tekesta wrote:
that scientists usually formulate theories based on observation.
Like in natural sciences, go theory science has both:
1) first observe, then formulate a theory, then verify the theory for the observation.
2) first formulate a theory, then verify the theory for the observation.
I have successfully used both approaches for research in go theory.
Quote:
Wouldn't relative newcomers to the game of Go be more receptive to a theoretical explanation after observing - and experiencing - the game firsthand?
Also newcomers can benefit from both approaches. In particular, newbies do not rediscover everything useful by themselves, but need to get input. Such input can be provided with either approach. E.g. the concept of connecting stones:
1) "Look, in this example, Black connects his strings. This idea is useful in general: always reflect whether your strings can be connected."
2) "One of the most basic ideas is to keep one's related stones connected. Look, in this example, Black applies the idea."
Quote:
At DDK level most players do not have the background experience to make sense of any theory beyond
Therefore, whichever theory is taught to them must be provided to them, if necessary including the background. In additiona, examples do not hurt.
Quote:
Once the player has gained more experience with which to compare new theoretical explanations, then it is practical to include more information.
Alternatively, the player can receive both new theoretical explanations and more information / background / examples.