Let us begin.

So with this, I am referring to the amount of work people put into getting better at Go and the results they expect. This includes study programs/camps/etc.

First of all, let's define rank. Your rank is typically an average of your strengths and weaknesses in Go. You could be a 2k Go player, but that might mean you are a 1k in the opening, maybe a 4k in fundamentals, and a 3k in the endgame. And when you play other people, your strengths and weaknesses are what end up resulting in your victory or defeat in the game. It also is why so many people have games where they say "I started out so bad, but i won" or "i started out great, why did i lose?". Typically it is because they were stronger in the area that you were weak or vice versa.

So how does this apply to "effort and results"?
Well, if you're doing some form of self study, it is very likely that you have no idea where your strengths and weaknesses are. You could very well be putting effort into something that is already at a high enough level but where you are deficient is something else that ends up dragging you down. In this way, simply putting effort into something might not necessarily yield the results you want to see. To add to this, even if someone is pointing out what they think your weaknesses are, if you approach this the wrong way, you still might not see the results you want.

Let's move on to study camps or things like that, such as people who say "i have a few months, i'm going to really put forth the effort to improve"

Here is the problem with that sort of effort. The amount of knowledge you need to really comprehend in Go is pretty vast. What that means is in this amount of time you're putting forth effort, you can only experience so much. The lessons you learn might be useful, but the multitude of situations that you can come across might mean those lessons might not show up for the next however many games you play. Now yes, there are some basic fundamentals that show up quite regularly from game to game, and you can learn those over and over until they start to really take effect in the game, but for a lot of the concepts you learn as you get stronger, they might be more specific things that you might not see all that regularly, let alone remember. In my opinion, a proper amount of time before things start really showing about be closer to the better part of a year.

Which leads me to my next point, actually learning the things that you've been taught.

For the easiest example, let's take a very basic life and death book. If you can go through them and finish them relatively quickly, most peoples approach is to think that you can just go on to the next go book as you've "finished it". Many pros advice is the opposite, which is to go back and start the book once more, until playing the right move becomes instant and second nature. This goes along with an important lessons that you learn from a Go game. It isn't enough to just simply say "oh this is what I did wrong" and get on with playing. You must go back and re-review the review to really understand what you need to do to get better. Without that, the effort you put in usually has pretty poor results.

Also, another issue is the quality of materials learned and time it takes to digest.

A huge issue with a lot of players (myself included) is to tackle very difficult things, be it go problems, books, joseki, etc. However, that typically can give poor results. The simple reason is that you aren't good enough to easily take on these issues. A typical thing my teacher has told me is that if it takes too long to answer a go question, just look at the answer and go to the next question. The reason being that the effort that you're putting in, while commendable, is on something that might very well be out of your league. What's better is to do the things that you can easily understand until they become second nature until you can easily find the answer. This goes along with Joseki (see my previous post for that discussion).

To add to that is how long it takes to digest something new. The brain can typically only learn so much per day (this can be argued for/against, but for the most part lets roll with it). And the amount of time it takes might be a very long time. It is why some people will not really see/feel results from a go camp. The things you learned might not either show up in previous games, or when it shows up again, you've forgotten the lesson.

All in all, this really isn't meant to discourage people, just help people be more realistic about what to expect over time, especially with certain amounts of improvement. Getting better at Go is sorta like training for long distance running. You can't expect to do a months worth of training and immediately be able to easily run a marathon, you have to work up to it.

That puts it a little strongly, but it is common not to be aware of where your problems lie. That is one reason that I say to study everything. You can also get good feedback about your relative strengths and weaknesses from goproblems.com, where the problems are all rated. Another way is to use the GoGoD software to play over pro games and guess the next move. What plays and positions give you the most difficulty?

Generally people will get the most benefit per effort expended by focusing on weaknesses and problem areas. There is a kind of law of diminishing returns at work. In general, the better you are at something, the more difficult it is to get even better. OTOH, the reasons that one is poor at something may be such that they are difficult to overcome.



I have snipped the criticism here. Go camps and study groups are highly motivating to participants. And do not underestimate the value of training and studying with other people. There is a synergy that amplifies the benefits for everyone, as a rule. The very fact that people have different strengths and weaknesses means that players of the same rank can learn from each other.



There is no question that there is value to overlearning. Reviewing and cementing the basics is always good. There is a problem with review until you see the right answer instantly, which is that you may be recognizing the problem based upon only a few cues, which are not enough to guarantee that the answer is correct. Another question is that of diminishing returns. Problems that you can solve with confidence may not be the best place to put your efforts. More difficult problems can be more rewarding. (It is true that reducing the time to solve a problem can make it more difficult, but that is a different question. )

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Black to play
$$ ------------
$$ | . . O X . .
$$ | . O O X . .
$$ | . O X X . .
$$ | X X O X . .
$$ | . O O X . .
$$ | . O X X . .
$$ | . X . . . .
$$ | . . X . . .
$$ | . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . .[/go]

This is like a problem that I ran across some years ago. I got it wrong.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Failure
$$ ------------
$$ | 2 3 O X . .
$$ | 1 O O X . .
$$ | . O X X . .
$$ | X X O X . .
$$ | . O O X . .
$$ | . O X X . .
$$ | . X . . . .
$$ | . . X . . .
$$ | . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . .[/go]

I thought that this was the answer. Ko.

Ignoring the common advice, I looked at the answer.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Black kills
$$ ------------
$$ | 2 1 O X . .
$$ | . O O X . .
$$ | 3 O X X . .
$$ | X X O X . .
$$ | . O O X . .
$$ | . O X X . .
$$ | . X . . . .
$$ | . . X . . .
$$ | . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . .[/go]

OC, I felt stupid. But here is my point. That one time was all it took for me to get the point. (I did overlearn it by solving it again, months later.) I understood it well enough that it took me hardly any time at all just now to recreate the key position. The actual problem probably had a somewhat different layout, but that does not matter.

Understanding gives you speed.



Indeed.



Going on to the next question may not be a good idea if it is also too hard.

Also, the answer to the problem of tackling a learning task that is too hard is not to tackle tasks that are too easy. It has been a long time since I studied learning theory, but I am reasonably sure that this advice still holds up. Tackle learning tasks of medium difficulty, neither too hard not too easy, problems that you can solve about half the time.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I got this problem wrong a couple times in my first runs through Cho Elementary. But experience in wrong reading trumps shape-spotting, and one day suddenly I just realised I could do better than ko. Now, this kind of shape/position is not only overlearnt (likely 6-7 times solved, more like 10-12 since it's also in other overtraining collections I have) but it's one I know consciously, and has added weight to "read well, read more, read wide"

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

A point upon which we disagree. Overlearning getting it wrong is learning to get it wrong.

Maybe not a discussion for this thread. Besides, it is an empirical question.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Yup, we disagree on this, but writing on iPad makes me write less clearly than I should. Reading lots of problems, and being shown thousands of other shapes trumps shape-spotting, eventually.

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

There is not a sharp dichotomy here. Shape spotting is part of reading.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Hmmm. I just made this up. A variant, but maybe not on a theme.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Black to play
$$ --------------
$$ | . . X O X . .
$$ | . O O O X . .
$$ | . O X X . X .
$$ | X X O X . . .
$$ | . O O X . . .
$$ | . O X X . . .
$$ | . X . . . . .
$$ | . . X . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . .[/go]

Edit: Fixed! Thanks, DrStraw.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

You had it indented.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

And another.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Black to play
$$ ------------
$$ | . . O X . .
$$ | . O O X . .
$$ | X O X X . .
$$ | . O O X . .
$$ | X X O X . .
$$ | . O X . X .
$$ | . O X . . .
$$ | O O X . . .
$$ | X X X . . .
$$ | . . . , . .
$$ | . . . . . .[/go]

Not a bad flashcard set, eh?

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.