I read this comment before looking at the article and thought that the grandmaster beat the AI even giving the AI 2 stones. Too bad. But this way around is of course more realistic.

And of course you would need to take into consideration the scale of go ratings and chess ratings when making that comparison. With top chess ratings being around 2800, being 1000 less than the top go ratings, one would have to apply a factor of roughly 3/4.

You're right that Shin Jinseo is a generational talent, and more dominant than anyone since Lee Changho (peaked in the 90s and was strong into the early-mid 2000s).

However, you can't compare goratings over time, the top ranks are not nearly stable enough. https://www.goratings.org/en/history/ (I think it's believable Shin Jinseo is better than Lee Changho, but not that there has been steady progress since the days of Lee Changho, so that there are now 20 players stronger than him).

> Katago (almost certainly significantly stronger than AlphaGo)

Interesting KataGo is an open sourced Go program written primarily by David Wu in C++ and recently heavily vibe coded by Claude. It's running on four Nvidia RTX-3090 GPUs with 96GB VRAM. [1]

[1] https://github.com/lightvector/KataGo

Important to note that KataGo was double-handicapped. 20 seconds per move maximum; it couldn’t read deep. Against an amateur, it doesn’t matter, but against a historically strong pro it matters a lot.

Deep link to Shin Jinseo's strength graph

https://www.goratings.org/en/players/1313.html

For another comparison, top world class chess players will have solid odds to beat Leela Chess Zero when given a knight odds handicap (Leela Chess Zero starts with 1 fewer knight). For human vs human, I think this would be somewhere in the ballpark of the ~10,000th best chess player having fair odds against Magnus.

I wonder if this means the best Go play is closer to theoretically perfect play or if it just happened the current computer methods didn't manage to get much farther than humans. Go has vastly more valid games but also a simpler ruleset, so I'm not sure if there is really a good way to tell beyond "keep trying and find out"?

I don't think it's solely a matter of raw strength, but as Shin said, a willingness not to play to the program's strengths. I mean, one thing that rankled me about original Lee Sedol match was that Lee had no access to the program's "record" while the machine by the nature of the AI training process had effectively studied Lee's games in great detail.

I recall a while back someone came up with a set of "anti-computer" strategies that allowed even an amateur to defeat a strong go program. These moves weren't anything like ordinary go moves (and perhaps the "loophole" has been closed now) but imo, their existence suggests that a study of programs may reveal other unexpected weakness.

Probably a better comparison from the chess world(in reasonably modern times, though perhaps players like Capablanca and Lasker could be mentioned as well. Alas, I don't think FIDE rating existed back then) is Bobby Fischer. In the july 1972 FIDE rating list he held a rating of 2785, the highest in history at the time, with Spassky in second sitting at a "measly" 2660, and only 13 players being above 2600 even.

For a non-Go player, do you think this trend will persist, or is it more of a dead-cat/human bounce?