It is currently Thu May 01, 2025 2:21 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: What are "the Basics"?
Post #41 Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:34 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 9552
Liked others: 1602
Was liked: 1712
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
RobertJasiek wrote:
Bonobo wrote:
he was talking about daal, a person, not about their post, a thing. This is not about things, this is about people.


Sure; and, to calm down matters in my reply to Kirby, I have used a factual rather than a personal style. Now you misinterpret me as not calming down matters? What about your social competence? O o. It is possible to write one sentence here without misunderstanding?:)

Quote:
Isn’t it better to motivate by first telling “the kid” how well it performs?


Disucssion should proceed rather than state the obvious. I am a child of usenet discussion, where the factual, anti-kid style is frequent.


By the way, I like the "factual style", even if I don't always utilize it.

_________________
be immersed

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: What are "the Basics"?
Post #42 Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:01 pm 
Oza
User avatar

Posts: 2221
Location: Germany
Liked others: 8268
Was liked: 924
Rank: OGS 9k
OGS: trohde
Universal go server handle: trohde
RobertJasiek wrote:
[..] to calm down matters in my reply to Kirby, I have used a factual rather than a personal style.

Note that I wrote above, a few posts ago, that you had criticized ad rem, not at hominem ;)


Quote:
Now you misinterpret me as not calming down matters?

No-no-no, all is fine (now).


Quote:
What about your social competence? O o.

I guess I’m the last to be able to talk about my own social competence. But actually, I think my social competence is, uhm, brillant :twisted: OK, forget that. All I can say is that I have over a decade of experience teaching kids from age of 11 to age 92. What I remember is that we both loved working with and learning from each other.


Quote:
It is possible to write one sentence here without misunderstanding?:)

(Assuming that there is a “not” missing here …) No-no, we’re getting better. Ev’rything’s fine. Let’s just move on. All is well. Peace :-)


Quote:
Isn’t it better to motivate by first telling “the kid” how well it performs?

Disucssion should proceed rather than state the obvious. I am a child of usenet discussion, where the factual, anti-kid style is frequent.[/quote]
Usenet, me too. Even though I probably am quite a bit older than you. I’m actually a child of the end-60s and 70s (if we’re talking about our youth socialization). Nevertheless … usenet … netiquette … I remember there was something about the person on the other side of the cable … but you know what? Suddenly I have the feeling that all is fine and my, uhm, preaching is obsolete already. Just forget it, OK? ;)

Peace, Tom

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS? :)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: What are "the Basics"?
Post #43 Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:23 pm 
Lives in sente

Posts: 706
Liked others: 252
Was liked: 251
GD Posts: 846
RobertJasiek wrote:
daal wrote:
I don't agree that the concept of an eye should be replaced with the concept of life. I think that eyespace precedes life, and is more elemental and thus more basic. You expressed a differing opinion, and while I respect the fact that you are stronger and have more experience, your characterization of what I wrote sounds as if you are calling me a charlatan and I resent it.


By writing "the basics are", you have expressed your preference for limiting the scope to only three concepts. When doing so, it is of great importance to choose the three most appropriate ones.

You have also chosen to start above the rules. Liberties are part of the rules, but surely liberties are important and can also be extended to other types of liberties than those physical liberties occurring in the rules.

The concept of eye is an illusion, until one draws a very close connection to life. The type of "eye" used for independent life is unambiguous only if life is already given and eye can be derived from the possibility of creation the basic form of life, the two-eye-formation. Something similar can be said for sekis and for semeais. "eye" is derived from "life" and a "seki-eye" is derived from a seki - not vice versa (unless one wants to create confusion by being ambiguous). Therefore "life" comes before "eye".

"eyespace" is something else than "eye", and "potential for eyespace" is yet something else. During a game, potential precedes realisation, but if you want to talk about potential, then it would be better to talk about "to surround space" and call that third the preceding basic besides connection as the second.

No, I don't call you a charlatan or whatever. That I disagree with your post being "excellent" simply means that I think it is only "good" for the mentioned reasons.

If you do not want to express order, then do not use numbers to order your basics. Your opinion has the potential of being perceived as teaching advice by beginners. Therefore I think it is better worked out more carefully. What about the following?

All these basics are important already for early beginners:
- liberties
- connection
- surrounding space
- life
- eyes


In way eyes are just a tesuji to get more liberties or create the situation where liberties cannot be filled. So I guess one can draw the line of basic at the first tesuji. :) I like this list.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: What are "the Basics"?
Post #44 Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:37 pm 
Lives in gote
User avatar

Posts: 603
Liked others: 43
Was liked: 139
Rank: 6-7k KGS
Redbeard wrote:
xed_over wrote:
Just what are the Basics exactly?

Black plays first, white plays second, everything else is pure theory. ;)
-with apologies to Sepp Herberger

If you're going to steal from Sepp Herberger, don't you also need to say something like "The stones are round so that the game may change direction"? ;-)

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: What are "the Basics"?
Post #45 Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:16 pm 
Oza
User avatar

Posts: 2659
Liked others: 310
Was liked: 631
Rank: kgs 6k
We can't be happy with each other yet -- we're only on page 3!


This post by jts was liked by 3 people: Boidhre, Bonobo, Phelan
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: What are "the Basics"?
Post #46 Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 12:25 am 
Judan

Posts: 6269
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 796
Kirby wrote:
is it possible that it might be better to simply respond to the original post directly, and indicate what you personally feel constitute "the basics"?


Yes, if I don't make a mistake of misinterpretation.

Is it possible that you stick to factual discussion instead of making very long meta-discussion including mistakes of misinterpretation?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: What are "the Basics"?
Post #47 Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:20 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 9552
Liked others: 1602
Was liked: 1712
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
RobertJasiek wrote:
Kirby wrote:
is it possible that it might be better to simply respond to the original post directly, and indicate what you personally feel constitute "the basics"?


Yes, if I don't make a mistake of misinterpretation.

Is it possible that you stick to factual discussion instead of making very long meta-discussion including mistakes of misinterpretation?


Well, pretty much everything I say you count toward meta-discussion, so probably not. Maybe if I were to cite my own personal website...

_________________
be immersed

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: What are "the Basics"?
Post #48 Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:51 am 
Lives with ko

Posts: 221
Liked others: 38
Was liked: 35
Rank: 6k
It would be a good to have a thread about the basics of go...


This post by Koroviev was liked by 3 people: Joaz Banbeck, Phelan, xed_over
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: What are "the Basics"?
Post #49 Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 7:01 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 9552
Liked others: 1602
Was liked: 1712
KGS: Kirby
Tygem: 커비라고해
Koroviev wrote:
It would be a good to have a thread about the basics of go...


Hehe. Good point. I won't respond to this thread again unless it's directly about that topic. :-)

_________________
be immersed

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: What are "the Basics"?
Post #50 Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 8:26 pm 
Oza

Posts: 2264
Liked others: 1180
Was liked: 553
Well, I actually expected this kind of off topic discussion -- I just hope you guys don't lock my thread :)

For myself, I don't really find much distinction between "basics" and "fundamentals". From the comments I see from more experienced players to beginners, the usage seems almost interchangeable.

On the other hand, I can see daal's and HKA's distinction between basics and fundamentals.

Joking aside, black and white taking turns sounds like Bonobo's "bloody beginner" category, and not really the kind of basics/fundamentals we're missing or that's holding us back from improving.

I'm surprised EdLee hasn't chimed in with his "broken shape" mantra :)

I agree, nets and ladders should probably be considered part of "the basics". I really suck at nets (and probably not so good with ladders either).

I really like emeraldemon's link to the BasicInstinct list. I think these must be fundamental. I'm surprised I didn't find them when I did a quick perusal of Sensei's Beginner pages. I think they should be easier to find.

Yeah, I know... everyone seems to really like Kageyama's book. I just can't stand it. But the Chapter titles do seem to suggest some very fundamental concepts. (I really should force myself to read it -- yes, I do own a copy)

So when I read reviewer comments that vaguely say, "go learn the fundamentals/basics", are these the specific concepts they are talking about? Because I just get the impression that there are still additional concepts that Asian pros think Western amateurs still aren't grasping yet.

It just bothers me when I read reviewer comments that mention learning the basics or fundamentals without saying specifically which ones they are talking about. Its like when I'm reading a book on System Administration and it says "if you don't know how to do this step, then go ask your system administrator". I just start yelling at the book, "but I am the system administrator, and I bought this book to learn how to do this and you're not telling me how!".

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: What are "the Basics"?
Post #51 Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:07 pm 
Oza
User avatar

Posts: 2659
Liked others: 310
Was liked: 631
Rank: kgs 6k
Basics and bloody beginner are very tightly tied together in my mind. I wasn't joking when I said that it's hard to explain basics without sounding condescending, because they generally sound like something that "everyone" knows. Kageyama's chapter on ladders is a perfect example of that.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: What are "the Basics"?
Post #52 Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:09 am 
Lives in gote
User avatar

Posts: 558
Location: Carlisle, England
Liked others: 196
Was liked: 342
IGS: Reisei 1d
Online playing schedule: When I can
Kirby wrote:
Yeah, I know... everyone seems to really like Kageyama's book. I just can't stand it. But the Chapter titles do seem to suggest some very fundamental concepts. (I really should force myself to read it -- yes, I do own a copy)


I`ve been thinking about this book. Unfortunately, my own copy is back in England, but on review of the SL page concerning it, here`s my tentative take on it: the fundamentals are not stated explicitly, but are revealed as a subtext.

For example, you could take the chapter on ladders at face value; or, you could take it to mean "read".

Again, you might simply read the game commentary as an interesting account of his victory over Rin in an important match. But, you might also take the fundamental lesson that anybody can beat anybody else, and so you should not fear a stronger opponent.

Maybe that's what is brilliant and original about this book. Instead of telling you what to think, it helps you to find it for yourself. Like all such works, there is room for misunderstanding and opinion; but does learning always proceed in a straight line?

I`ll leave you with this: if beginner books and second-stage texts tell you much the same things (see my earlier post in this thread), and Kageyama`s book guides you to find the same things for yourself, without stating them in so many words, then what is the most basic basic that it brings to you?

"Think!"

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:


This post by Tami was liked by 2 people: Bonobo, Phelan
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: What are "the Basics"?
Post #53 Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:24 am 
Oza

Posts: 2264
Liked others: 1180
Was liked: 553
Tami wrote:
Kirby (or was it xed_over?) wrote:
...
...

I think I said that, not Kirby :)


This post by xed_over was liked by: Kirby
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject:
Post #54 Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:09 am 
Honinbo
User avatar

Posts: 8859
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Liked others: 349
Was liked: 2076
GD Posts: 312
xed_over, actually I thought you asked a very good question. :)
I've been following this thread from your very first post, have been
thinking about it, and of course have some ideas, ranging from
one-liners, to bullet lists, to longer texts. Very interesting.

Some thoughts:
- Compare and contrast the "basics" in other fields, such as music (say, piano skills),
math, drawing, languages, fishing, driving, swimming, tennis, dancing, golf, etc.

- Sometimes, just because we can define something does not necessarily make it
easier to understand, to teach, or to learn. :) Not to mention things that are impossible to define.
Sometimes, examples (a few or a lot) are much more powerful (than any definition).
(Corollary: limitations in languages/words/texts, vs. experiences.)
(Related: teaching by general ideas, vs. by examples, vs. by experience.)
(Related: learning from general ideas, vs. from examples, vs. from experience.)

- Even pros (in any fields) are still (always) working on their basics.
- Often applicable (in any fields): when stuck, go back to the basics.

PS. Funny thing is I actually did not think about broken shapes in particular
as related to your question, thought of course they are very basic. :)


This post by EdLee was liked by: Bonobo
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: What are "the Basics"?
Post #55 Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:14 am 
Lives in gote
User avatar

Posts: 558
Location: Carlisle, England
Liked others: 196
Was liked: 342
IGS: Reisei 1d
Online playing schedule: When I can
xed_over wrote:
Tami wrote:
Kirby (or was it xed_over?) wrote:
...
...

I think I said that, not Kirby :)


Sorry! :bow:

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:


This post by Tami was liked by: Kirby
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: What are "the Basics"?
Post #56 Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:40 am 
Judan

Posts: 6269
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 796
Tami wrote:
the fundamentals are not stated explicitly, but are revealed as a subtext.


The Kageyama does not teach [all] the fundamentals but teaches a small PART of the fundamentals.

Quote:
if beginner books and second-stage texts tell you much the same things (see my earlier post in this thread), and Kageyama`s book guides you to find the same things for yourself, without stating them in so many words


It is not correct. After reading the Kageyama and books for a similar level, I needed 19 years to find all the fundamentals needed for DDK level and I will need more study for later books to find all for SDK level. Books like the Kageyama do NOT enable players to find all fundamentals by themselves within a reasonable amount of time. At best, they enable players to find relatively small parts with imprecision. Contrarily, books stating fundamentals explicitly releave learners from having to research and find everything by themselves. Such books save the learners about 2 decades of extra effort for becoming explicitly aware of every necessary fundamental for surpassing their level.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: What are "the Basics"?
Post #57 Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:11 am 
Oza

Posts: 3723
Liked others: 20
Was liked: 4671
I think it may be worth pointing out that Kageyama did not write a book with called Fundamentals of Go, or even one with fundamentals in the title. His book was called Ama to Puro (Amateurs and Professionals. The English title is due to James Davies, and even that is not quite the same as is often made out (it was Lessons in the Fundmantals of Go, which implies a snapshot rather than a comprehensive survey).

Further, I don't thnk Kageyama specifically claimed to be teaching the fundamentals in his book. Hs concern, he said, was to teach the importance of fundamentals, the philospohy of go and how to study. And he does that very entertainingly, both in the original and in a very good translation.

I'd say we need more stuff like Kageyama's rather than a Basic Fundamentals for Dummies (or Fundamental Basics for Dummies). Kageyama also said there is no progress without effort. In the case of go that surely means thinking for yourself (though that surely includes being stimulated to think for yourself by books such as his) rather than expecting to be served up with a plateful of dodgy formulas that have been filtered through somebody else's brain and so may not resonate accurately with what is already in your own brain, or stick there - after all, easy come, easy go.


This post by John Fairbairn was liked by 4 people: Bonobo, jdl, Phelan, Txewì
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: What are "the Basics"?
Post #58 Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:53 am 
Judan

Posts: 6269
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 796
John Fairbairn wrote:
I'd say we need more stuff like Kageyama's


Why? One book for the importance of studying the opening, another book for the importance of studying life and death etc.?? Already the Kageyama does that.

Quote:
rather than a Basic Fundamentals for Dummies


Why "rather"? Why compare several books with only one book? Both the Kageyama (for its function of stating the importance of studying the fundamentals) and the for-Dummies-style books are important.


This post by RobertJasiek was liked by: Bonobo
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: What are "the Basics"?
Post #59 Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:20 am 
Oza
User avatar

Posts: 2221
Location: Germany
Liked others: 8268
Was liked: 924
Rank: OGS 9k
OGS: trohde
Universal go server handle: trohde
(I wish there were a function to like just parts of a post ;))

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS? :)


This post by Bonobo was liked by: Phelan
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: What are "the Basics"?
Post #60 Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:17 am 
Oza
User avatar

Posts: 2777
Location: Seattle, WA
Liked others: 251
Was liked: 549
KGS: oren
Tygem: oren740, orenl
IGS: oren
Wbaduk: oren
Meta discussion activate...

RobertJasiek wrote:
It is not correct.


Try adding "in my opinion" or "in my experience". A statement that says someone else is not correct in this instance can only be an opinion and not fact. This will help you in your communication with others in the future I hope.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group