In viewtopic.php?p=128391#p128391 Knotwilg writes that the top level professionals' reading, theoretical understanding and strategy combined into true understanding at a level that amateurs did not even start to comprehend. I disagree; where is there any evidence for this? Top level professionals read faster, deeper and more; calculate endgames faster and presumably on average more accurately; know a few more concepts not all amateurs know. All fine and well, but where is the "level that amateurs do not even start to comprehend"? We are not in early Edo, where much go knowledge was kept secret. If professionals should have understanding far beyond amateurs' ability of comprehension, then professionals could at least prove that by teaching well things that would be clearly above amateurs' ability of comprehension. However, pretty much all to be seen is about the aspects mentioned above, where professionals are better, but which are by no means far above amateurs' principle ability of comprehension. Rather such aspects would typically be above amateurs' ability of thinking speed. No doubt does this make professionals the stronger players, but the gap to top level players is not lightyears and quantum jumps.

Just for clarification:

Light year = huge

Quantum leap = tiny … but may have huge effects!

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

In the vernacular, a quantum jump is a significant discontinuity, typically large.

Quantum leap I am not so sure about, since it is used in popular writing about quantum mechanics.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I had to zoom in 5 times before I could read this.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Think how many times you would have to zoom in to see a quantum!

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

The reason top pros don't display a teaching of concepts beyond what western literature has to offer is that there's little for them to gain from it, to make up for to the distraction from professional play.

Professionals do not only calculate more deeply, they more importantly cut off branches earlier and consider less branches. That is because they have heuristics which we don't have. These heuristics come from deep understanding.

But that's not all. To use an old metaphor, they first see the tree, then the leaves, then the tree with the leaves, until the tree and the leaves are one. Perhaps this deep understanding is hard to convey and transfer to amateurs.

Again, I'm not saying amateur players shouldn't write books. But their games are only useful study objects to see that 5d make horrible mistakes too and there's no reason to be impressed by them.

At least one 9p pro has lost by self atari. Probably should have looked at that branch more carefully before heuristically pruning it so early with his deep understanding.

_________________
http://tchan001.wordpress.com
A blog on Asian go books, go sightings, and interesting tidbits
Go is such a beautiful game.

An incredible number of professionals has taught go in Western countries for the only or major reason to better spread go theory knowledge. They had every motivation to reveal their knowledge, but AFAICS they did not hint at deep mysteries in the professionals' knowledge.

For the fields of RJ's investigation, like ko or territory evaluation, he certainly is an expert on a theoretical level. So is Erwyn Berlekamp on the mathematical endgame, despite his being 10 kyu at the time of writing. But for me it is hard to recognize RJ as an expert on how to play go, even if he's 5 dan.

When voicing this opinion on L19, I met with lots of resistance, both because people thought I look down upon his writings, which I don't (because for one thing I've read none of his books, only his public contributions and second I applaud his advertised original approach) and because they overestimate the understanding of a 5 dan. I stated the provocative "to the eyes of a 9p, the difference between a 7 kyu or a 5 dan are negligible: they roughly make the same kind of blunders".

I stand behind that blunt statement. As Barry Mazur's suggested in the field of mathematics, or any field, at some point in the professional life, one experiences a paradigm shift that sees all acquired knowledge in a new light. With the old eastern image, the tree and the leave become one.

Does this mean only 9p's can teach or write? Certainly not. Amateurs like RJ, myself and the rest of you must cautiously and studiously expand the proverbial Sensei's Library because the pros will not do it and definitely not for free. When new players arrive at the club, there is none but ourselves to train them. But when RJ suggests that kyu players study his games, that is a bridge too far. There are thousands of pro games in the public domain and those should be studied.

Yes. And I'm sure Einstein will have made calculation errors in at least one of his papers.

It's funny how in one argument the level of professionals is purely explained by reading strength, hence deep understanding cannot be the matter, and in the next argument poor reading shows that deep understanding does not distinguish the pros.

It occurs to me you have taken on the defence of RJ against a challenge I do not even make, and have decided to sacrifice logic for the cause.

Knotwilg, my person etc. are off-topic in this thread.

You interpret me wrongly if you think that I would have said that the level of professionals was purely explained by reading strength. I have said that it belongs to those aspects where top professionals are clearly stronger than amateurs and that that is not a hidden kind of skill.

Everybody has paradigm shifts during his go career.

Frankly, the topic should be "NOT understanding or not even trying to understand..."

Cheers,
Vesa

Lee Sedol's book of his commented games is a great way to get inside the head of a top pro and how he understands the game.

That was of course more due to last second byoyomi making him miss the spot he intended while trying to read other branches...

off topic but...
Einstiein is not a genius.
His math skill was so poor he could not solve simple (?) math calculation to prove his theory.
he actually failed his algebra class.

_________________
"The more we think we know about
The greater the unknown"
Words by neil peart, music by geddy lee and alex lifeson

Thus spoke an authority...

Which makes me think... what makes one a genius?
And then - what makes one an authority of declaring or unmasking geniuses?

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

Hmm.... are you asking us or telling us?

Methinks that if there was a level amateurs do not even start to comprehend, you would - by definition - not be able to comprehend it. Possibly, you would not be able to even see it.

As for the rest of your post - it is hard to prove the negative. Again. The fact that you/we do not see something (a big gap), or that something has not been demonstrated (a deeper understanding), does not prove that it is not there. I am not trying to argue one way or the other - I simply do not know. Just making a point about the validity of your argument.

PS>
You possibly need to be more precise when you try to talk about the gap between pros and amas. Which pros, and which amas? There are amas out there as strong as many pros, and there are pros out there as weak as some amas. If we are talking about, lets say: you personally and any given top pro (i.e. recent winner of major title) - I would assume that the difference in pretty much everything is pretty big, and I am trying to be polite here and not hurt your feelings.

Except maybe in the field of formally presented Go theory as you see it. But then - we have had this 'fruitless' argument before: in your particular pond, you are a pretty big fish, but then you define your pond so that this is the exactly case and then exclude all else.

Still, once you are more precise, pick an ama and then pick a pro - then we can start measuring. Providing both have nothing better to do than to participate.

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

I am a genius. I passed algebra.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.