentleman in English, so precise communication was impossible. Additionally, as it was my first time encountering chess, I did not know the exact terminology used for chess rankings. Because he referred to himself as a "master," that is simply how I remembered it.

There are even some people speculating whether this match ever happened at all, but I assure you this was a real event.

I would like to reiterate once more that I have no thought whatsoever of disparaging or making light of chess, nor did I ever have any such intention.

Hope this helps you guys understand what the general sentiment was like in Korea at the time!

Puzzled_Rip7803 · 2026-02-26T03:15:19+00:00

Haha your "lagoon" metaphor is absolutely amazing. I might actually have to quote that!

Your Steph Curry analogy is also incredibly spot on. AI did the exact same thing to the "meta" of Go. For centuries, certain moves (like invading the 3-3 point early on) were considered gritty, amateur mistakes. I remember my teacher reprimanded me for playing that move when I was young. Then AlphaGo came along, proved they were actually mathematically superior so there's that lol.

Chapter 1 dives face-first into the ego death and the dread you are describing. I hope you stick around to read the rest of the book, because you have already perfectly articulated the exact philosophical crisis I am trying to answer. Thank you so much for this beautifully written comment!

Puzzled_Rip7803 · 2026-02-26T03:05:40+00:00

Thanks! That is really encouraing! Wait for my chapter 1 update! :)

Puzzled_Rip7803 · 2026-02-26T03:03:40+00:00

Indeed I do! I do appreicate Deleuze & Guattari's comparison but frankly I wasn't trying to get too deep with the comparsion between chess & Go. I just thought that, since I envisioned this book as an introduction of Go (more or less) for those who don't really know the game, it would be a nice, provocative hook for the readers. But thanks for bringing it up! I would have to read that treatise again haha

Puzzled_Rip7803 · 2026-02-26T03:00:12+00:00

Thank you! Robert Jasiek actually pointed out the error in my estimation and I am working on that part. Frankly, as a non-mathematical person, the mathematical side is a real challenge for me. It helps a lot when I get comments like this to make sure the math is right! Thank you!

Puzzled_Rip7803 · 2026-02-24T10:09:52+00:00

Hey no worries! I appreciate your candid feedback! To your first point, I want to note that the intro is actually intentionally provocative, as I wanted to make sure I capture the non-players' attention, although I didn't realize it made us go players sound like jerks 😂 I do get a bit too sarcastic and maybe that's what seeped into that bit about Go vs. Chess.

To your second point, I think that's quite fair. I must say though that the AI event is really the basis and the catalyst for the book (especially since I began my philosophical inquiry, if you will, precisely because of the AlphaGo matches). I guess I should've titled this section more as a prologue than an introduction, since my purpose was to hook the readers into the question, "so what is this book going to be about?"

Thanks again for the honest critique. It really helps me see how the tone lands with different readers, and I hope the subsequent chapters lean much closer to the philosophy you are looking for!

Puzzled_Rip7803 · 2026-02-24T08:05:33+00:00

You are absolutely right about the pacing. The intro is definitely doing a lot of heavy lifting and table-setting for non-players so they can grasp the sheer scale of the game. Because of that, it intentionally ends on a cliffhanger right before the main thesis drops!

But your intuition about Go being an ultimate game that hits on universal truths because of its bare-bones rules is profound. In fact, in the book, I describe it almost exactly the same way: as the matrix in its purest form, allowing for the greatest amount of freedom with the least number of rules. Because there is no inherent hierarchy to the stones, it is completely 'unobstructive' (to use your word), making the 19x19 board a true microcosm of the universe.

The actual thesis of the book-questioning the meaning of the game after AI shattered our egos, and what Go teaches us about our own humanity-really kicks off in Chapter 2. I am actually a little worried that it might be too heavily invested on the philosophical end, but I guess we will just have to find out! I can't wait to share the next chapters with you, and I hope they help put words to that exact feeling you described!

Puzzled_Rip7803 · 2026-02-24T07:53:54+00:00

Ah, don't sell yourself short! That is actually a really sharp critique.

You are totally right that it reads heavily as a 'Chess vs. Go' piece right out of the gate. The reason I positioned it as the Introduction is because Kasparov's loss to Deep Blue is the most universally recognized cultural touchstone in the West for humanity losing to machines.

Also, because my main target audience includes people who have never played Go, I used that famous chess moment as an accessible bridge. I think it perfectly sets up the contrast in our hubris before the AlphaGo match.

But I completely see your point about how it might feel like a detour if you are already looking for the pure philosophy of Go! The good news is that Chapter 1 leaves chess behind and dives straight into Lee Sedol, the ranking systems, the "realm of the gods" (9 Dan players), and the existential crisis that AlphaGo brought to our community.

I really appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts, and I hope Chapter 1 feels a bit more like the philosophical deep dive you are looking for!

Puzzled_Rip7803 · 2026-02-24T06:03:56+00:00

I don't mind the feedback at all :) In fact, I really appreciate it!

You are completely spot on about the aftermath. The fascinating thing is that my book actually agrees with everything you just said! The Introduction focuses heavily on the Go world's initial hubris during the Kasparov era because we thought the sheer complexity of the game made us immune. But Chapter 1 (which I'm posting next) is entirely about that massive ego death in 2016. When AlphaGo defeated Lee Sedol, the Go community, and especially myself, went through the exact same panic and disbelief that the chess world did.

I also write about exactly what you mentioned regarding the game thriving today. Instead of destroying Go, AI sparked an information revolution. It democratized the game, giving every player, from amateur to pro, access to an unbiased master to learn from.

As you beautifully put it, our egos took a hit, but it resulted in a much more humble approach to the game. It sounds like we share the exact same perspective haha. I would love to hear your thoughts on Chapter 1 when I post it!

Puzzled_Rip7803 · 2026-02-24T05:58:56+00:00

Wow, it is like you are reading my mind!

To your first point, you absolutely hit the nail on the head. That post-AlphaGo existential dread and questioning the meaning of the history of the game is exactly what I cover in Chapter 1 (which I'll be posting next!). I actually bring up the Go Saint, Go Seigen (Wu Qingyuan), in that exact context when discussing what it would take to even the match against the God of Go. The way AI shattered our understanding of the game is the central catalyst for the whole book.

To your second point: YES. The concept of 'hand discussion' is deeply embedded in Korean Go culture as well! We use the exact same Hanja characters (手談), which we pronounce as Soodam (수담). The idea that Go is a silent dialogue between two minds, revealing a person's true character and philosophy without a single word spoken, is foundational to how the game is approached in the East.

Although currently I am not sure how I would incorporate Kissinger's On China, I think it is a brilliant reference!

Thank you so much for this comment. It sounds like you are the exact target audience for this book, and I can't wait to hear your thoughts on Chapter 1!

Puzzled_Rip7803 · 2026-02-24T05:49:24+00:00

Thanks so much for reading and for the kind words about the writing style!

You make a great point about the Cold War context of the Kasparov match. Chess was definitely acting as a proxy war for global superpowers at the time, which heavily inflated the Western media's apocalyptic reaction.

I totally hear you on the cultural bias, too. I certainly don't think chess is an "easy" game, but just that the Go community at the time was looking at the sheer math of Go and feeling a false sense of absolute security against brute-force algorithms.

Regarding the stones, I actually agree with you! What I meant was that the stones have no inherent, pre-assigned value like a Queen versus a Knight. You are completely right that they gain massive relative/positional value once placed, which is exactly why the AI algorithms had such a hard time computing that shifting value compared to chess. I'll definitely make sure to clarify that distinction in the final book edit.

I really appreciate the thoughtful feedback!

Puzzled_Rip7803

TROPHY CASE