I'd like to continue a bit more on the idea that a 4d/5d should not write books on Go Theory. More generally, one can ask the question how strong anyone should be at their particular skill to be a good writer or teacher.

Clearly teachers should be strong pedagogically but they should also inspire, which can probably only be accomplished by excelling at the skill.

However, it is possible in my opinion to study a skill thoroughly and sharing that study in form of a theory book, even if one doesn't show full mastery of the skill under all conditions. Such theory book may not be the best book in the discipline, but to say it is a bogus effort would be too harsh.

Conversely, there are very intuitive people who have mastered a skill without having studied it analytically. I doubt whether such people can convey their art through a book. They would definitely need a ghost writer and someone strong enough at their skill to translate the intuitive ideas into form.

In any case, there are not many strong amateurs (I dare not speak of pros) in the Western world who have tried to convey Go theory to the rest of us. Robert at least has devoted an enormous amount of energy into that task and very originally so. If Go Theory were abundantly covered in our part of the world, those efforts would appear ridiculous indeed. In the current state of affairs, I'd rather praise and encourage, despite all the difficulties one encounters when trying to communicate with him.

It's certainly not the likes of MagicWand "I can give H2 to people whom I've lost against even handed" who are going to help the Go World forward.

Knotwilg, I’d “like” your comment if it weren’t for that snipe against MW in your last sentence. Couldn't we just try to encourage what we believe to be “good” behaviour while trying to ignore “bad” behaviour (as fas as tolerable, that is), positive reinforcement or whatsitcalled?

_________________
“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?

I understand the stance against personal attacks, but in my opinion, Robert does the same thing - perhaps a bit mre indirectly (contrary to popular belief). With a constant dialog that his *opinions* are god-given truth, combined with examples such as saying that my posts, for example, are without content and "metadiscussion", how can i take him seriously. No matter what your logic, if your opinion differs with his, you get a line by line diatribe restating RJ's original viewpoint. If that is not poor form, i don't know what is. People suaring robert's opinions will likely view this post as a personal attack, hut if the forum is just gong to turn into a robert j fanclub, i cant say it bothers me.

_________________
be immersed

You get the right point !

Why don't we stop debating but let's discussing about their game

I'm confused to many black's moves
and the way he played is very hard to understand (what's the point of that move!!?)

Or maybe I'm too beginner for this

Sorry for my bad english, It's the time to practice both English and Go !!