Hi daal, yes, what you wrote is all true and I agree.

There is still value, sometimes, to examine individual, smaller parts --
local analysis -- as opposed to studying only the big picture,
at the neglect of the smaller chunks.

We have Go books ranging from Positional Judgement or
Whole Board Thinking, to Basic Joseki or 500 L&D Problems.

We can easily find analogies for books on the English language or
about English writing and communications.
( Or for other languages, for that matter. )

Snapshot of a 13k user.

Finally! This is exactly how I feel about Go proverbs and guidelines:

The Sense of Style -- Steven Pinker

Some good stuff in this TED talk about Parenting Taboos.
Keeping it here for future reference.

Ed, thanks for starting this thread. It's interesting to reflect on the way that we learn go, and understanding your philosophy of learning (as it relates to go) also helps me to better appreciate your comments on the games that I and others have posted.

I like the Go-Man analogy because it highlights the importance of paying attention to fundamentals (your favorite theme ) and that shortcuts taken today will come with a later cost. Your model can also be used to explain why a teacher can be very helpful: it is extremely difficult to tell which go dots I am missing, especially since (unlike Pac-Man) I can pass over the same dot several times without actually picking it up.

I think daal is right, though, that it is important to include synthesis as an essential element of our model of learning go. This relates to the first few posts of the thread: understanding go is more than just the acquisition of knowledge. I think you intend to convey this with the Go-Man model (the Go-dots don't necessarily correspond to knowledge), but the nature of the model makes it easy to miss. We could expand the analogy to make it clear (e.g. there are different colored dots that must be used in the proper combination to beat "boss" characters), but doing so risks damaging the simplicity that makes Go-Man a useful model for emphasizing the points it DOES make well.

I think a metaphor from the realm of creation (the directed construction of a new universe appeals to my romantic side, but building with Lego blocks might work just as well) would emphasize other aspects of learning to play go. Gathering raw materials is still a necessary step, but the way we assemble those materials is also important. There are even times when we might have to deconstruct what we think we know in order to add a missing piece. This also highlights the individual, creative nature of learning: we all strive to form something beautiful with our go, but the individual products we create will certainly differ from one another.

Hi Jeromie,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

The instructions were supposed to transmit some understanding:

Vox article

Some understanding is very difficult to be transmitted accurately.
( Go is only one example from an infinite pool. )

Snapshot of a 25k user:From Critique of my game.

Another popular question: beginner kifus.

From Defeat of the week, post 3:
This.

And mitsun, you didn't digress. At all. You're spot on.

I heartily agree. Without fighting skills, one cannot achieve one's objectives. This raises two questions:

1. How do we get strong at fighting?
2. What objectives should we be aiming for?

Before skipping question 1, because the answer is a bit obvious, I would like to ask a follow-up question: Why are so many of us so lousy at this core competency?

As to 2, I think this is where EdLee's theme of understanding re-arises. We can have the objective to capture some stones, to secure a group, to make an advantageous trade of influence for territory etc., etc. Which objectives should we be following at any particular point in a specific game? How do we decide? In his book Fighting Fundamentals, Robert Jasiek takes the approach of defining all possible objectives, which he also categorizes as primary and secondary aims. The idea is that by being aware of possible objectives, we can better choose among them. Unfortunately, knowledge of something does not necessarily equate to awareness of something, particularly in the heat of battle. Nonetheless, this does represent one approach to leveling-up one's understanding of objectives. What are others?

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Hi daal,

The million dollar question.

Hi daal,

Another million dollar question. You hit the jackpot today.
Good news: I have a slightly better idea about this one than your 1st question.
Bad news: it's not what many people want to hear, which is another meta-theme running in this thread.

Here's fresh evidence, hot off the press, while I was still editing
the previous post -- from Defeat of the week, post 7 --
( my emphasis )

Ed, when you tell people they need to work on the basics and get an ambivalent response, I don't think it's because they don't believe you. I think it's because it's such a broad answer that it transmits very little information. It's the flip side of the overly general questions that you (rightly) point out are not very useful for gaining strength at go.

I think this circles back to your first few posts in this thread. There are certain type of go knowledge that lend themselves well to study. Topics such as fuseki, joseki, direction of play, etc. can largely be learned by immersing oneself in theory and intentionally practicing that theory in games. I think that's why these topics are disproportionately represented in the go literature (including the literature by professional go players who are good teachers!) and talked about on go forums: it makes sense to talk about them because we can learn something. What we learn may not make us a whole lot stronger, but it does have some value.

On the other hand, fighting is a lot more difficult to talk about in a constructive manner. We can build up some mental shortcuts by learning a few tesuji, studying some basic ideas about good shape, and memorizing a few living/dead shapes, but in the end these ideas can only be solidified by a lot of practice in games (and, to some degree, tsumego). Getting better at reading is a lot of work, and I don't think there is a way to take shortcuts past the effort it requires.

What we can do for one another is to point out specific failures in the application of the basics. If you were to review one of my games and just tell me I need to work on the basics, I would agree with you but wouldn't learn anything. If you were to tell me that I missed a specific shape point during a fight or failed to recognize the key point for life and death in a corner / side problem, I would be likely to take something valuable away from the review. (Thank you for the times when you have done just that!)

It's also important to remember that many of us are here to engage with other go players, not just to get stronger. I doubt there's a strong correlation between time spent on L19 and the rate of improvement in our go. If there is a correlation, it's probably negative. I could/should be working through tsumego right now if gaining strength were my only purpose, but I care about engaging the community surrounding any hobby in which I participate. This biases the sort of questions we are likely to ask one another towards those that foster discussion.

As to the importance of professional lessons, I have no doubt they would be helpful. But they don't fit in my budget, and there are a lot of ways I can improve without a professional (even if they may not be as efficient). Classical pianists probably have a very high rate of tutelage under a professional, but many of the quite remarkable musicians that play at my local bluegrass jam probably took a different path to mastery of their instruments. One thing they probably did get, though, is invest a lot of time playing with stronger players--something that is hard to get in online go, where we almost always spend our playing time matched up with people at around our own level. Figuring out how to match up interested new players with stronger players who are willing to play high handicap games would probably be one of the best things we could do to help people improve more quickly (if that is even our goal!).

Years ago the New Year's issue of Kido asked all the pros to give a word of advice to amateurs on how to improve in the coming year. The most frequent bits of advice were to play a lot, to play thickly, to get a rival, and to play against players who are about 3 stones stronger.

That strength difference seems about right to me. 2 stones is not much of a difference, but 3 stones definitely is. You can learn a lot from someone that strong. 5 stones, however, is such a big difference that a lot of the time you won't know what they are doing.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

From S2W's journal, post 113:This is a good one; I'm keeping it.

I can't say that I agree with this. The key skill for fighting is reading. From my anecdotal evidence, practically everyone I talk to admits that their reading skills are poor. (Anyone disagree? Anyone here whose reading skills are "good?"


"Basics" is a wide field. It includes such concepts as: shape, joseki, the opening, tesuji, reading, whole board vision... etc. Not every question about these subjects is a vague or general question.


I have also observed this, but I don't see it as evidence for people not admitting that there is a problem. The people making the videos want to teach a lesson that their viewers can understand. They know that their viewers won't be able to follow long discursions about reading. To me, this indicates that they recognize the problem.


Not having had a good teacher for a "non-trivial" amount of time is also not evidence that people don't see their reading skills as poor. It is rather an indication that they either a) don't want to invest that kind of money in improving their go skills or b) they are not convinced that a good teacher is necessary.


What this thought experiment shows is that people (in the west) have skewed assumptions about how to improve at go and how to improve at piano. Counter question: How many amateur high dans (with strong reading skills) in Korea, China and Japan have had a professional teacher for a "non-trivial" amount of time?


I agree; I just disagree with your thesis that the general tendency in the West is to not admit that our fighting skills are poor.



I get your point that we have little reason to expect our fighting skills to be anything but sub-optimal, but... I didn't say "Gee...?!" (Aren't you usually a stickler for not wanting misleading words placed in your mouth?). In other words, I asked a simple question, without incredulity, or the implication that it should be otherwise.

In any case, I don't think you can reduce the answer to lack of professional teaching. Most of those with good piano skills have not only had a teacher, but also, most of them have started at a young age. Most of them grew up in an environment in which good piano skills were valued and appreciated. Most of them had a piano at home, that others in their family also played. Most of us in the West have none of these advantages regarding go. This has not dampened our (we go-aficionados') desire to improve our understanding. A good professional teacher is one way, but not the only one. This is also the case for adults learning the piano. I would point out that in your fictive* piano forum, probably none would achieve anything close to a professional level of skill, but many would nonetheless improve, glean a greater understanding of the skills involved in playing the piano, and increase their enjoyment of (making) music.

*If you are curious to explore the differences, you might check out: http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Hi Jeromie, yes, you bring up some good points.

daal, Thanks for the piano forum. I had a feeling such a thing existed. There's probably a forum for many, many fields.

A difference between Go and piano or golf is that it is quite difficult to replicate a piano performance or a golf action, but it is possible to replicate a Go-playing performance with complete accuracy and clarity using only a Go set or an electronic goban. This would make a big difference in a coffee-shop scenario.

_________________
Regards,

Peter