In viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9152 it has been observed that dan players did not frequently comment on games in L19, often has suggested that dan players did not like criticism and Kirby has asked whether I liked criticism.

Presumably, there are various reasons why dan players do not (too) frequently comment on games in L19. E.g., part of them might lack the necessary time or dislike the diagram editing in L19. Would they not comment because of being afraid of criticism? IMO, this is no consideration for them, but a few dans might have a different opinion.

often's remark, if it is not a joke, is plainly wrong, because there are dans that like criticism. There is, however, a difference between different kinds of criticism. Correct criticism would be appreciated much more easily than factually wrong criticism, meta-discussion instead of facts-orientated criticism etc.

This brings me directly to Kirby's question: I like correct, facts-orientated criticism, while I dislike factually wrong criticism. Etc.

Is Dr Sheldon Cooper in the room? Time for the Mom tesuji?

At least a priori statements like this are beyond criticism. Or are they?

_________________
David

Go Game Guru: Learn Go | How to Get Better at Go | Go Game Shop | Go Boards | Baduk TV

oh this will be fun

my comment was half joking and half true
... ok 1/4 joking 3/4 true
... ok all true
... but it's just a theory (haha)

i'll put two reasons why i think this and i'm sure you'll come up with your responses

1.
as you get stronger you definitley have your own way of doing things. for example, if you play an aggressive style and a dan 2 stones stronger than you who plays a more passive style reviews your game, what he suggests and plays may not be what you'd want to do or ever listen to at all. in that way, the criticism that is given wouldn't be applicable to you or your style, so why would you listen to it.

2.
think of the rank difference between a 10k and an 8k, is that rank difference that much different than a 2d and a 4d? is that rank difference that much greater in a 7d and a 5d? some can argue yes, but i'm not going to say that it's so much that the higher ranked person will know -exactly- what to do every time.
only when someone is mountain-loads stronger can you really provide better analysis. (cue my professional chinese go teacher argument)
for example a 1d might not be right about things, but he'll have a better idea of what to play than a 10k will (but please don't go asking 1ds for help if you're 10k)

the more amusing thing is
you always hear kyu level players talk about getting a teacher, or needing to study more, etc etc etc
you rarely hear that kind of drive in dan level players. in fact, if you talk to most go teachers, they rarely have any consistent dan level students. i wonder why? (rhetoric, i don't have an answer here)

but do i think dan players hate criticism?
sure i'll go ahead and make a blanket statement about dans and say that

bring it. haha.

The dan-student you're portraying here sounds like a rather close-minded person. An attribute that will hinder progress at any rank, really.
At any rate, it sounds to me like you're overestimating the relevance of "style" in go. A player 2 stones stronger will be able to point out a lot of mistakes to his "student", regardless of "style".



How about new professional players/inseis etc.? Don't a lot of them have teachers of sorts?

Here in the West it should also be taken under consideration that there aren't a lot of very strong teachers available. For example, if you're KGS 5d, would you really take lessons from a KGS 6d? Probably not. I'd say a 4-5 stone difference is at a bare minimum for a teacher that you're going to pay.

I'm not going to address the issue of the usefulness for kyu players to get a teacher, but I have doubts it has significant advantages over self-study.


Either way, your whole "argument" sounds like a bunch of anecdotal evidence which you broadly generalized.

For me this aspect was circumstance and habit. The strongest local player was a 5k, so after that I had to figure out everything on my own, and I was never interested in spending money for an online teacher. Some years later, whenever another mid/high dan and I were able to attend the local meetings once a month we would always end up spending our evenings teaching the other players and reviewing their games. Maybe the last 20-minutes of the night we would have some time to talk about a few new variations or patterns we saw.

Speaking as an amateur dan player, I'm hesitant to make many comments because, even though I'm around 5d in strength I don't feel confident in making statements to the effect that such and such is the best move. Personally I'm happy to have "criticism" of my own games provided I think the critic knows what he/she is talking about. When watching pro matches on the internet I'm always astounded by the inept or arrogant criticisms of pro play by mid kyu level players.

The rank difference is similar, but there are very great differences WRT effort and knowledge increments.



You overlook the possibility of someone having much more knowledge despite an only small rank difference.



If the teacher has very much knowledge and the pupil has relatively little knowledge, some 0.5 ranks difference suffice IMX. (Otherwise I would not have had pupils improving from 1k/1d to ca. 4.5d.)

I find the topic a bit ironic, since you have mentioned many times that you rejected teachings from stronger players.

You make a wrong generalisation from my teaching skill to other teachers' skill, overlooking e.g. that I need a teacher that a) points out my major playing weaknesses quickly (I do not know such a teacher) and b) teaches general ideas instead of examples only (I know only a few such teachers).

Do dan players hate criticism?

How do you think they got to be dan players?

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

1. In terms of "criticism" i'm just saying stronger dans pointing out issues to weaker dans. not really a teacher student thing. If you don't agree, that's fine. There have been things that a stronger dan has pointed out to me in my game that my teacher doesn't even cover. I've asked why it's different and she's said "well, they don't really know much better. and they play a different game than you, what they're comfortable with and what you are is different"

2. I guess when i say "dan players" i'm referring to the dan players that we typically see that are amateurs (be it L19, AGA, Europe, etc). As for "not a lot of strong teachers" i disagree. The internet has opened it up teaching Go to anybody and everybody.

3. This I strongly disagree with, but it's a completley different topic.

I'll get to Bobby J's comments in another post.

Arrogant criticism can only be judged from a higher level, I think. So even when you as a 5-dan don't feel confident in "making statements to the effect that such and such is the best move", you will be likely much closer (or maybe even on point) to the right move than the majority of players below your strength.
In the end there are (as of now) just 112 EGF-rated players 5-dan or stronger (according to their GoR-points) out of 6485 players with a EGF-rank. When even this strong elite feels inapt to comment on games, fearing some 6-dan (33 in total), 7-dan (6), 8-dan (4) or professional player (who also disagree wholeheartly at times) might come along and call them out, then from whom should we weaker players learn?

I prefer playing according to a 5-dan's misconceptions than to my own 1-dan ones ; )

_________________
My "guide" to become stronger in Go

No, I'm making an obervation that you choose not to be in a position to have your skills criticized. I just think it's interesting. You certainly could use some lessons just like everyone else trying to get stronger.

Absolutely this! I find it hard to keep comments short, I want to go all out and create a million diagrams, but I lack the tine for that. I know I could (and perhaps should), comment with just a few general remarks, but somehow I don't.

Plug: http://hiddema.nl/diagrammer/

It is certainly up to RJ to authoritatively answer that, but here are my thoughts and my theory:

• RJ is one of the few people I met online who is truly open to criticism, and even seeks it. Examples abound.
• To criticize RJ one often must to 'speak his language' to get through, otherwise it might be very fruitless and frustrating.
• His 'language' is the often very narrow framework that he defined himself and his arguments are strictly confined to that framework. Most 'teachers' or 'criticizers' do not understand that, and if they do - they can't be bothered learning RJ's framework to the point of being able to comfortably move inside. But once they do, once they meet him in his world, I find him more open to criticism than pretty much anybody else here.
• If you attempt to reach RJ outside of his framework, you will most often get arguments and fights, which will fizzle out fruitlessly - because you will both be talking different 'languages' with no understanding possible (been there, done that, have a t-shirt to prove it.)

The above is usually the reason for all the RJ 'discussions' when you look closely at the threads, as well as for his frequent rejection of traditional teaching and methods.

RJ: If I am totally off with all this, please correct me.

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

I agree on every point you make. Since RJ started the thread, I didn't think it was off topic to continue down.

It's the Dunning-Kruger effect.

You make Robert sound like Rain Man. "I'm an excellent driver."

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

Not at all.... well, maybe a little.

Point is - RJ has a very unique and personal outlook on things within the context of Go, and very little motivation to compromise. Imagine talking to a mathematician about his favorite theory. To successfully argue in such situation you need to meet the problem within the mathematical frame of reference. If you approach it, for example, from a philosophical or religious perspective, the discussion will probably be rather pointless unless one of you gets out of his box. Experience teaches that people in here have very little willingness to get out of their boxes, and tend to get frustrated or angry instead.

And that has nothing to do with any rainmanism.

So, this is how I see this situation. Not sure I am right, but this is what I think.

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