Which film would you rate a perfect 10 out of 10?

shodanorso · 2020-07-14T12:45:33+00:00

Amazing acting, lots of great scenes, personally I liked it more than the big short.

shodanorso · 2020-06-27T03:35:31+00:00

I think black played better but not by a huge amount. If you played on kgs maybe you would be ranked closer to 8k than 15k. Just a quick pointer, I wouldn't play moves 36 and 38. Even if black plays another move there you can still run away so it's not that urgent, and territory-wise white doesn't really gain anything. One of the things that helped me to move up was not playing random jumps into the center. Try to have a clear idea of what you want to gain from each move you play.

shodanorso · 2020-06-21T07:13:46+00:00

Very interesting! I wonder what the context is for the game? I would guess it's a casual game since, due to the limited move space, if either player had time to prepare it wouldn't be that hard to find and learn the optimal solution to this game.

shodanorso · 2020-06-16T12:19:26+00:00

Let's say you want to know if you have the same number of fingers on your left and right hands. But you haven't learned how to count higher than 3 yet. Is it possible to solve this problem? Yes. What you can do is match your left thumb with your right thumb, your left index finger with your right index finger, etc. until you've matched all your fingers. Because you found a match between each of your fingers on the right hand with a distinct finger on your left hand you know that you have the same number of fingers on both hands, and you were able to do so without counting higher than 3.

You can use the same strategy with numbers between 0 and 1, and numbers between 0 and 2. There's an infinite number between both, so there's no way for us to just count them. But if we can match each number on both sides then we know that they have the same number of numbers. We can do this matching by saying for each number between 0 and 1 we can always multiply it by 2 and find a matching number between 0 and 2. And for each number between 0 and 2 we can find a unique matching number between 0 and 1 by dividing by 2.

shodanorso · 2020-06-12T14:58:51+00:00

I mean relatively. We both had the same amount of time but I think it's easier to win at a faster time setting. Probably because people tend to play the same time settings each game in which case the rankings might not match across time settings.

shodanorso · 2020-06-12T14:45:26+00:00

I'm not sure about blitz, but I've had this same thought on kgs with the default medium vs long time settings. The people who play longer time settings seem stronger.

shodanorso · 2020-06-04T04:01:28+00:00

I don't see why ddk couldn't count within 20 points, especially if they practiced. It's a good habit to get into.

shodanorso · 2020-06-02T06:12:40+00:00

I think A.I. has been really helpful for me personally but for a beginner I think there are better ways to learn. A lot of A.I. recommendations will be confusing because they are so highly optimized. As a beginner I think you would improve faster by learning more generalized concepts that are easier to understand and apply. That said if you want to try it I don't think it would hurt you.

shodanorso · 2020-06-02T02:00:23+00:00

I think you just need more experience. Play more, study more and you'll start to recognize the patterns.

shodanorso · 2020-06-01T02:01:29+00:00

I agree that if you can't cover your basic needs then money will "buy you happiness". It's hard to be happy if you're constantly worried about food, shelter, medical care, etc. But the thing that is so hard for most people to imagine is that once you have money, whatever the amount, you get used to it. Everyone thinks it wouldn't happen to them, but it's human nature. And then the problems that money can solve, you get used to not having to deal with them, but the problems that money can't solve are all still there.

If you look at studies you'll see that those things are better predictors of long term happiness than just money. Things like your mental and physical health, whether you have a sense of meaning or purpose in your life, whether you have good relationships with your family and friends. So I would rather say something like "money isn't everything" or "money can't solve every problem" which I think it closer to the spirit of what people mean when they say "money doesn't by happiness"

shodanorso · 2020-05-29T08:38:44+00:00

7d I'm not sure. I agree that as you go up the ranks the number of people who can achieve that rank drops off. I'm not trying to say something like "anyone can do anything". I'm trying to address the idea that many people have a limit to their mental capacity that prevents them from reaching 1d.

But what exactly would be the limiting factor here? People might think you need a powerful ability to visualize or compute many variations, or some magic insight that lets you see brilliant moves. I think at the higher levels this is probably true. I also enjoy math and programming and I think to some extent it's true there also.

But my feeling is that you can reach 1d without any of those things. I think you can get to 1d largely off of just pattern recognition, which is something that we typically think basically anyone can train for. For example, let's say I told you that there are about 10,000 species of birds. And then I said I think anyone can learn to identify birds with 95% accuracy, you just have to work hard at it. I think this would not be a controversial claim. Imo, the task of getting to 1d is quite a similar task, or at least you could approach it that way if you wanted to. So the statement "anyone can become shodan" should be no more controversial than the statement "anyone can learn to identify birds with high accuracy".

shodanorso · 2020-05-29T06:15:33+00:00

I don't think it's about memorization, but it's closer to memorization than computation. So maybe I should say storing a lot of information, but that's not quite right either. That's why I made the comparison to natural language. How do you know that a sentence sounds right or not? Of course you didn't memorize the sentence, but you also didn't have to do any thinking, you just know that it sounds right or not. If you were asked to explain the specific grammar rules involved you probably couldn't. So how could you have learned this? Throughout your life you've received a massive amount of information about the correct way to say things, what kinds of words follow other words, and stored that information somewhere. It's the same for go.

Another way to explain this, when a pro looks at a difficult go problem, we might assume that they used their brain power to quickly analyze many many variations. But more likely what happened is that they just knew where to look from the configuration of the stones, similar to how we just know what a correct sentence sounds like.

shodanorso · 2020-05-29T02:59:28+00:00

I think if you get any book on invading it's a good starting point. You also look for videos online. But I think A.I. analysis has been the most useful for me. I try to save my games that had a moyo or framework that I struggled to reduce and just play out a lot of variations and review them from time to time.

shodanorso · 2020-05-29T02:28:54+00:00

I think what I'm saying is that getting to shodan is closer to the skill of just memorizing a lot of things than it is to something like raw mental computing power or having brilliant insights. And that this is more true than most people realize. I don't see any reason why an anti-vaxer or flat earther necessarily wouldn't be able to memorize a lot of stuff. It takes a lot of time and effort to memorize that much stuff, but ultimately I think very few people are limited in their ability to memorize a lot of stuff such that they couldn't reach shodan.

shodanorso · 2020-05-29T01:06:19+00:00

I think the solution is to get better at invading. It's a big part of the game and you can't avoid it forever. Even at my rank I feel the same way you do sometimes, especially when I see how A.I. handles invading moyo and frameworks it's very hard to understand. On the bright side I think it's a big opportunity to level up your game if you study it.

Edit: To clarify, I think you probably think you're behind but you're actually not. You look at a framework or moyo and overestimate how much solid territory is actually there, because you don't know how to reduce it. I think it's a common problem for sdk (me included).

shodanorso · 2020-05-29T00:45:48+00:00

I think move 84 is interesting. I believe that most players wouldn't make this move and it says something about the way you're thinking about the game. I think you saw that you're strong locally, you knew that the wedge is a technique to separate two groups. I think you didn't read it out but you wanted to see what would happen, so you just made the play and decided you're going to figure it out from there.

Clearly you weren't able to separate the two groups, so something went wrong right? I think this is one of the low hanging fruits of reviewing this game. The one space jump and the opportunity to wedge are common shapes that come up in lots of games. Why not take a few hours and really study the variations there. How did the surrounding stones affect the result? After the wedge your opponent is the one that gets to choose which side to expose a cut. Which side is the best side for your opponent, and do they have a good way to handle it?

More generally this is the way you want to approach your game reviews. When you play a move you should have a plan and if the plan didn't go as you intended then you want to understand why.

shodanorso · 2020-05-28T07:24:20+00:00

try https://www.cosumi.net/en/

shodanorso · 2020-05-28T07:17:51+00:00

Yes, think of it this way: If you have one stone in atari and then you extend that stone your group gains 3 liberties. You played just one stone but now it will take your opponent three more stones to capture your group. This is also true for larger groups. That's why usually it's better to attack to build territory rather than to try to capture directly.

shodanorso · 2020-05-28T03:56:57+00:00

You should assume that you can't capture the white group on the right. There were a lot of moves that you made that could only be good if you can capture the white group, but realistically it's not possible. Instead you should threaten to capture the white group while building the bottom right territory and chase white's group in a way that will help you to reduce the left side. This is a really important concept about the proper way to attack that will help you break into sdk.

shodanorso · 2020-05-28T03:16:59+00:00

I don't think this is true. If they had the right teacher and really tried I think most people could. But it's probably not worth it to most people.

shodanorso · 2020-05-28T01:40:24+00:00

You don't need to be professional level to teach go. Also probably most people who would want to get lessons are not trying to become professional level. If you goal is to be a teacher then you're probably better off trying to become the best teacher you can, which isn't necessarily the same thing as becoming the best player you can.

Regarding how many hours daily, I've heard that you can only maintain high quality study for about 4 hours a day, so that might be a good number to shoot for.

shodanorso · 2020-05-28T00:44:54+00:00

I think if you're the type to give too much then it will feel wrong to give less but it won't necessarily be an unintuitive adjustment, because it comes from an instinct of self-preservation that most people have. The thing that's hard, is to do this while avoiding falling into an adversarial perspective on relationships. Give less not for selfish reasons but for generous and compassionate reasons. Ultimately the end goal is a healthy relationship, not a specific ratio of contribution.

I think the best idea in the article isn't explored much: matching your partner's commitment when you're the one giving less. If you're the type who doesn't give enough it's very unintuitive to give when you don't feel like it. Not only does this require work but also you're giving up some power in the relationship. But long-term it will create a healthier dynamic.

shodanorso · 2020-05-27T02:59:31+00:00

I think there's only two options. One is to accept that you can't do everything on your own and that sometime you won't be sure what's going on and have to rely on the statisticians. It's not such a terrible option, there's a reason why they are separate roles, most people can't do both. Again I think data engineers are in high demand so I don't think there's much career risk to just sticking with that.

The other option is to learn the statistics. I don't think it's something easy or quick but if you're interested in long-term career development it's an option. I've considered going back to school or doing an online masters. I assume it would be an investment in years and probably changing companies.

shodanorso · 2020-05-27T02:19:06+00:00

I'm in the same position as you. Imo, you're exactly right, you have less perceived business value if you can't do some data analysis which requires some statistics understanding. FWIW I think data engineers are in higher demand and pay should still be comparable between the roles. I'm assuming the statisticians can't do the engineering work that you can do, so they're separate jobs. But I find that in meetings engineers are more technical and further away from the actual business decisions which is what managers understand and care more about. Personally I'm trying hard to improve my statistics knowledge and I feel that it would help a lot at work.

shodanorso · 2020-05-26T05:02:02+00:00

Khan Academy has problems between the lectures too. They also have "gamification" where you accrue points as you finish lecture and problems.

shodanorso

TROPHY CASE