A couple of really good do entaries

[Pavlov]

So talk to me about them old Georgia blues, ok?

In a do entary thread?

This is why you are worse than anyone.

[Avante]

In a do entary thread?

This is why you are worse than anyone.

Stupid, show me a thread here that doesn't go every which way, and you know this, so why like a ing moron?

[Pavlov]

Stupid, show me a thread here that doesn't go every which way, and you know this, so why like a ing moron?

This thread didn't go your way.

[Avante]

This thread didn't go your way.

Dude, I asked you a question, so answer it. Show me a thread that stuck to the topic, where is it?

[Pavlov]

Dude, I asked you a question, so answer it. Show me a thread that stuck to the topic, where is it?

This one if you shut up.

[Avante]

This one if you shut up.

You didn't stay on topic .

[SpursforSix]

Think about how satisfying this do entary would be if one was actually good enough to to see the brilliant creativity of the program. Did you see how excited the S. Korean broadcasters of the game were? The Al o team had to look for their signals to see how good a position they were in for certain cases.

We can't get the deeper beauty this experience gave for the Go experts, we are out of the loop. We can see how excited they got, but we can't feel that. This is sometimes very frustrating. These guys get the chance to go back and analyze the games to get even further depth. We.... get to see the experts got excited. Not the same.

You hit the nail on the head. There's a whole layer that's completely missed by not understanding Go. But I assume that Go experts were already more than aware of the events do ented. For them, my guess is that they know those played games almost move by move. And that the do entary would just be a weak synopsis for them.

Maybe they could have done a more detailed segment on some of the intricacies of Go. But it still wouldn't have been enough for a viewer to be able to look at the moves and instantly know the mistakes and "God" moves. In fact, it would have probably been a distraction. Easier to accept that I have no clue about Go and that I can take the experts at face value.

So imo, the do entary is just about as good as it could have been.

[SpursforSix]

Have you seen Surviving Escobar? I've heard great things.

No. I've passed over it but there are so many shows on Escobar and the cartels now.

But now that I look at SE, it looks great (from the reviews at least). I'll have to check it out.

Cartel Land is pretty good as well.

[pgardn]

You hit the nail on the head. There's a whole layer that's completely missed by not understanding Go. But I assume that Go experts were already more than aware of the events do ented. For them, my guess is that they know those played games almost move by move. And that the do entary would just be a weak synopsis for them.

Maybe they could have done a more detailed segment on some of the intricacies of Go. But it still wouldn't have been enough for a viewer to be able to look at the moves and instantly know the mistakes and "God" moves. In fact, it would have probably been a distraction. Easier to accept that I have no clue about Go and that I can take the experts at face value.

So imo, the do entary is just about as good as it could have been.

Agreed.

I think capturing the scenes of the experts various states of wonder at the moves the machine made were excellent. But I still can be hacked off I don't fully get it because I don't really understand the game well enough. And Imo it would be a waste of time trying to explain it. You just have to play it at a very high level. The majority of the guys on the team did not fully understand. Even the chess champion who headed the group did not grasp it and was asking around. And he can play the game, he just said he was not good at it.

It was very good IMO. Thanks for putting it up.

I'm sure there is a full analysis of all the games and the "wonder" moves. I just won't understand it. I remember playing games and finding myself in trouble and attempting to start a new region on another part of the board just to get some territory. The machine did this as well but somehow had it linked to the part of the board where it was "losing". I played the smaller version and still could not possibly see this.

Also interesting, the analysis that the machine was merely playing to win, not necessarily to crush the opponent. They said that during one game they thought the machine was playing very neutral moves while it could have been smashing him. And, the machine lost! What exactly happened? Apparently this goes into some code that helps it learn. Full of good stuff. Good find. I may try reading up on what the machine was telling the programmers as the game progressed if I can find a simple version.