I can anecdotally say that its been true in my experience with some I've interacted with. And not only in maters related just to Go, but also in other non-Go areas of life (including those areas where the kyu player actually has more experience and skill otherwise).

If I recall, wasn't it uberdude who, not too long ago, masqueraded as a kyu player on KGS to see how receptive his kibitz comments would be taken? I seem to recall the higher level players still dismissing the opinions of the "kyu" player outright.

But I've never seen that attitude from really high level or pro players.

Perhaps there are two different issues at play here:

1.) Being flexible to consider alternative ways of playing.
2.) Prejudice based on rank.

I would argue that dan players are generally better at #1 than kyu players. I'd also suspect that almost everyone is susceptible to #2: even if you're SDK, when's the last time you looked to a 20k for advice? So I would think that, when you hang around with people at your rank or weaker than you, they'll be less likely to have prejudice. This is probably true for every rank.

_________________
be immersed

My experience is quite different. IMX dan players are more diffident about their opinions about go. In fact, if I see a strong statement of opinion, I can pretty well tell that it was made by a kyu player. Dan players may also be more skeptical of the opinions of others, and that may be what you are seeing.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I went from 3 dan to 4 dan in a year and a half, and from 4 dan to 5 dan in two years. At the time there was no go forum in which to participate, but I credit a great deal of my improvement then to putting out a go newsletter four times a year.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

It would if you were going to get stronger Focus is a big differentiator.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Exactly, it's much easier when you start young like you did (and maybe you are much smarter than me too)

As to such a belief or suspicion being the limiting factor - not necessarily. Anyone can have a bad day belief-wise.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

I think you could get a lot stronger if, when you play on a real board, you have a monkey with a shocking stick that gives you a prod everytime you play a move that's not at least at the 5d amateur level. Then you have to take back your move until you find the right one.

IMHO, there are many factors in how fast and far we can improve at go:

The younger, the easier.
The smarter, the easier.
The greater spatial awareness, the easier.
The more time dedicated, the easier.
The more competitive, the easier.

That said, I do believe we all have an individual theoretical limit beyond on which we cannot improve. The good news is I think none of us, not even Lee Sedol or other top pros, have hit that limit, because it is just that, a limit, and our play may be asymptotic.

I know some 10 kyu and 5 kyu who have been playing for years, routinely take lessons, and always attend Congress. These are smart people. But some of them will never hit dan. Maybe it's sad, but that's just the way it is. For some reason, their theoretical limit may be less than 1d.

And for those of you late teen or early twenty early year olds that believe if you try really hard you could become Lee Sedol, I am sorry to say, color me skeptical for two reasons. First and foremost, hundreds of thousands of people are exposed to the game and culture at a very young age, and yet we still only get a god of go once a generation. So even if you had that total immersion from the beginning, the odds that you as an individual would be that person are extremely slim. Second, you weren't raised in that culture, and you didn't learn at that age, and that just makes the odds longer.

Could you make pro? Maybe, that is a much lower bar, which has already been cleared by Westerners. Could you make 9P? Less likely, but still possible, as demonstrated by Michael Redmond. Could you become a world champion? Well, I've watched Mr Redmond comment on a world champion's game with awe at his skill. The way Redmond spoke, it was as if the champion was as far above the 9P, as the 9P is above an insei. So, I'd say the odds of World Champion are incredibly slim for any individual Westerner. That said, as we grow the game in the West, some day it will happen, and I hope I am here to see it.

I don't mean to be discouraging, but it's just numbers, right? That said, if go is your passion, and becoming great is your ambition, and so long as your goal isn't monetary remuneration*, I say go for it. Pursue your dream, and at the same time, prove me wrong.


* If your goal is the cash, and you are super-smart enough to become a go-pro despite your late start, there will be far easier, yet still legal, ways to make lots of money.

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

I am still waiting for a go savant, ether born this way or some mid 20 years old person having a stroke or a head injury which causes them to perform at more than human level. Just go look at the savants that exist now or for example Kim Peek.

This guy had the brain similar to ours (with some differences in two hemispheres or something but if you gave me his brain and the brain of some other random person I couldn't tell the difference) and yet he was able to accomplish feats no human would even dream about.

Then you have human calculators and people like Derek (forgot the last name) the piano savant...

Go is so much more natural than chess and if there will ever be a board game savant I think we are going to see one in go before we see one in chess.

Just imagine a go savant who plays brilliant moves but can hardly explain how they do it, they take a glimpse of the board and know the score, they can slove any tsumego within seconds.

Maybe I should bash my head against the wall, I think I have more chance of becoming a go pro this way than actually studying the game itself.

Supposing you could achieve a selective brain injury - you'd still be entering a realm in which all your perceptions and values would be irrevocably altered. Who knows if you would even enjoy playing go still?

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:

I wouldn't recommend it: there's a guy on KGS who used to be about 1d and had a traumatic brain injury (maybe a decade ago, from sport I think) and went down to about 10k. He's got back up to around 5k now.

I can just hear some kid, after losing a game at Congress, exclaiming, "Well my theoretical limit is higher than yours, old man!" That would have to be about the worst taunting ever.

I generally don't mind losing to a kid so much. I know it's probably the last time I'll ever play them, as their rank flies up, approaching their theoretical limit, sadly somewhere above mine. It happened this year, with the kid saying, "Dude, that was the hardest game I played at this Congress." I guess that was some small consolation.

Losing to a blue-hair, on the other hand... /s

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

To which one smiles and nonchalantly replies, "Well, that's assuming you make it to your next birthday."

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

It is possible to develop savant like capabilities, even without brain damage. (Not that I know how to do it! ) British bridge champion Leslie Dodds was known for his skill at rapid calculation. Once when he had an operation, just before going under the ether he asked a nurse for two six digit numbers. When he came to he announced their product.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I fall into the same category as most people on this thread: I suspect there is a theoretical limit of ability that differs from one person to the next, but I doubt that most people put in enough effort to approach it.

I don't think that raw intelligence correlates strongly to go ability (unless, perhaps, the type of people likely to take and do well on a formal IQ assessment are those who are likely to be interested in playing and studying games). I do think that early exposure makes a difference, if only because those who decide to dedicate themselves to go while young have vastly more time than those who pick up the game when older. I think there are people who have talent for go, though I expect that talent is generally overshadowed by hard work in the long run. The biggest impact of talent is probably to provide a positive feedback loop that encourages spending a lot of time playing when first learning the game. If the experience of the first few games is exhilarating, it can set the hook that leads to a lifetime love of go.

I expect that I will top out at 2-3 dan, though it will probably take me a long time to get there. There are simply too many things competing for my attention to hope for a higher ranking. I have a full time job, I'm married, I have a daughter, I'm very active at my church, and go is not my only hobby. I wouldn't be surprised at hitting a number of plateaus along the way, but as someone who just crossed into 6kyu territory (a notorious platform for many!) I can't see any reason I won't keep improving, albeit slowly.

Not sure this is relevant.

The thread tries to illuminate the difference between intent (or hope) and final result.
Or so I tihink, since Ed never realy explained what the heck he was trying to say there.

Hope and intent might or might not be related to what's actually possible. I would rather say - it is not, in those particular cases.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

If you have access to academic publications, you could read An Exceptional Talent for Calculative Thinking. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract. I read it almost a decade ago, and recall it as a fascinating description of the thought processes of a mathematician who was also an very good mental calculator. It goes into great depth into how he calculates particular answers, and he also describes his history. There is also a freely available speech by him: http://stepanov.lk.net/mnemo/aitkene.html.

The relevant point for the present discussion is that while he says most calculators were prodigies, he did not develop his abilities until well into his teens.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Many thanks, hyperpape!

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

If you train 2h every day and if you have a strong teacher I think you can make it to 4D-KGS, no matter what. 5D I am not so sure, 6D needs special talent, no matter how hard you practise.

"Strong Teacher" is the important part