While observing a game between a robot and a person I checked out that person's profile. He was a french player but had an English quote at the top of his profile: "Ten hours of study for every one of play." This quote was attributed a Master Kim, possibly his Korean teacher?

Anyways I thought the quote was quite interesting. I know everyone has their own unique methods of study and play. Some people like to study more while other play more. Though I think there is some truth to this quote. If you just only play and don't study especially in low sdk or dan level it is easy for someone to get into certain habits that may be bad that the player doesn't even know is bad for instance like bad shape or not using aji to make shape. While reviewing your games is a type of study but there is a definite need for tsumego, studying pro games, and reading books. The opposite is also true you can't just study all the time without playing. If you don't play you won't know how to implement what you have been studying into your game. So as with everything balance is the key.

Except for recently I have definitely been studying more than playing. It was obvious when I started playing more games online that even though I knew things I didn't necessarily apply them well or was frustrated or worried about time due to a lack of playing.

So I think this is a nifty little ratio that I might implement into my game.

What do you all think?

I think it should be the opposite. I definitely never studied that much.

I honestly don't know what the ratio was for me when I was a kyu player, but I certainly studied a whole lot more than I played. 10-1 may be a little excessive, but I would think 5-1 would be a minimum for anyone serious about improving.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

I have heard pros express a similar sentiment, but opinions vary.

_________________
be immersed

The time ratio isn't what's important, it's your study methodology.

My non-scientific observation is that the stronger you get, the more time you spend studying compared to playing.

This fits with the usual advice to beginners, once they know the rules, to lose 100 games as quickly as possible.

_________________
Regards,

Peter

That ratio might violate the tip: when you learn something new, use it in a game, from Michael Redmond 9p. (Unless, of course, in that 10 hours of study you are learning nothing new, then maybe it's okay but of course one wonders what you are studying... )

For a while a had a problem of going on tilt in blitz games, and I set a rule that for every game I lost I had to study 1 hour. That could be reviewing the game or tsumego or some combination, but the idea is to not just play thoughtlessly and get nothing out of it.

There was no such punishment for winning games. After all, I figured if I kept winning, why study? Just spend the time improving your rating directly...

I don't think that follows. You don't learn something by seeing it once. You must study it for a few hours to get a good understanding. It only takes a few minutes in a game to then use it.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

For pros something about the math doesn't add up, since many of the players are playing practically full time.

Looking at Japanese stats, the most pros play in a year seem to be about 50-60 games, and they participate in study groups.

Even if the math doesn't add up for pros, it's possible that the math added up before they became pros. Someone that was an insei, for example, might know more about this.

_________________
be immersed

Am I the only way who thinks playing games should take the majority of time spent? I can potentially agree that it may be more efficient to spend more time on problems, but a ratio of 1:5 or even 1:10 seems ridiculous to me. Learning to apply concepts and knowledge in real games, at least for me personally, takes much more time than reading about them/seeing them in problems.

That is exactly why you need to study. There isn't enough time in a real game to learn how to apply concepts. You have to do that during study and then apply the concepts after they are learned.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Ten to one seems pretty extreme to me.

I think it is important to study, especially to review all of your own games. Say two hours to play each, and a half hour to review each. Remember your ideas and figure out what worked and what didn't?

Additionally, I think it is a good idea to read books or take lessons to learn new concepts, and maybe do life and death problems.

I'd guess 2-1 makes sense to me. Maybe 3-1.

When you are really high level, and your fundamentals are all really strong, and want to learn all the variations of a tricky joseki or the newest fuseki trends, then maybe a higher ratio makes sense.

Until you are that strong, I suspect the fastest way to learn is to get mugged, and then figure out what you should have done differently.

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

I agree with the concept of studying a lot - pros always say "do tsumego", but studying for a few hours and then applying it in a few minutes doesn't apply to my experience:
In fuseki studying, opponents often don't let you complete the fuseki so it usually takes 5-10 games before I can practice a particular fuseki once.
When I study tesuji, it's the same.

What do you study that only takes a few minutes to apply in game?

When I was a kyu player I spent hours just putting stones on the board to see shapes that I was tring to understand. I essentially was playing myself, ensuring that I practiced what I needed. I encountered many positions very quickly which would have taken me lots of games to see in real play. Of course it was artificial, but I still got to see how to counter my own ideas.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

That is not to say that learning does not take place during a game -- even at the pro level. Some years ago I played a yose demo with Nam Chihyung, where we played out an endgame position and then switched sides and replayed it. It seemed to me that she learned more about the game position during the first play out than I did. We meet novel positions all the time during play, and learning about them is part of the game.

This is especially so when we are just starting out, which helps to explain the advice to "lose 100 games quickly". There would be no point to that unless rank beginners learned a lot just by playing. The talk about losing is to emphasize that the point of playing so many games is not to win, but to learn. "Quickly" emphasizes that there is little point to going into deep thought when you have not learned much to think about. One thing missing from that advice is the review. Review is a very important part of the learning process, even if you have to do it by yourself, and having just played a game provides material to review.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

10:1 or 5:1 make sense to me in that my experience across many fields has been many hours "wasted" for precious minutes gained. You're not talking about 10 hours of "in the zone" study, you're talking about the totality of study, including all the "wasted" efforts going over something until finally it clicked and you made progress. I don't consider these wasted, there is nothing intellectually complex in life that you can achieve 100% productivity with. Sometimes you have to spend a lot of time trying to learn something the wrong way before you figure out the right way to approach it.

Of course, the real argument is over what exactly constitutes study in that sentence. Are reviews study for example? Does what Bill Spight relayed from learning bridge of play fast, review slowly echo the title of this thread in a non-obvious way? It's interesting.

I would assume the 10:1 includes all study of all kinds (tsumego, reviewing played games, etc)...even then might be a little steep. Imagine you were a series go student. If you studied 10 hours in a day you'd allow for one game/day. This might work if you ignore tournaments...but still sounds like too much... of course I'm one of those of the opinion you can't learn to box just by reading a book...

You can't learn to box by just stepping into the ring either (believe me ). With any martial art the amount of training that surrounds competitive fighting is enormous for serious practitioners, far more than 10:1.