Bantari wrote:


When I read Robert's posts, I'm reminded of this bit from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass:

I think the issue behind this debate is that the subject matter at hand is extremely fuzzy and, as pointed out earlier, ill-defined. It seems too hard to make sweeping generalizations that can accurately characterize the nature of "1-dan level" play. Robert's ideas are more or less right (some are righter than others) but ultimately we have to take them as abstractions, rather than as scientifically-rigorous principles.

since the energy was put into a reply i suppose i should put the energy in to retort

of course, i disagree
simply put, not all ___d/___k's are created equal
i've said it on here before, but your "rank" is an average of your strengths across the board. you can be a 3d in the opening but a 2k in fighting. this is why people can be inconsistent in playing other ranks that are higher or lower than them
typically "fundamentals" in the asian sense is a knowledge of basic shape and fighting, which is why in the chinese learning system they let kids get good at that before bothering with opening concepts

but i've said all that before, let's get to the amusing point and counterpoints

- They know that they should avoid blunders, but their blunder rate is ca. 2 or 3 per game on average.
if they were smart enough to avoid the blunder, they wouldn't make it. it's a classical thing of "you don't know what makes you incompetent"
sometimes it's not even the player making the blunder, but being able to take advantage of the opponents blunders
to simply put a "number" on the number of blunders they make is also misleading and incorrect
i know i make more than 2-3 blunders per game (thanks to my teacher)

- They know that there can be different answers to a corner approach, but they do not always decide among tenuki, extension, pincer or blocking the corner. Instead they sometimes consider only part of these choices.
see above, but this is everybody, not just a "half understanding of fundamentals"
nobody really has a good grasp of joseki at the amateur level
i'd put this as a thought process thing and not really a "fundamental" problem based on the definition that i've given in the asian sense
if they were aware of what a joseki was capable of, they'd be able to play it. but simply saying "DID YOU LOOK HARDER?" isn't the problem

- They sometimes construct a moyo of intermediate size along an edge, thinking it would be territory and so omitting a reinforcement. Their strategy is spoiled when the opponent simply invades.
this is fighting strength sometimes and sometimes this is just overambitiousness
this is everybody and not really a 1d problem, hell pros can make this mistake too
i once asked a pro what a difference between a moyo that was "big" and a moyo that was "too big"
the pro answered that the difference lies in whether or not i am confident or strong enough to defend what i mark out as mine
so this again, really isn't a half understanding of fundamentals. it's more you imposing that they don't play the same way as you
a proper teacher is able to realize a player's style and teach them things to supplement that
a person who is always used to making moyos won't suddenly change around and become a territory focused safe player.

- They do not always do proper local move selection.
basic shape
so, yea. i guess i agree?
but i wouldn't say shape is purely a 1d problem or is something different than basic shape

- They often rely on a proverb for choosing extensions, instead of verifying their connections tactically.

yea umm... ok
i'll just say that this is the same as the whole "not knowing what makes you incompetent"
if you say this is a problem of not thinking through, that's valid. but you're imposing a trait on too broad a type of people

- They are sometimes unaware of endgame aspects relevant during opening and middle game. (Don't play just some move, but a move fulfilling a major purpose with also the best impact on the endgame later.)

shape again. and the "not knowing"
but that's everybody and not just a "1d" thing

- They sometimes choose strategies purely for fun, instead of verifying whether they can also be justified.

i don't see what the problem of playing what you want is and how this is a lack of fundamentals
the famous takemiya quote is "play the move you want to play" instead of striving for victory

- In a tournament game, they spend 5 minutes on a life and death problem to verify death, but sometimes overlook ko.

broad generalization, not useful
and sometimes even pros can make huge blunders and overlook things

- They are occasionally completely surprised by stronger players' sacrifice strategies, which they overlooked completely.
i'm sure you have the same with players' stronger than you, so i mean...



in conclusion
i think most of the things you've listed applies to everybody and not just 1ds
some of them make no sense so you'll have to clarify

again, the concept of asian teachers thinking 1d as a grasp of fundamentals
there are times even now with basic shape moves that my teacher says "even a 5k wouldn't do this"
so another way of defining fundamentals is understanding and playing correctly most of the common board situations and positions. as time goes by there are more uncommon ones until you get to higher ranks where they come up with crazy new ones (hurrah hurrah)
but only after grasping these fundamentals can you really start learning and using concepts (for most westerners its the other way around)
the easiest analogue is joseki and fuseki. since they're so tightly linked, you need to know and grasp most joseki before you start really learning and playing fusekis.
the story i had with an old teacher was when i was deciding which books to buy, i asked my teacher whether or not i should buy a big fuseki book. to which my teacher said "you don't even know the basic josekis yet, what are you doing bothering with fuseki?"

often, IMO fundamentals is about more than shapes and fighting. In fact, every topic has its fundamentals and advanced knowledge.

The stated principle for answers to a corner approach is not meant to require advanced joseki understanding, but is simply matter of reminding oneself to check every basic initial option and of doing that check.

Concerning the defense of a side moyo, I have not meant it to be a matter of judging by reading. It is a matter of simply considering the simplest first defense move versus first easy reduction move at all. To consider a first move versus not even to consider it at all is a matter of fundamentals. This has nothing to do with style.

Local move selection is not just a matter of basic shape. Basic shape can be correct, or there can be a better move.

Early endgame considerations can, but need not, be a shape issue.

Takemiya does not apply his own quote to play what one wants without reading (except maybe for early opening moves): he verifies moves by reading.

The overlooking ko aspect is useful, because it is useful to check every possible result in an LD situation.



The principles should be applied by everybody. They are applied by strong dans, they are not always applied by 1d, they are not known by too many weak kyus.



Understanding will be easier, if you do not try to overload them with your (often good, but for the purpose) too advanced ideas, such as reading, when only a first move consideration is referred.



I do not buy it that Asian teachers would postpone concepts. Should Kageyama (teaching more than only shapes and fighting) be a rare exception?



It depends on your actual rank and what he meant by "the basic josekis".

I think it is worth pointing out that the 1-Dan fundamental understandings probably don't subsume a 2-3 kyu's understandings of fundamentals, though many players seem to feel this way.

I think this a prime example of poor teaching, and a poor understanding of fundamentals. Firstly, your teacher expects you to learn all of the joseki before learning Fuseki, even the joseki you won't use. What your teacher is missing is that a selection of fuseki can minimize the number of joseki you need to learn, furthermore many of the Fuseki require non-joseki approaches and invasions, the literature are littered with phrases like "we can't just play joseki because it is one." Thirdly if you are interested in Fuseki why discourage it? I suspect the teacher does not know Fuseki very well.

Do you really think that often's 2p teacher doesn't understand fuseki? Could it be that she knew/knows his weaknesses and wants him to focus on them?

Perhaps you should reconsider your post?

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

I fail to see how knowing the "basic josekis" is equivalent to learning "all of the joseki".

_________________
http://tchan001.wordpress.com
A blog on Asian go books, go sightings, and interesting tidbits
Go is such a beautiful game.

What I think is funny is that we all know that the title would be "A 5 Dan's Half Understanding of Fundamentals" were RJ 8 dan.
I would very much like to find a pro to comment on the number of blunders Robert makes in his games to see if they are below 1 or 2. Of course, using Robert's definition of blunder, whatever that is.

uPWarrior, there can be different "definition" of fundamentals, so that a 5d only half understands them etc., but then it becomes 1/10 understanding of a 1d.

5d still blunder a lot in blitz / byoyomi-only games, so it is easy enough to identify blunders there. When I speak of fewer than 1 blunder per game on average, it is for games with much thinking time.

Definition of blunder: see the dictionary citation further above. Of course, it is still necessary to agree on where "big" starts and how to measure it (miai value?), and what exactly qualifies as a "lack" of thought. Here is a suggestion: at least 10 points miai value; a lack of thought can be assessed in contrast to avoiding it for sure with another 10 seconds of careful thought to recall something at all plus the reasonable time needed to verify it by reading or calculation. (For an atari, no additional time is needed. For having forgotten to determine LD of a group at all, 10 seconds are allowed to recall that it must be determined, then additional time is allowed to do the reading.)

That's OK, I don't think there are really all that many "Advanced Joseki". Maybe a handful, and your basic 1-Dan probably does't recommend studying those either.

What his teacher suggests seems to be that he first acquaints himself with a few basic josekis before starting the subject of fuseki. Nowhere does it say that he needs to learn a comprehensive overview of ALL the various josekis before he can start learning fuseki. Your interpretation seems to suggest that he had been advised to have a complete understanding of ALL of the joseki before he is allowed to learn fuseki. Perhaps you fail to understand this difference.

_________________
http://tchan001.wordpress.com
A blog on Asian go books, go sightings, and interesting tidbits
Go is such a beautiful game.

So rather than admitting your error, you will just have a snark-fest. Okay, thanks for demonstrating your character.

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

I just don't think the definition of "basic" joseki is relevant to the main points of my post, and quite frankly I consider the term "basic" denigrating, which is why I omitted it, especially considering most "basic" joseki will be seen at all levels of play. Maybe what the teacher meant was, "They recommend learning simple joseki, before learning complicated Fuseki." However, I don't see why simple Fuseki shouldn't be learned in conjunction with simple Joseki, it just doesn't make sense.

Sounds like the type of person who would prefer memorizing all the different sets of go rules first before playing go rather than just learning the "basic" rules of go because that would be so denigrating.

By the way, if you have doubts about what the teacher meant, maybe it's not quite "a prime example of poor teaching, and a poor understanding of fundamentals" as you thought it might be.

_________________
http://tchan001.wordpress.com
A blog on Asian go books, go sightings, and interesting tidbits
Go is such a beautiful game.

I don't understand, why "basic" is bad. Normally, one must know basic things before learning advanced things, be the basics simple or complicated. Is this valuation a normal phenomenon of the postmodern society?

often's thesis, as I understand it, is pretty simple. Learn the fundamentals before worrying too much about advanced concepts. You can play the greatest fuseki ever and it means nothing if you hane where you should have extended, resulting in a big death.

You seem to discuss anything but this, raging at teachers you don't know, and now taking exception about a word, "basic," that is actually used in the title of what is probably the best-selling English language joseki book.

Personally, I doubt one can reach 1d without a reasonable (or half according to RJ) understanding of the fundamentals. I don't have advanced fuseki skills, but fortunately, that hasn't been required to get to 1d.

Perhaps often's teacher wasn't a compete idiot after all.

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

Normally indeed. The problem is: it is pretty hard to identify the basic things of go theory well. It took me many years to get a clear view on at least part of the basic things. Now I am impressed just how useful they are. However, without easy access to all the basic things, one needs to proceed to more advanced things, while using somewhat complicated and dubious approximations of the basic things.

To me, this sounds a tall order. I'd say: learn first basics, then advanced stuff, then fundamentals. For example; many people are skilled in using real numbers long before taking the course on Fundamentals of Real Analysis.

Basics and fundamentals are the same thing, I assume, for often and wineandgolover (and for me).
They are the foundation. The former is just easier to say and to type. In your example, you are comparing real numbers to real analysis, which are quite different.

If you compare fundamentals of real analysis to advanced real analysis, then we are on the same page again.