macelee posted a life & death problem just now. I took one look and "knew" the answer instantly (felt like a pro for a fleeting moment ). What I mean is that I saw, without any conscious effort, the elements of a possible seki, miai threats to make eyes, shortage of liberties, and possible connection along the edge. I saw a few other peripheral things but was conscious of discarding them at once.

There is a possibility that I am specially attuned to this kind of thing because I edited the massive Gateway to All Marvels, but I am much more inclined to believe that this sort of response is common even among amateurs.

I might add that I also believe that my next response is common among amateurs - I did a very quick calculation of a few moves to satisfy myself I was right, and then very sloppily stopped without looking for killer replies. But that's a response that is curable with a cilice or some other form of self discipline, so is not relevant here.

What is relevant here, to rapid calculation, is that very first approach. I therefore think we need to introduce the concept of "pre-processing" into the conversation. What should be pre-processed, how reliable is it, how is pre-processing done, can it be improved (e.g. by establishing a hierarchy of elements, or by giving useful names to common elements)?

And is pre-processing different from finding a list of best moves to analyse? I think it is, because pre-processing deals with large chunks and more goal-directed ideas.

Rapid calculation does not mean "fast because it is wrong or very incomplete". It should mean "fast despite being correct and reasonably complete". Such can start with pre-processing but the verification part of reading must not be omitted.

So fast that one might not be able to decipher every meaning of every part of one's thinking live does not necessarily mean "subconscious / intuitive reading" but can simply mean the former. One does not get so fast reading by being a beginner staring at positions and miraculously improving one's speed - reading speed requires training, which must also rely on understanding meanings on which training can be built.

This kind of pre-processing is something I had in mind when I proposed applying the idea of the trivium to go ( viewtopic.php?t=10546 ). Perhaps the three point nakade and the miai to prevent the eye would belong to the grammar of go, and chunks would belong to the dialectic. I do think that giving names to things is helpful, as is organizing the material (and a hierarchical structure seems right).

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.