There is always this clear and concise guide to studying go at Go Game World: http://www.gogameworld.com/2013/03/30/h ... go-series/

Good luck!

I'm more thinking that what he's saying makes some sense once you get strong enough that your games are close pretty regularly (as opposed to ddk where close is a 20 point margin ). Endgame first is pretty dubious advice for a pure beginner. Though any kind of problem would probably be beneficial alongside games early on.

See http://senseis.xmp.net/?Tsumego

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I was just surfing around at Sensei's and found the following approach to study tsumego:

http://senseis.xmp.net/?BeginnersGuideToGoProblems

1) Quick and Fast (just guess the first move)
2) Slow and Sure (read out until you found the solution)

Which one should be tried first when working on a certain tsumego collection? (I've never used the first approach, so maybe that's the reason why I've never become strong..)

Both styles have pro advocates, but I sense that the fast method is garnering more and more support, and has always been used more. However (actually a big HOWEVER), it is not about "guessing" the first move. It is about recognising it, and the method involves no less work than the slow method. The main idea of the method is to do the same problem set repeatedly (and many times) so that the right move just leaps out at you. The first few times you do a problem you are supposed to give it some thought, of course, but if your x-ray eyes can't see the skeleton fairly quickly, you are advised to turn to the solution and get out the autopsy knife. In this process, like Dr Mallard, you make sure the "victim" talks to you and you pay particular attention to the different defences that can be tried. You will know you have mastered a problem when you can look at it after some time away from it and see not only the first move but also the skeleton.

You need more than the 1st move.

Even if the problem were presented without knowledge that there is a solution (problem presented in the form "what is the status?") very often the first move is obvious. In many situations, there is clearly a point that "if the opponent takes this point the matter is decided". But while that first move might be a necessary condition all by itself maybe not a sufficient condition.

However, being able to quickly spot the first move is an important skill all by itself and in over the board play guarantees that "the problem remains a problem" (the status remains undecided for the moment).

This might be a good thread in which to recommend "three move reading". Kato Masao 9p published several books on life-and-death, tesuji, etc., in which he advocated three move reading. This works as follows: you choose a move, then think about what your opponent would/could do in response, then what your next move would be in response to that. Repeat this with a different choice of your first move until you find something you think is good. Some pros seem to think that if you can consistently do three move reading it will take you to dan level amateur strength. I think that if you begin with three move reading and keep it up before long it will become automatic and your reading will progress to greater depth.

My problem for the moment is that I instictivly stop after (around) three moves. I have to actively remind myself that I should read deeper.
Just yesterday I neglected to play a simple Tesuji because after three moves I thought my opponent could thwart my plan, although it was completely fine after five moves. In another game I didn't kill a corner because I thought I had to defend a cut (otherwise a tail from my group would die and my opponent could live either way). After eight moves (straight forward ones) it was clear that I could connect this tail and he just could have caught two totally unrelated stones.

Maybe I solve too many easy problems right now, though even there I get so many wrong on goproblems.com right now. I will observe it further =D

_________________
My "guide" to become stronger in Go

First, let me point out that that is a false dichotomy. They are the extremes of the calculation approach: I play here, he plays there, I play here, . . . Not only are there in between approaches, like the three move approach gowan talks about, but there are other types of approaches, as well.

For instance, you could ask where your opponent would play, if it were his turn. Or you could ask where you would play if you could play two moves instead of just one. Or you could visualize a final position, and then ask how to get there. Another idea, which typically takes software, is, after trying to solve the problem for a time, ask what the next two plays are on the main line and try to solve the remaining problem.

IMO the read it out approach is the worst for absolute beginners (while it may be good for strong players). Go is not about reading everything out. Tic-tac-toe is. To make an analogy with language, absolute beginners do not yet have a vocabulary to form sentences with. They should be learning basic patterns of life and death, not reinventing the wheel from scratch.

Let me introduce the ideas of time and chance. Give yourself a certain amount of time in which to solve a problem. I kind of like two minutes. But when I was in training I gave myself fifteen minutes. These days I often give myself 10 seconds. Once having decided on a time limit, what is the chance that you will solve the problem in that time? A good rule of thumb is to try problems which you have a fifty-fifty chance of solving in the time limit.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

One merit of this approach is that it automatically builds deeper sequences. One obvious way that happens is that sequences concatenate. ABC and CDE become ABCDE. Another is that key points become obvious in the process and if a certain three move sequence leaves a key point unoccupied, you may well see further moves to occupy or control that point.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Strictly in my opinion, Go is superior to chess, in that there is a substantial visual component to studying the board, and doing whole board calculations. I don't think there is any analog in chess in this regards.