I think we need a new version of Godwin's Law for L19.

Examples on request.



Counter-example on request.

What hurts is the ABSENCE of strategic advice for or applicable to josekis.



Go is not a physical exercise.



I would be happy if you could reach this ratio.

Details on request.



Sure, from my POV, the side track is discussed now. (Less than 20% of the books provide more than 80% of the contents.)

Joseki, joseki
In every corner you greet me
Black and white, clean and bright
You let the other guy beat me
Dumpling of stones, may you squeeze and grow
Squeeze and grow forever!
Joseki, joseki
Bless my corners forever!

All I wanted to do was offer my idea that the Pareto ratio could offer a good scheme for using our go time, i.e., spend about 1/5 of it acquiring new ideas and techniques, and the other 4/5 of it actually playing the game and trying to make sense of what we`ve been studying.

I did not expect to be greeted with mild ridicule ("Joseki, joseki, In every corner you greet me").

I gave joseki as one example of something you might study. Robert jumps on that and blows it out of proportion. In answer to his original question, of course I read literature that explains follow-up plays and strategic concepts, but I still need experience to grasp that kind of book knowledge properly. He`s always having a dig at the Japanese books, but they do say a lot about context and meaning. If you want a good example, consider Hane Naoki`s book on honte. He gives a precise definition of what it means and backs it up with examples. I even translated, albeit unstylishly, that definition and posted it here last year. Again, Takao`s books on the fuseki provide both examples and the principles behind them.

Returning to study/play balance, I would like to quote a former insei`s advice:


and I would also like to quote a Japan-based professional`s advice:



The first quotation comes from David Mechner`s homepage and the second from http://www.361points.com/teimeiko/

It seems pretty clear that the way forward is to balance study with experience. You really cannot get better just by reading books or just by playing.

What I am really interested in is whether you agree that 20:80 is a good balance of study to play. After all, time is the most precious thing, and it would be wonderful to if there was a demonstrably good way to portion it.

Also, I think Robert`s remark about <20% of the books providing 80% of the useful material is insightful. I agree with this because I have bought quite a few lemons over the years, but the ones I keep returning to are Segoe`s Tesuji Dictionary and the Yamashita Tesuji Dictionary (revamp of the Fujisawa work) and a number of books in the MyCom range.

Are there any other ways in which this ratio manifests itself in go, or could be used in a practical way?

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

Nice! Which books?



How to find such books? It is not the kind of books I saw in (a few big) Japanese stores or that would be retailed in Europe. (With a very few translated exceptions such as Strategic Concepts and Attack and Defense.)



Usually, yes.



There are also examples for either.



When I improved the fastest (from 9k to 3d in 17 months), I used 50:50.



Actually, it was an understatement.

20% of time and effort training to beat 80% of the players, 80% of the time training to beat the other 20%. If you look at the number of players that open and star points vs. other fuseki, I think this is a fair statement to make.

Though in general the Pareto principle is nonsense.

I doubt the numbers are 80% and 20% in this case. Consider a 9 dan professional: they have probably invested 20000 hours in the game. Do you think that it took them 4000 hours, to be able to beat 80% of all players? Most professionals can make it into the amateur dan ranks after less than a year's practice as children.

So perhaps there's a 90-10 or 85-15 or 95-5 principle, and who's going to call you on such a small difference?

This is typical of how the Pareto principle is invoked: fudge the numbers and squint hard enough, and it's fits any distribution that's not linear.

_________________
Occupy Babel!