viewtopic.php?p=148495#p148495



1) For an example to back it up, see above.

2) In the other thread, the purpose was just to give a hint, instead of derailing that other thread.

3) Since you want to see more typical 1d gaps related to fundamentals, see below.

*****************************************************************

- They know that they should avoid blunders, but their blunder rate is ca. 2 or 3 per game on average.
- They know that there can be different answers to a corner approach, but they do not always decide among tenuki, extension, pincer or blocking the corner. Instead they sometimes consider only part of these choices.
- They sometimes construct a moyo of intermediate size along an edge, thinking it would be territory and so omitting a reinforcement. Their strategy is spoiled when the opponent simply invades.
- They do not always do proper local move selection.
- They often rely on a proverb for choosing extensions, instead of verifying their connections tactically.
- They are sometimes unaware of endgame aspects relevant during opening and middle game. (Don't play just some move, but a move fulfilling a major purpose with also the best impact on the endgame later.)
- They sometimes choose strategies purely for fun, instead of verifying whether they can also be justified.
- In a tournament game, they spend 5 minutes on a life and death problem to verify death, but sometimes overlook ko.
- They are occasionally completely surprised by stronger players' sacrifice strategies, which they overlooked completely.

EDIT: typos.

There is no way for me to agree or disagree with idea that a 1 dan half understands the fundamentals. There is no consistent definition for 1 dan, after all. Also, even if there was, I suspect it is possible to come up with some definition of fundamentals so that the halfway point fits any desired rank within some wide range. But as for the list, I'm not sure all can be considered concepts. For some items, I don't think they mean anything as stated.



This seems more about conditioning and practice than lack of a concept. What's the concept? Avoid blunders? One might as well say that winning the game is a concept. (And I guess it is, but is this worth stating?)



This is vague. Except for the "local" qualifier, this is like saying "sometimes they don't play good moves" which is not very interesting.



Maybe a meta-concept. Also, are you certain this disappears at 4-5d? There may be a slow dissipation as rank increases. I could be convinced to hand you this one as a possible observation.



Again, it is possible to distinguish concept from conditioning here? Is there a high incidence of 1 dans slapping their faces and muttering, "I forgot to look for the ko!" (This would be distinct from "I didn't see the ko!" which may be common enough.)

Just as a random comment, Guo Juan 5p has a series of lectures on her internetgoschool.com site titled "Typical Mistakes 5k-3d." Maybe for fun I'll look at them again to see how many were conceptual.

Having fun is all the justification you need.

_________________
Poka King of the south east.

All of your comments can apply to 4-5 dan as well, which is why I found your previous statement in another thread amusing.

What sized sample was used for this? What constituted 1d? What's a blunder exactly? I've seen definitions ranging from "a mistake below your level" which is extremely vague to "unforced error" which is much more tightly defined yet what constitutes an error is something we could get very caught up on, what is our horizon? Is a move our opponent shows to be in the wrong place 25 moves later an unforced error or are we only concerned with "near horizon errors" that are revealed within a handful of moves?

I'm curious. This strikes me as a very hard thing to tie down and have people agree on.

But only in fast games, such as server byoyomi-only games. In slow games, 4-5 dan can apply the fundamentals properly. Not all 4 dans, not all weak 5 dans, but IMO all strong or experienced 5 dans. (Except those where the ranking system is down.)



My own experience combined with what I have seen from players around 1d strength.



This, or easily explained by referring to the fundamentals.



Of course.

If it's an anecdote you shouldn't phrase it as a declarative statement of fact.

RJ, Are you perhaps hinting that you will soon be publishing a work which will gear towards low level dans and near dan SDKs as a follow up to First Fundamentals?

_________________
http://tchan001.wordpress.com
A blog on Asian go books, go sightings, and interesting tidbits
Go is such a beautiful game.

I think Robert is hinting that all one dans should hire professional teachers (preferably Asian) as the logical next step in improving. Excellent suggestion. Thanks, Robert!

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

It is not, but is a consistent observation.



You know that I may answer such questions only in the Books forum.



No. Fundamentals can be learnt autodidactally (if you have years of time), from strong players (if you have them available), from the literature or from professional teachers of amateur or professional rank. IMO in general, so far available online information is not suitable and sufficient yet.



Yes.



No. Local Move Selection is a procedure known to those who care.



Yes. (Not for all 4d, not for all 5d, but...) The point is: strategies may still be selected by fun, but they are supported by understanding and verification.



No, because a) not every game involves a local LD problem and b) they don't notice everything they overlook.

I've just been processing a game between Go Seigen and Karigane. Karigane played a brilliant game but made two "blunders". One was called a "catastrophic mistake" and the other a "big slip", costing about 5 and 3 points respectively. He lost the games as White (no komi) by 6 points, which obviously implies Go also made some serious mistakes earlier on. In fact both sides did make several mistakes even though it was considered a truly brilliant game. A least the same sort of blunder rate can be found in just about any decent commentary on a pro game, no?

So, this implies Go and Karigane are really about 1-dan amateur, although the world regards them both as 9-dan pro. Since RJ claims to be about four stones stronger than a 1-dan amateur, he is therefore to be regarded as the fabled 13-dan pro of perfection. (Sound about right, I hear someone mutter.)

This is a good example of the folly of trying to stick numbers on everything.

However, forget the numbers and just look at the words, and I think we have to agree - even if it means a painful look in the mirror - that RJ's list is a pretty good summary of the sort of mess most of us make of go.

Since "blunder" is not used consistently with the same meaning by everybody, we can get wrong counts if we call small(er) mistakes by professionals blunders, but call only big mistakes by amateurs blunders.

Ok, "catastrophic mistake" qualifies as blunder, I'd guess. Study many games by those two players, and you will not find an average of 1 or more true (carelessly accidental and big) blunders.



"mistake" is not the same as "blunder". Blunders are a special type of mistakes, those that are made carelessly accidental and are big. Such as simply overlooking an atari on 15 stones, or forgetting to defend a very weak group because of having fetched a glass of water while otherwise perfectly knowing that the group must be defended immediately.



No. Unless you simply count the word "blunder" in a commentary without checking what it means in every case.



LOL. Wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions.



No, but it is a good example of having to check the meaning of what one reads.

Section 12.2 of Robert Jasiek's "Joseki 1: Fundamentals", for those who care.

Look up what anecdote means in the evidence sense.

Or it points to you not noticing blunders as much as strong players would. That is more likely.

"not based on facts and proper study"

I see. If you wait one or a few years, I will base also this on facts and proper study of 1d games. Until then, how about publishing your related proper study? Have you found counter-evidence?

EDIT typo: insert "not"

Why would I do that? I'm not making any claims of fact about the go games of 1d players now am I? I'm merely objecting to you phrasing your personal observations (which are interesting!) as statements of fact more suitable for the outcome of a careful review of many, many 1d games. All I'm asking is to preface something that is your personal observation with "In my experience," or similar to flag it as opinion rather than the result of careful meticulous scientific study precisely because you are involved in careful study of the game of go.

I think RJ might be right here.
The trick to realizing it is that he talks about:

• '1d' as he defines it himself (wrt the other definitions he defined for himself)
• 'fundamentals' as he defines them himself (wrt the other definitions he defined for himself)
• 'blunders' as he defines them himself (wrt the other definitions he defined for himself)
• 'concepts' as he defines them himself (wrt the other definitions he defined for himself)
• and so on... (wrt the other definitions he defined for himself)

It is a closed system, in which each part fits perfectly like a pretty pre-arranged puzzle piece with all other parts.
And it is all painstakingly defined by none other than RJ himself with the purpose to fit together just like that.
This is why in his little world - it all makes sense, and it all fits. Always!
And this is why it is so hard and frustrating to have a discussion.

The fact that some/most of it is at odds with what the rest of the world is talking about does not change the fact that - within this hermetically closed system, all pieces fit together perfectly. And since RJ usually refuses to change his frame of reference, to address issues outside his closed system, and often even acknowledge that other systems might (or even have the right to) exist, it is very hard to convince him that he might be off, even so slightly.

If you talking 'common sense' or 'generally accepted meaning' or 'what everybody knows' or something like that - you often might as well be talking in a foreign language. It simply does not fit, so it is rejected.

He is a frustrating odd-ball, a sometimes-annoying trail-blazer, and possibly a visionary.

So Robert - no disrespect intended - but honestly, this is how I see it. It took me years to figure it out, and even longer to get over my own limitation and surpress (most of) my frustration. And I understand why you do that, and your reasons are good. But you have to realize that this is one of the main things that puts you so often at odds with so many other people and often leads to them rejecting your otherwise good ideas. Think about it.

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

Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/definition


When RJ defines something, it is a formulation of a meaning. It's not theory. How can you argue with RJ over something he has just given meaning to? The act of arguing over what RJ has defined will always in his mind be an act of wrongness. You may however discuss what RJ theorizes as such is still open to further investigations.

_________________
http://tchan001.wordpress.com
A blog on Asian go books, go sightings, and interesting tidbits
Go is such a beautiful game.

I do not state it each time, but usually I rely on European self-declared ranks. Everybody (in Europe) can observe what those ranks are worth. Such observation does not depend on my definition, but is open.



Sorry, but (unfortunately) I have NOT defined "fundamentals" yet. It is open to discussion what that is for us go players. OTOH, different authors speaking about "the fundamentals" seem to have a pretty similar conceptual understanding of the term.



It is an exaggeration that I would have defined it. I have just provided informal descriptions here and elsewhere. When the word is used, it pretty much means the same everywhere, except when the game is "prove Robert wrong no matter what".

EDIT: Cambridge International Dictionary of English:

"blunder v, n (to make) a big mistake, especially as a result of lack of care or thought"



Why do you even bring this up? In this thread, snorri has introduced the word as if I had meant to speak in terms of concepts in the first message. I have not tried to define "concepts". (I defined "strategic concept" elsewhere, but this is off-topic.)



No, it is still open, see above.



You construct something not existing, see above.



Wrong.



Done: you confuse the closed system of well defined go terms by me with the open discussion in this thread.



No. I might err in a definition, this could be pointed out and I would be convinced. What you mean is maybe something different: When I consider a definition of a term useful and somebody else considers a different meaning for the name of the term useful, then my definition in its intended meaning is not proven wrong by the other's preference for the different meaning.