I remember seeing an image not too long ago, but long enough that I can't remember where I saw it, that was essentially a graph of an artists' ability to judge what is good and bad with their own/others' art and their actual ability to make art. It essentially went so that their ability to judge rose much faster than their ability to create, slowed down, and then their ability to create caught back up and even exceeded their ability to judge. The cycle looped itself and essentially said that we all think our work sucks because what we're able to judge accurately increases more so than what we can actually do.

I'm thinking the same applies to go as well. When I see games played by people at my level I start to think, "Oh, all those plays are terrible. Just awful!" But then when I'm put in the exact same situations, I'm definately not making good plays either. Sure, it might not be the mistake they're making, but it's a different mistake most likely. What do you think?

Hi Abyssinica, yes. Very common experience. Not only in art or Go, but in many other areas as well.

Many people (including me) have this experience: someone goes to a restaurant, orders a meal, and finds out the meal is not very good.
However, the person himself/herself may not be able to cook a meal even half as good.

Another very common experience is with movies. Take any low-scoring movie at Rotten Tomatoes.
Many people can agree that a movie is bad. However, 99% of the same group of people
will not have a clue on how to actually create a movie, from scratch (from writing the script,
to pitching it, to getting funding, casting, producing, shooting, budgeting, editing, distributing, promoting, etc. etc.).

(Corollary: many movie critics themselves cannot act, cannot direct, cannot write a script, cannot cast,
cannot operate a camera, cannot edit, cannot produce, cannot do marketing, etc. but they can still critique! )


It is much easier to see that a circle is not round than it is to draw a perfect circle free-hand.

Janice Kim 3p once said, "we are all 3 stones stronger when watching a game than when playing it."

I think that is an interesting analogy, a causal type relationship could exist between the amount of time an artist had to spend observing others vs. creating. I've often noticed this in music where the gigging artist has a gig on Friday and Saturday, therefore doesn't get a chance to see other acts. Or is spending time in the studio going over that last half a second of track so doesn't get a chance to listen to his CD collection.

Yes, interesting topic for discussion and a welcome one as it's always nice to remember that people inclined to the arts - as well as the sciences - will be drawn to go. Not sure what I can add to the conversation but would like to share this.

Yesterday watching a lecture given by a amateur dan player and feeling perhaps slightly dismayed by how complex this game can be the thought came, you know this position he is describing as good for black and not so great for white may be something the 'baby cow trio' could conciser as milk for white - certainly looks like the sort of position we've seen Sedol have fun with, and led to the realization that while it is doubtless really helpful to learn shapes and tesuji's and such maybe there comes a point when these positional ideas are relative. A refreshing reminder settled then that while I may not have the inclination (or maybe even the capacity) to reach a dan level understanding of go I have had and can continue to enjoy slathers of fun with it and occasionally derive profound satisfaction from my games. If this is possible for a relative beginner like me then it is obvious that the game is open to a vast audience.

Gee that veered a bit more off topic then I'd imagined (typical). Oh yeah wanted to share this too:


But remember the most important thing in go is:

Paraphrasing Guo Juan here...

_________________
"Tsumegos are for reading power and Tesujis for knowing which moves to read"

Agreed it is easier to see what is wrong than to know the proper or sometimes even a fairly good response. I can walk into a persons house and think wow they have no fashion sense, but I am not able to know how to fix it. What I found in GO is I learned some new concepts, but I was confused how to apply them. It was one thing to understand it in a proverb or book. But another to apply it. There is a point as a beginner when some ideas start to gel and you know your playing bad shape, invasion etc.... But what is the best response? Ah that takes time.

I remember when I used to play regardless of losing sente. Now I think if I play that move, will I be in Gote for the next 10 moves...

That is the joy of GO always another hill to climb.

_________________
Walla Walla GO Club -(on FB)

We play because we enjoy the beauty of the game, the snap and feel of real stones, and meeting interesting people. Hope to see ya there! お願いします!

Anthony

Or perhaps we are more confident in our flawed abilities when we are not the one on trial.

_________________
Revisiting Go - Study Journal
My Programming Blog - About the evolution of my go bot.

Too true.

_________________
Walla Walla GO Club -(on FB)

We play because we enjoy the beauty of the game, the snap and feel of real stones, and meeting interesting people. Hope to see ya there! お願いします!

Anthony

Sounds all too true. One thing I feel at least is playing a move which only after the stone is on the board I suddenly think it's terrible.

PeterN

That is one reason why, when you are still inexperienced, you should play out variations on the board (or screen). As Krogius points out about chess, the mental image is not as strong as the visual image. As both your judgement and mental imagery improve, you can rely more on imagination.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Well said. Thanks.

_________________
Walla Walla GO Club -(on FB)

We play because we enjoy the beauty of the game, the snap and feel of real stones, and meeting interesting people. Hope to see ya there! お願いします!

Anthony

As a digression, is it against the rules to play out ladders with your fingers over an actual board (For say a tournament)? Sometimes if I'm particularly lazy I'll do that over the computer screen.

Yes, very. Mainly because it would be very distracting for your opponent. Most 1v1 board game tournaments forbid pretty much anything that could interfere with your opponent's concentration unless it's unavoidable. Outside of a tournament you'd probably be told to stop mostly because trying to read out ladders is very good reading practice!