Quotation reference:
viewtopic.php?p=175965#p175965John Fairbairn wrote:
Both of us are DDKs when it comes to the neuro-sciences [...] Your "understanding" is only a snapshot of what your subconscious has already worked out for you. [...] To help someone improve, you don't teach your discovery that 2+2 = 4
It does not require neuro-sciences, understanding of low level (subconscious) thinking or off-topic examples to judge about the effects of study on a go player's improvement.
Quote:
I repeat that I don't believe (the delusion of) understanding has any real effect on improvement. All of the improvement work has already been done by your subconscious through the intensive work you have put in while trying to understand.
1) (Many) players are able to learn (some) new things (and improve) by understanding despite NOT having trained their subconscious for those things.
2) (Many) players are also able to learn (some other) things (and improve) by understanding AFTER having trained their subconscious for those things.
From your observation of (2), you create your false belief of the non-existence of (1). I have observed both (1) and (2).
Quote:
Note that I am not denying that RJ's work has led to an improvement in his play. I am saying it is down to quantity of work.
Quality plays the greatest role, quantity and effort play much smaller roles. Almost all time and effort are spent on work with little value, whose major purpose is the discovery of quality work, which, once discovered, needs only little time and effort for application.
Quote:
I am also saying that he has improved in more ways than he has realised, because his subconscious creates networks of understanding that far surpass his impression of what he has understood.
You underestimate my understanding of my own thinking:)
Quote:
I further maintain that this "understanding" will contribute very little to his own future improvement. His future improvement will again depend almost solely on how much further time he invests, and on the nature of whatever compost he chooses to feed to the soil of his subconscious.
Needless to say, I expect almost the opposite.
Quote:
Guidance from someone who is already stronger is likely to direct those choices effectively.
Understanding of explicit knowledge is much more important for teaching than playing strength, with the exceptions of 1) speed of reading and 2) speed of value calculations.
Quote:
In other words, "understanding" makes RJ a better teacher of someone else, not a better player.
Understanding has played the greatest role to reach my current playing strength. As I have hit the exponential learning curve, my further improvement depends more than ever on better understanding, time and effort. (Just to be sure: I agree that time and effort are necessary factors, but, unlike you think, understanding continues to be the most important.) Time and effort for improvement compete with time and effort for 1) job, 2) research in go theory, 3) other things. Better understanding meets the problem of a decreasing fraction of knowledge input from other players (because they offer too little additional explicit knowledge beyond my current knowledge) and an increasing fraction of knowledge generated by my own study and research. This has made major breakthroughs for understanding strategy (enabling further discoveries comparatively easily), but not for high dan tactics yet (which I have not had time to research much so far). I am not sure if research can accelerate endgame value calculations because I have not attacked this field yet; maybe (or maybe not) this field depends mainly on practising faster number calculations on essential branches of game trees.
Quote:
To me, it then seems to follow that a Japanese 9-dan is able to provide more effective direction than a European 5-dan amateur.
There is no general rule for 9p versus 5d. One must always consider the specific players and what knowledge they make available at all. However, considering all Japanese 9p together from that I could get knowledge in any form at all, I have learnt the most from myself, the second most from amateurs of all ranks and the least from professionals, with the following exceptions: 1) difficult (mostly classic) problems, 2) passive teaching from uncommented game records. (But pro ranks hardly play a role. In particular, many classic period pros and problem creators did not have 9p ranks...)
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
RobertJasiek
