Recently, when I've taken the time to solve go problems, I've come to recognize a pattern - perhaps a bad habit.

Basically, I've seen many go problems in the past, especially the ones arising from common shapes. Perhaps because of this experience, when I come across the same problem - or one having a familiar shape - I remember the correct first move. Sometimes I don't remember it clearly, or perhaps I just have a feeling that a particular move is the correct answer.

In any case, due to my past experience in doing the problem or seeing the shape, my mind is closed to other possibilities. As a result, when I "solve go problems", I do not systematically find a solution - I just rely on some sort of fuzzy intuition. When I get the problem correct, this reliance is rewarded. During games, I recognize a similar feeling - I've been in a similar situation before, so instead of clearly and systematically identifying the correct sequence of moves, I end up selecting a move based on past experience - or one that I remember.

How do I solve this problem? I feel that, since my experience sometimes yields the correct answer, I rely on that experience more than systematic and clear thinking.

_________________
be immersed

That intuition is one of the goals of studying. To read deeply, you need heuristics to prune the possible trees. I think there's something to playing games based on intuition, to keep refining that skill so it's correct more often and in more positions.

You also want to keep up the ability to think clearly and read exhaustively, and I think that's mostly a discipline thing. Try sitting down to a problem set and telling yourself you only have the correct answer when you're certain. If that's not enough, tell yourself you need to demonstrate that three alternate paths fail: in real positions there's often multiple solutions, so even if you find the path to life there's still value in further search.

The other thing to try is to collect all the problems where your intuition led you astray. There's a lot of interesting problems based on looking like a common position but with an unusual solution. If you keep studying those, you should refine your intuition so it doesn't leap immediately to the common solution.

Thanks, Polama. I think you have great advice.

I especially like the idea of having the discipline to explore 3 failing paths. This can probably help in understanding the problem more fully, too.

_________________
be immersed

If you have a Tsume-Go of high quality, then there is no superfluous stone in the problem's setup, so that you cannot take any of the stones off the board without affecting the solution.

This implies that you have not really solved the problem if there remains a stone, which role you have not understood.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

There's only a problem with the "closed mind" regarding different candiate moves when your intuitve first move is wrong. But then you did not really remember the actual shape, where this first move is correct. So, I guess you need to revisit the problem, where your intuitive first move is the right one and compare that to the problem, where it is not.

In general my take is to learn more patterns and close my mind to all those not sensible candidate moves, which would just take up time and energy thinking about.

Of course in an actual game, just determine the best move locally might not always be the right move across the whole board. But that is also experience, I guess.

_________________
My "guide" to become stronger in Go

I guess having a "closed mind" to the wrong answer is not necessarily a bad thing - if I'm in a game, it's good to get the correct answer quickly.

I suppose that my fear is that, when I am doing go problems while having this "closed mind", I am not exercising the ability to have a clear and systematic mind for solving situations where my intuition fails.

Thinking about this more, maybe the answer to this is to attempt harder go problems.

_________________
be immersed

1. There is essentially no problem. You are training your intuition, so you are succeeding. You just want it to go faster (cue old joke: Go grant me patience, and I want it NOW!). Polama put all this very well.

2. You feel "guilty" about not using your conscious brain more. Agreed. But what you need to use it on is ways to help your intuition learn more rather than how to read.

3. But here's where I think the problem arises for very many people. People talk about seeing patterns. They are only seeing half of what needs to be seen.

It just so happens that cassandra asked me a question the other day about Dosetsu's own postscript to Igo Hatsuyoron, which forced me to read it again. Dosetsu makes the point that the position of formations of stones (ishidate: what we would call patterns) is the yin of go. But combinations (shudan) which, as it were, shine a light through these skeletons so that we can see how the elements interlink, are the yang of go. He then says it is difficult to achieve perfection unless yin and yang cooperate in harmony. But guess what: although he does go on to say that once you practise combinations the study of the formations becomes even more important, his book is all about "producing yang" - or in chess terms, the art of the combination.

At a very simple level, hane then placement inside is a well-know killing combination, but there is actually a flow within every problem solution. Problems can broadly be categorised according to whether they have one technique (easy), two techniques (moderate) or three (hard). There are only rarely more. It is the steps that have to be learned rather than the pattern.

It interests me that orientals seem to teach martial arts in the same way. Each move is broken down in to, usually, a maximum of three steps. Once you learn them you get a feel for the whole move, and then you practise the flow. Once you learn the flow for one move, the second becomes easier (your intuition takes over).

We are fortunate that we can see this method put into action by Dosetsu himself (Today We Have A Splendid Feast). It is regrettable that only a small portion of this remarkable book survives, but there is enough there for us to apply the same method to all problems with just a bit of extra effort (which is supposed to be a good thing anyway).

Thank you, John, for your thoughtful post.

This distinction between ishidate and shudan, patterns and combinations as you say, is interesting.

My own feeling in doing problems is that this art of "combination" is the most strenuous to my brain. When I am trying to identify a combination that I don't already have ingrained into my intuition, I can feel the effort it takes toward identifying it. Perhaps more specifically, in such situations, I seem to get stuck in repeatedly verifying a "bad combination", which is not correct.

Perhaps this is due to my inability to quickly and accurately evaluate a given pattern at the end of a combination. The two seem to go together, as you suggest.

Maybe the problem I describe in the OP isn't so much of a problem. I guess I just need to do more go problems. That way, I can establish a better sense of patterns, and perhaps have a better time in identifying correct combinations.

_________________
be immersed

Different kinds of problems need different methods of solutions. While opening problem can sometimes profit from subconscious thinking (if one prefers to use it at all), it (or worse: intuition) must not guide local problems, except for optionally determining a preliminary order due to which then to verify by reading different (first) move candidates. So far, this thread seems to be implicitly about only the local kinds of problems.

Solve local problems by tactical reading!

In order to do so, learn to understand how tactical reading works by studying the general advice for it.

In particular, the following is not general advice for problem solving or tactical reading:

- finding the solution
- finding the solution sequence
- finding the solution by using intuition
- doing exhaustive reading (impossible in practice!)
- shapes (they solve only special cases but very similar shapes can have very different behaviours)
- splitting problems into techniques (this works only in a minority of all problems; the majority needs more methods than techniques or cannot be usefully solved with techniques at all)

It is very frequently overlooked that problem solving does not only consist of sequences and stating an outcome as a solution. Equally important is the decision-making among moves and sequences; the decision-making must explain why a particular outcome is a solution.

Tactical reading includes decision-making!

Although Polama comes close to decision-making with "you need heuristics to prune the possible trees", heuristics is the wrong word. Heuristics can be right or wrong. Instead of (mainly) heuristics, it is better to use generally applicable go theory for tactical reading, theory that also prunes but maintains correctness.

Tactical reading best relies on correct, and preferably generally applicable, theory!

Well, and on effort and practice of applying such theory.

Hi, Robert.

Thanks for your reply. I'd like to clarify what you are saying. My interpretation is that you proposing to use tactical reading, by applying theory to the problem. Is this what you are saying?

In terms of practical and actionable steps to achieve this, is there anything different you're recommending other than to simply practice more problems?

_________________
be immersed

Yes (to any problem).



Yes, and very much.

Thanks, Robert. My first interpretation of your reply was, "Yes, there is something I am recommending other than to simply practice more problems", however, since you didn't elaborate, I'll take it to mean, "Yes, you should simply practice more problems very much."

_________________
be immersed

I am saying: There is very much different. This - what is very much different - is NOT (just) to simply practice more problems. Instead it (also) is '(the) theory of tactical reading'.

In my earlier time as editor of the problem corner in the bimonthly German Go-Journal, I have received many complaints, the problem would be too difficult.

But in my eyes, most of these problems were not difficult at all, so I started thinking about which hints could be given from the position of the problem's setup, to open the solver's eyes a bit. This to be thought as an intermediate step before giving the solution (= sequence).

The more difficult the problems were (up to low dan level with the problem conrner), the more hidden in the shape were the really decisive hints (i.e. concerning the "final" blow), and the more hints were given by the shape.

Most frequently, hints concerned the vital point of a Nakade (including the area occupied by the Nakade), and lines of false eyes. However, considering the number of liberties of partial groups was also important in many problems, to consider Damezumari (shortage of liberties), as well as the order of moves. Also, do not forget answering the question where your opponent would play first (might ease the answer, what step #1 is).

To come back to John's example of the Hane & Placement combination: If you realise that there might be a Nakade shape (probably "area" might be better, as the points probably are still unoccupied), but which is too small to fully cover the inside of the opponent's group to be killed, there must be an additional technique necessary to reduce the inside area.

I think that you should practice many problems of adequate difficulty (i.e. not too difficult for you) if you wanted to enhance your intuition. But still remember that intuition is not all, it has to be proven by a concrete sequence. If your intuition went wrong, probably there was only a single stone in the problem's setup, which role you have not yet understood.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

No; a sequence is not enough. Only a sequence or only sequences never is enough for a proof / verification / solution. - Verification must be a combination of aims, sequences, decision-making and outcomes.

These are the core elements of a variation tree, and a variation tree is created (at least implicitely) when working on the solution to a problem. The variation tree created represents your current level of understanding. Taking this level as given, you can have found a solution to the problem (but may be for the time being only).

However, your variation tree still can be incomplete, so lacking the complete solution, for the following reasons:

-- You have not explored all essential variations.
-- You have not reached the maximum score possible (in the case the aim can be measured in points).
-- You have not considered the best resistance (especially in the case the aim can be measured in points).

But detecting any of these reasons usually demands a higher level of understanding. As an exception to the rule, a one-hit wonder might do the job, too.

+ + + + + + + + + +

Let's take Igo Hatsuyôron 120 as an example (aim: Black to play and win the game).

After 1.000 hours of work, in 1982, Fujisawa Hideyuji 9p considered the problem to be solved. Otherwise, he would not have published a solution.

In 1988, Cheng Xiaoliu 6p did not really challange this solution, but found a slight improvement for Black.

In 2005, Joachim Meinhardt discovered the correct moment for a yet known White move, turning it into the strongest White resistance, so challanging the previous solutions. But he was unable to find the necessary improvements for Black.

In 2007, Yamada Shinji 6p found another improvement for White, making the situation even worse for Black.

Also in 2007, I found the (probably) game-winning moves for Black (second Throw-in in the Hanezeki, Guzumi in the top right), but was very unsure about these, just because the final score reached was only "Black wins by one point". And you surely know about the (low) level of amateur play, especially in the endgame.

In 2009, Harry Fearnley found another improvement for Black, which removed our doubts about the outcome.
But it lasted until 2012 before we got get this line of play confirmed by a professional player.

In 2010, Cheng Xiaoliu published an improvement on his 1988 sequence, but this ended in Jigo only. And so cannot be considered to be "the" solution to the problem.

Thereafter, Joachim found an altermate move for Black, not considered by us until then, which leads to a very complex Ko-fight. We think that this move is no valid option for Black, because White wins here, but we cannot be entirely sure about this, because there is no prefessional statement yet, concerning the validity of this sub-variation.

In addition, there is the question remaining whether our result of "Black wins by three points" really is the "correct" outcome. Probably "Black wins by one point" would be the "ideal" result for the lifetime masterpiece of Inoue Dosetsu Inseki ? Where is the very well hidden White move, gaining two points ?

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

1) Sequences can, but need not be, represented as a tree.

2) Understanding can include more than a tree, or the tree of considered sequences can be enhanced by additional information assigned to its nodes or edges. In particular, the tree of considered sequences does not include by itself the decision-making, but this must be added, e.g., as interpretation assigned to the nodes.

Why adding "choose the path that enforces the best fulfillment of the aim for you" to every node ?

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

Okay. So to be clear, you are suggesting that doing problems is not enough, but I need to obtain this theory?

If so, do you have a recommendation for obtaining this theory?

_________________
be immersed

Cassandra, nobody forces one to create inefficient data structures. However, each branching position's node requires some decisions. If, mentally, you want to use an efficient data structure, "store" a reference to / flag for the types of decisions made at the nodes, while you store their explanations elsewhere. "best fulfillment" is not the only kind of information needing assignment to the nodes. E.g., other information can refer to kinds of applied simplifications or knowledge gained from earlier studied nodes / sequences. Trees (or their equivalents) can be dynamic when, e.g., pruning already studied subtrees / branch variations.

Kirby, see viewtopic.php?p=190292#p190292