100k hours is 11.4 years straight.
Just sayin’...
The AI favored lines are likely to get heavily entrenched. I wouldn't expect them to go further because they generally end when becomes better to play elsewhere. There are a few fighting joseki where this isn't the case, but AI doesn't seem to like them much, although there are a few exceptions.
Do we know if those moves are actually weaker overall, or is there some other sort of selection bias at play?
But if I were guessing, the AI probably doesn't like fighting joseki because it knows how the fight will end. AIs are much, much better than humans at working out who won a fight.
Short time controls and live streaming of blitz games by GMs is fun. Maybe this is less “pure” but it’s great entertainment, and doesn’t seem like engine use is a huge problem when the stakes are low (it’s usually pretty obvious to a GM when they start losing to weird moves, they call it out and move on).
As a mid level chump at chess.com, any cheater will be ranked way over me.
It's of course possible that some people only cheats occasionally, for whatever reason. People are weird and do weird things...
Afaik they analyze the deviation (in centipawns) of each played move to the optimal move calculated by popular chess engines (like Stockfish, Houdini, Komodo, etc); and aggregate in a sort of weighted Brier score.
If a player is constantly making optimal moves, they're likely cheating (they can analyze top level professional matches for upper skill benchmarks). There is some lower weighting for opening moves (which is where the database part comes in just knowing when a game moves from theoretical 'book' openings into original territory).
Each of the sites have different implementations of this: chess24 for example even partially gives your accuracy of book moves and then differentiates between Blunder / Mistake / Good / Excellent / Best move based on the deviation from optimal; but it doesn't show you how it's aggregated into a single value.
What is the incentive to do any artistic endeavor, if you are not planning on being one of the world's best pianists, or painters, or singers, or furniture-makers?
Go was probably already solved by some distant species on a planet far away. Did that make it any less enjoyable for us to play? What's the difference?
If I do it to make a living, that’s one thing. If I do it to be “the best,” that’s another thing. If I do it for the pleasure of learning to do a thing, that’s a third thing.
It’s the same with games, but the emphasis on winning skews the culture towards wanting to be “the best.” But for those following the third path, AI beating humans changes nothing for them, just as synth bass and sequencing changes nothing for me.
If suddenly computers can create perfect, beautiful music, I will still play an instrument.
I didn't downvote you because I guess it's a fair question to ask, but it is a rather naive one. Why learn arithmetic if a computer can do it?
1. Professional gameplay changes a lot.
There are no more secret openings/midgames/endgames, you will hardly be able to cheese a top pro (not that it was easy before). Professional gameplay requires memorizing tons of lines and then adding on to add it. There are many chess openings which require memorization till the end result (50 moves) or you risk losing the game. We are going to see a similar trend of memorization in Go.
2. Online casual gameplay changes a lot.
There are lot of cheaters in online forums. Cheat detection has to be built in to the sites or you risk being taken over by cheaters. Easy availability to best moves allows the dedicated player to learn a lot faster than previously where there was a discoverability issue. We see this in the professional chess world where its not uncommon to see 14-16 yr old GMs nowadays.
3. Professional teaching still survives.
Engine can tell you the best move but it doesn't give you a teaching path from beginner to amateur professional to grand master. I am not a master but based on anecdotal evidence people still employ coaches but for much more focussed tasks and more specialized skills (e.g. openings, midgames, endgames).