Bantari, for categorising versus subconscious thinking see our old discussions. However, both, if only knowledge IS presented in books / journals / verbal discussion, share the same: they distribute knowledge instead of hiding it. This is the key because it is very much easier to learn from conveyed knowledge than to learn from hidden knowledge.

John, it is interesting that you describe strong Asian players as discussing knowledge because we have previously learnt about, or seen, weaker Asian players to do little more than, to exaggerate a little, pointing out one opening mistake after their game, then proceed to playing the next game. So it is good to hear that strong players are more serious about learning by sharing instead of hiding knowledge.

This, or maybe it makes us reliant on books guiding us along and prevents us from being self-reliant instead.

One of my points is: you are "stuck" because there is no book which can guide you by the hand and spoon-feed you knowledge at the appropriate level and in appropriate fashion. While at the same time - others have surpassed you by far because they... what? Tried to figure things out for themselves? Found other ways? Not waited for being spoon-fed? Not relied on ready-made "theory" to explain everything? Maybe you can get further this way...

I am not really sure where I am going with all that. I am certainly not trying to poke at you personally, I share a lot of the sentiment myself. But it just makes me thing: is that my own shortcoming, my culture's? And if so, how do I fix it?

All in all, it is obvious to me that you can get tremendously good without thinking much about "theory" or "books". It might be that we, in the west, are not very open to such an unusal approach. We have been taught, from early on, certain specific ways to acquire knowledge - and it is hard for use to accept any other approach. But it does not mean there is no other approach, or that such approach is in any way inferior. It might be just a handicap of our upbringing and culture.

Just thinking out loud here...

PS>
A sidenote: books, in general, can be very good at hiding knowledge. Or twisting it...
Throughout history, books wre both helpful and destructive. Not sure where the balance lies.

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

Apart from the many reasons I have explained many times elsewhere, because they get the knowledge I do not get because they have sufficient contact to people from whom they can get such knowledge even if it is passed only accidentally.



I cannot know whether you actively try to seek new knowledge. If you don't, then it is also your own fault. Otherwise, it is a matter of gaining access to the hidden knowledge somehow. From what I have found out thus far, the hidden knowledge is mostly easy to fairly easy and so hard to discover on one's own exactly because of this reason. You can learn about (some of) the hidden knowledge in these manners:

1) Take such professional teachers that teach in your preferred learning style so that the hidden knowledge is spread to you. It does not suffice to take arbitrary professional teachers - they need to speak your methodical learning language.

2) Have much contact to very strong amateurs (as strong as professional players) and discuss a lot with them. Probably they have (some of) the hidden knowledge subconsciously and your task is to perceive it nevertheless. If you are lucky, you meet such players who can teach you some hidden knowledge explicitly.

3) Study professional games and research in them for the sake of discovering hidden knowledge on your own. Possibly compare your own games with professional games.

4) Learn from me. In the meantime, I have discovered some of the hidden knowledge. More I will make available later. I can already tell you: it is about (advanced) fundamentals. Some advanced fundamentals have been hidden. - Also simply fundamentals everybody should know play a very great role: When I play even or handicap 2 games against amateur 7d or professionally ranked players and lose, I lose because I neglect basic fundamentals, such as not defending my important weaknesses. When my opponents of such games lose, they lose because they neglect basic fundamentals, such as playing safe when ahead by positional judgement or failing to complicate the game when I can (and then do) win by good endgame.



Wrong. Each stronger player, whose play I watch or study, I notice is aware of the knowledge that has for a long time been hidden to me and that most players weaker than me do not know yet. It does not matter whether the stronger players have that knowledge explicitly or subconsciously, but they do apply the theory correctly.



Books teaching their knowledge explicitly are weak at hiding it.

This sounds like the snake oil of go knowledge.

Do you have any examples of this hidden knowledge?

It sounds like this one guy who walks in your club and tells you they have been studying go in chinese mountains with a great master who has this secred knowledge about go and now this dude right in front of you wants to sell you this hidden knowledge

I don't want to sound arrogant or aggressive but I believe all the knowledge from pros can be found in books written by the same pros.

In practice this must be wrong. I mentioned recently a couple of important series I'd seen, one from the 1930s and one from the 1950, on te-ire and on moving from large to small boundary plays. Both, especially the latter, present important knowledge that is just not available in the west. But more to the point, I have never seen books on these topics in recent decades from Japan, or ever in the case of Korea and China. So the knowledge may in theory be on paper, for those few who have the old magazines, but for 99% of players it is "hidden" as RJ likes to say I'd prefer something like "discoverable" because he usually implies the pros are hiding it deliberately.

On that last point, there is another factor that complicates things for westerners. Most go knowledge exists in go books but is difficult to discover because of cultural factors. We tend to expect knowledge in bite-sized chunks that we can swallow at once. The Japanese in particular have usually been more concerned with "formation" (French sense), and rather than trying to inculcate facts they want to inculcate attitude. Once the right attitude has been instilled you are on the "Way" of go and can proceed, even on your own, at a decent pace. Westerners lose momentum by stopping to pick the flowers all the time.

That said, I think Japan itself has had a long and troubled period after the 1950s and up to the present day in reconciling their traditional approach with the western approach. For obvious reasons the western approach has been fairly prominent lately, and in go, if you want to see the closest that the Japanese have produced to what we expect to see, look out for anything by Kobayashi Satoru. I've only seen it in magazine form, but it's outstanding. It's also not a bad idea to look for anything in Japanese by Taiwanese-born pros. They seem to be more in tune with us.

However, again it is hard for most westerners to get access to this information, and in my macro view of the go world it's made even harder by the fact that a selfish few have made it not worth publishing go books in English.

I read "Improve your intuitione" vol 2 and "All About Thickness: Understanding Moyo and Influence". This 2 books make me more strong. I think that they are recommended (Improve your intuitione is from Slate&Shell and it isn't in sale now in his web).

Answer:
viewtopic.php?p=182972#p182972

Robert, you speak a lot of the "hidden" knowledge. But this is wrong.
The knowledge is not "hidden" at all. It is out there for you to see, each time you watch a pro game for example. As you say, you see it in the play of the stronger players - it is all there. What you are after is not really "uncovering" the knowledge, but formulating it in a way you find "easier" to digest and internalize. This is why you want to categorize it all into theories and theorems... not really to uncover that which is not hidden, but to have it presented in a form which you find more palatable.

I agree with you that having it all "pre-chewed" is easier than to have to formulate it yourself, but maybe - just maybe - this process of formulation and internalization is an important part of getting stronger. Like in every discipline, you can rely on thoughts and reaonings of others only that much - eventually you have to start thinking for yourself. This is why books and theories, while helpful, will never by themselves be sufficient. All they can do is make the path slightly easier... but possibly at the cost of the path leading to the wrong place.

As said before, I really do not know how it really is, have never been really strong.
My suspicion is based on what I see in other disciplines, even the ones where there is a lot books and theory (chess or math, just to name a few.) Books and existing theories can give you a leg up, sure, but to be truly great you have to think for yourself. Otherwise, you might, at best, be a good teacher.

I suspect that you personally feel lost and confused when you don't see it all categorized and organized into bite-size chunks, one building up on the other... and there is nothing wrong woth that. I just wonder if this is the best way to get strong. We know it is not the only way.

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

I wonder if this is really the truth, regardless of your belief in it.

Most stronger players I met and talked to did not get any special treatments, no access to "hidden knowledge", and no personal lessons.
True, they have had exposure to strong players, have had a chance to watch them play, hear them discuss... And maybe play against them occasionally and get a few pointers or even learned themselves. And so they grew and got strong as well. Without books.

Right now, with the internet opening the world, you and me - we have pretty much the same chances, opportunities, and access. And certainly the generations coming after us have this advantage. And this is what made a huge difference - not really the amount or the quality of available books. Well... books helped too... a little.

I guess those who become truly strong this way grabbed the ball handed to them and run with it.
While you (and me) hold the ball and stand there waiting for somebody to draw us a neat little diagram.

PS>
I am not arguing here against books or theories. They are certainly helpful in some ways. And what you do is important on some level.

But it is certainly possible to get strong without looking at things as you do. People do it around you all the time, every day, even in Europe - and they have the same sources and opportunities as you do. So why don't you, why are you "stuck"? I know, because there is no written theory... and yet others did not need it to progress in this form, which is observable and verifiable truth - there is no theory available and/or written (thus you do what you do) and they do get strong, q.e.d.

Makes you think?
Certainly makes me think.
Or would you rather think of something else?

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

Bantari, not the low level information (the sequences of the pro / stronger amateur games) is "hidden" but certain intermediate to high level knowledge of go theory about the low level information is "hidden". And this is exactly the point.



Regardless of how one looks at go theory, stronger players have similar knowledge (when compared among each other), which is also similar to what I describe explicitly (AFA I have had time to describe it so far). Not everybody needs to have the knowledge explicitly, but everybody needs to have similar knowledge. This is so because everybody is confronted with the same kinds of positions.



Of most stronger players I know, most were studying go in Asia (e.g., as insei). Apparently, such study can replace written theory. Oral theory does it as well:)



Answer: viewtopic.php?p=183002#p183002

Thus, it is not hidden. Just "not yet attained" by you.

I never claimed that Go knowledge does not exist. Only - that it is not "hidden", and possibly not presented the way *you* *personally* would like. And what's more, the presentation you so crave might not really be that important or crucial to get stronger. In general, that is... it is obviously important to *you* *personally*.

In any case, what we are discussing here, in my opinion, is the issue of presentation (and maybe organization) of the knowledge, not really its existance or disclosure.

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

I still think one can't improve just by reading books.

Youth is very important but playing and reviewing your own games is very important.

Playing > tsumego > reading theory

Also learning "tricks" is very important. Tricks not as in trick plays that result in good when your opponent gets tricked but bad for you if opponents knows how to answer, but tricks as in good key moves, shape points, good timing of those etc.

I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on the following quote which come from a really interesting (and modern!) chess book.

Jonathon Rowson in Chess for Zebras suggests that most learners try to improve by increasing their 'knowledge' while they should be trying to improve their playing 'skill'..(the 'what' instead of the the 'how')

"It really doesn't matter what you study (referring to ideas of studying tactics, strategy, openings, endings etc etc), the important thing is to use this as a training ground for thinking rather than trying to assimilate a mind-numbing amount of information. In these days of a zillion chess products, this message seems to be quite lost, and indeed most people seem to want books to tell them what to do. The reality is that you've got to move the pieces around the board and play with the position. Who does that? Amateurs don't, Grandmasters do..."

In light of that, I personally find it interesting that beginners at Go are told "Go play a lot first!" and "Go do exercises" BEFORE they get bogged down in ideas.

These idea things DO tend to be slippery chaps that don't always liked to be put on the spot in a given, precise, concrete instance...

_________________
Working on losing those 100 first games...one horrible fiasco at a time...

That is a lot like my approach to go when I was learning. Even though I had a good memory, I wanted to understand something well enough to be able to work it out on my own and not have to rely upon memory. And now I encourage people to think and to play around with positions by playing stones on the board.

But now I question that approach, and I do not think that it is best for everybody. Go has always struck me as a very literate, conceptual game. There are thousands of concepts to commit to memory. I am not talking about mind-numbing information, but about building blocks for thought. I expect that there is a body of basic go knowledge that adult beginners, in particular, would be well advised to learn.

Let me give an example. John Fairbairn recently posted a position with a Door Group. Now, how to handle the Door Group is part of that basic knowledge that I mean. As it turns out, I never learned about the Door Group. Oh, at this point it is not difficult for me to read out. The key variation is only 11 moves deep in a small area. But could I have read it out in a game as a 5 kyu? I doubt it. The reason is that that variation involves a very basic concept that I never learned.

Besides, in go and chess the distinction between skill and knowledge is not sharp. For instance:



Skill or knowledge?



OC, I encourage beginners to play. But if they want to improve quickly, I advise them to play against stronger opponents. And to review their games. (During my first year of play my weakest opponent was a 5 kyu. I have no regrets about that. And we went over almost every game.)

As for doing exercises, I have my doubts for adult beginners. They have plenty of challenges in their games, especially if they have good opponents. I know that doing tsumego is standard advice these days. But if you want people to think, they have to have something to think about. When people talk about doing dozens of easy problems in a single day, I wonder if they are challenging themselves enough. When I was in training, I did 4 problems a day, taking one hour to do them. (OC, that was at the dan level, but still. . . .)

As for getting "bogged down in ideas", well, stumbling blocks or stepping stones?

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I would class that example as "knowledge". I knew instantly where to play, and that doesn't strike me as particularly skilful. I've simply encountered that kind of situation so often that it is recognized from memory.

Both, either, or. I see it because I know that shape well. My boy who's a raw beginner sees it because there's 2 liberties and he's gotten sensitive to that and will start reading all the variations to check if there's something. There is an amount of skill in being able to find such moves if you do not recognise the shape from memory. It's just hard to recognise as such if you know the pattern. But baby steps first and all that.

Knowledge describes both the what and the how. What is skill? Application of knowledge? There can be knowledge describing the application of knowledge. Skill includes the what, the how, the application of knowledge and decision-making beyond one's known application of knowledge. Knowledge can guide also the latter - to some extent. So we are still within what books can / should teach. Skill should go beyond, where currently the books end. However, books can offer so much that OC they are one of the central means to improve. The question should not be whether to read books, or only how few books to read, but what one does besides reading books.

Perhaps Go is fundamentally different from chess in the way people improve... Many people who consume chess books seem to make very little real progress in terms of playing strength...until/unless they start working at their game more (in which case the texts in books are perhaps less important than the actual moves and their variations).

I'm not at all convinced that 'DESCRIBING the application of knowledge' or 'DESCRIBING the how' leads necessarily to skill (which I take as the ability to perform at a high level).

Nigel Davies suggests that chess players tend to try to learn by 'reading and nodding' (that certainly resonates with my personal experience ), which tends to reduce the amount of time that people spend scratching their heads over a board.

Does Go see the same difference between how quickly and easily young players improve compared to older learners? (I imagine so).

Another quote from the same book offers an explanation for this..." Paradoxically, the problem seems to be while junior players tend to put what they learn into practice without any real conscious intent, and thereby improve steadily, adult players strain in an effort to understand what they are learning, and this leads to all sorts of problems because rather than gaining in tactile skill, this skill is adulterated by our attempts to formalize it into knowledge".

What elements make up skill apart from knowledge...? I think of things like concentration, hard work and enthusiasm, drive, imagination, the ability to play without your ego getting in your way, tenacity, self-control, humbleness and being open to others' ideas and input, courage (yes, don't laugh! ) and massive amounts of practice of course....I'm sure we could come up with many others.

Yes, "what one does aside from reading books"....and perhaps how to use them...!?

_________________
Working on losing those 100 first games...one horrible fiasco at a time...

I came across a line about chess once, "the strength of the average club player is inversely proportional to the size of their chess library." Not a criticism of chess books but more how we misuse them (either wrong books or not studying them properly and just skimming).

That's very interesting. The idea that knowledge has to work its way down into skill would apply to most of what you've said above. I think the idea of working hard (whether at the board, while learning or while playing) seems primordial.

Learning constantly with a stronger player who regularly took the time to analyse the game is a fantastic setup (for you! ).

_________________
Working on losing those 100 first games...one horrible fiasco at a time...