Hi John,
What you just posted resonated with me at some very deep levels, I guess I always thought so sub-consciously... Now, seeing it vocalized at a conscious level makes me think...
John Fairbairn wrote:
I think it does more than enough. Almost everyone knows what a chair is. What they have been taught and have experienced through constant repetition creates what is tantamount to a definition in their unconscious brains. If you ask an individual for a formal definition, that is to use his conscious brain, he would probably struggle to be comprehensive, and he would be quite likely to pick out different salient points than another individual. E.g. one person may reason that the number of legs is what matters, and will say that, among seats, one leg means a shooting stick, three means a stool, four a chair and six a sofa. But his brain actually knows better than that, and so if you ask him to go and sit on a stool and there was only a four-legged chair which temporarily had three legs because one was broken, he would look askance. Likewise, a chair-shaped object with four legs and on which you sit might actually be a commode, and because it has a higher - or perhaps better, a lower - function, most people would probably not class it as a chair. And so we can go on finding exceptions - a chair with a solid base, a bean-bag chair, a bar stool with one leg or a bar stool with four, or a garden swing. In every case the flaws in the conscious brain's definition would be easily exposed, but for virtually every person told to sit on a chair, the unconscious brain would unerringly direct his bottom to the correct surface.
... and I think the above hits the nail right on the head. Come to think of it - I don't know formal definitions for pretty much none of the items I use every day... and yet I can not only function surrounded by those items, but I can also manipulate the world around me with certain degree of competence. What's more, I am not sure if knowing formal definitions would give me any more competence or not.
For example: would I be more comfortable sitting in a chair if I knew how it is formally defined? Would I be able to buy a more comfy chair? Would I be able to better fit a chair into a particular interior design concept, were I an interior designer? Or would I even be able to create a better chair, were I a carpenter?
Would I be able to play Ko better if I understood the formal definition. Or would my level of play increase if I understood a formal definition of 'nakade'? And so on... substitute pretty much any other item or idea, same thing...
As a matter of fact, a lot of progress and improvement was due to people denying and defying widely accepted (even if informal) definitions, and so in turn redefining the world around them as they go. Example? 20 years ago, the definition of a 'phone' did not include a camera or 'apps'... So what is the value of trying to define 'phone' in a formal way?
Having said the above, there are also some other thoughts that bounce around my tired brain.
1. Researcher's approach:Maybe there are two parallel ways of looking at things: the user and the researcher. As a user, it might not matter to me how a 'chair' is defined. Or, more on-topic: as a Go player, I might not care to read a pages-long definition of Ko... I can play Ko and comfortably discuss positions involving Ko while being blissfully unaware of any formal definitions. When I say to another Go player: look at the Ko on the top - we know what we mean, even if we have never seen Ko being formally defined. Same goes for 'nakade' and a lot of other Go terms. Or most of real-life items.
I actually got scared when I read RJ mentioning research into 'outside and inside moves' or some such. Brr... But that's just me!
To a researcher - this formalization might be of great importance. Not because otherwise they feel lost in the subject (not sure about RJ here, and I often wonder) but because such formal approach allows then to take the next step, and build on top of prior work. It also allows cataloguing. So, in a sense of pushing the overall knowledge a step further, it has a tremendous theoretical value. Theoretically.
For example:
An average human will instinctively understand that it does not matter if, at a supermarket, we scan the soap first and the shampoo next, or the other way around - the total will still be the same. No need to formalize this idea. A mathematician, however, might, and does, find a lot of value in having a formal and well defined way to describe this principle.
So is this divisiveness about the value of formalized Go research simply a division between a theoretician and a player? What's the value of each approach?
2. Aims of research:Now, generally, a research is a good thing, but in this case - is there any aim other than 'its fun'? Not that 'fun' is an invalid justification - after all, we all play Go for precisely this reason, so I cannot really deny the validity of such thinking. But, if that's the case, its only fair to be aware of it and admit it openly.
If not just 'for fun' then - what is the reward awaiting us at some point along this path? Is it higher skill level attained with greater ease? I am not sure if it has been demonstrated that such 'scientific' approach, in the long run, is any more efficient than the traditional methods. We have had this discussion with RJ quite a few times, and I know which side I have been on (and still am) - but in my more honest moments I have to admit - I simply do not know.
Trying to bite through pages of the so-called 'Go Theory' gives me a head-ache more often than not, with very little, if any, reward in terms of increased understanding. Well, lets be frank - there was no reward whatsoever! But maybe its just me... Maybe I am not diligent enough, have not enough background, or my brain is simply used to dealing with problems in different ways. My guts tell me that all this research can have, at most, limited benefits, like making RJ and a few others warm and fuzzy inside, or, at most, coming with a more precise set of rules - which might or might not be beneficial overall. But again - I simply do not know.
So is this research just for its own sake, or is there a clear, well-defined payoff to be expected at some point? And if so, which point is it? I don't think I have ever seen it spelled clearly by anybody, including the 'researchers'. Other than 'the show must go on' (i.e. we need to keep pushing the formalized knowledge step after step and eventually we will get somewhere, hopefully, and it is understood that this is inherently good.)