When people are looking for advice on how to improve, one of the pieces of advice they are frequently given is to "work on the fundamentals." It's good advice, but it leaves an obvious follow up question: "What are the fundamentals?" Many answers have been given to that question, but I decided to reread Kageyama's Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go this weekend, and I thought it would be fun to list some of the principles I glean from his book. This seems like a particularly interesting exercise because many people feel his book deals more with the mindset with which to approach go than it does with actual fundamentals.

Some of these principles are directly from the book, either as a quotation or a paraphrase. Others are implied by the book, but not stated outright. I've included my own commentary in italics on some of them. Since this is published as a list, I think that one of the most important "mindset principles" that Kageyama lists is that fundamentals are not a checklist that you can run through during every move of a game. They need to be internalized so that they arise naturally in your play. This does not mean playing purely by intuition (his emphasis on reading is too great to take that away from the book!), but it recognizes that there is not time to run through a list on every move. Still, every move should be true to the fundamentals.

In no way is this list of fundamentals a substitute for reading the book. First of all, I'm sure there are things I have missed: I know that I would not have caught all of the implied fundamentals when I was weaker, and I am sure there are still more I am still missing. Second, Kageyama's tone is a big part of the enduring attraction of the book; he may be able to motivate you in ways that I cannot. Finally, I'm sure there is a reason he didn't choose to distill his thought into list form. It doesn't seem like it would fit with his instructional style.

I'm in chapter 4 right now, so this list is not yet complete. I'll post more as I read further in the book. I've included page numbers; they are from the 2007 reprint of the English edition published by Kiseido.

• "When it looks as if you can capture something, hold up two fingers and ask yourself: (1) Can I catch it in a net? (2) Can I catch it in a ladder?" (34)
  
• When you make a move, read what will happen instead of just hoping it works. (34) It's ridiculously easy to fall into the trap of playing a move without reading its result. Sometimes I can find myself playing a couple of moves just to simplify the reading problem, but if I can't achieve my aim those moves are wasted and likely strengthened my opponent.
  
• Corollary to the above: You can get better at reading. Don't be lazy; practice reading. (19)
  
• Study patiently, little by little, and expect great effort to become better. (22)
  
• When capturing a stone or group of stones, play the move that captures it most firmly. (23)
  
• Make a plan and execute it. Don't play wishy-washy moves. (40) I'm definitely guilty of playing moves that don't commit me to one path or the other. This can seem wise, but when my opponent can dictate the direction of the game that stone might end up in the wrong place.
  
• Play with confidence. (39)
  
• Play moves you understand. (69) I think this is also an invitation to continually expand our understanding.
  
• Moves must take into account the balance of the whole board. (38)
  
• Go is a game of connection. Make moves that keep your stones connected and cut your opponent's stones apart. (47) So basic, but so important.
  
• Don't peep where you can cut. (42)
  
• Get ahead in running battles as soon as you can. (70)
  
• Practice enough to make the fundamentals a subconscious element of your play. (50)
  
• Do not play moves without regard to the surrounding conditions. (61)
  
• Complete sequences. (58)
  
• Don't undervalue thickness. (58)
  
• Play the natural move. (62) This sounds like non-advice, but I think pushes back against the tendency to look for some clever move your opponent never saw coming. Normal moves are enough.
  
• Pay attention to what your opponent is trying to do. (62)
  
• Josekis must be selected to fit the occasion. (64) A specific application of looking at the surrounding conditions. This also serves as an admonition to me: don't play a joseki I know if the result is bad globally. Better to try to make up my own moves and learn than stick to a pattern that doesn't make sense.

I think the book is great, and it's cool to identify advice that he gives throughout the text. One interpretation I get from the book, though, is that fundamentals might be things you already "know". But they are things that you might not know.

A popular example is when he talks about ladders. Ladders are fundamental. Do you know ladders? Of course you do, because you play go. But I feel he tries to illustrate that, even though you "know" ladders, you might not know ladders.

I feel that this is a common theme with fundamentals. The rules of go are pretty simple, and there are some basic techniques (nets, ladders, extensions, invasions, reductions, etc.). But I think a key point in this book is that, while you might "know" these techniques... You should spend some time to know the techniques.

Just my interpretation.

_________________
be immersed

I agree, Kirby. He's not showing me any techniques I don't already know. He's reminding me how to apply the knowledge I already have, telling me that it takes effort to apply that knowledge well, and encouraging me that I can make progress if I put in the effort. That's one of the reasons a list is not the best way to take in his book, but I did find it interesting how densely packed the reminders of how to play go are.

For most people below a very strong amateur level, finishing Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go is probably a sign you're not taking the advice seriously. If I was really following Kageyama's approach, I would stop reading after the second page of non-introductory text and just practice reading ladders for a month (or longer!).

Most of them have to be found elsewhere.

After having read many thousands of pages of Japanese go texts over many years, I have crystallised a thought: the single most important word in go is 態度 (taido). It is common in go texts but is not a technical term.

Its prime dictionary meaning would be 'attitude', but in go 'mindset' is probably better. Both jeromie and Kirby demonstrate here that they understand the meaning and the importance of the word.

The reason for mentioning this is to remind the western audience that the original book (which has sold well over 100,000 copies in Japan and is, I believe, still the best selling book in the west) says nothing about fundamentals in its title. There it is called "Amateurs and Professionals", and the book is meant to be read through that prism: the differences between them. Amateurs too often have the wrong mindset.

One aspect of having the wrong mindset is thinking of fundamentals as a series of techniques. In contrast, Kageyama, the pro, relegates tesuji to his penultimate chapter. His early chapters are devoted to trying to inculcate the right approach, an attempt which is supported by a very nice photo of teaching kids which is absent in the English version.

Obviously there's a lot more to mindset/fundamentals, otherwise we'd have over a million new pros by now, but you'll never get to pro level unless you create the right neural network, and Kageyama's book is the best way to start.

For advanced amateurs the ideal book is Yoda's プロ棋士の思考術　(The art of thinking like a professional go player). Needless to say this too is all about fostering the right attitude. Its main focus is whole board vision and positional assessment (with no diagrams, no counting, no numbers, no lists no examples, be it noted) but covers topics such as reading (which is about creating and expanding 'images' - we'd probably say 'chunks'), expanding your field of vision, creating the right conditions for a good fuseki (which is different from playing a good fuseki move), how to link josekis with the rest of the game (different from choosing the right joseki), how to kibbitz, etc. etc. In all he covers over 80 topics, all vital. Clearly he does not cover them in depth. But if you start with the right mindset from Kageyma, you from Yoda will to get what you need be able.

Unfortunately, none of that obviates the need for a LOT of work

Attitude does not inhibit fundamentals described as knowledge bits (principles, techniques etc.). Both attitude and knowledge bits are very important. I agree that a series of knowledge bits is improper. Not because of attitude but because a mere series is insufficient organisation of the knowledge. Knowledge (such as fundamentals) requires some higher organisation.

Maybe, but not in the sense I think you mean it. It needs to be organised as a neural network, not as a list or a tree. The former belongs in the brain. The latter two belong on the shelf, in books. How useful organised knowledge in a book is, and what the best way of transferring that to a neural network is, is still a matter of debate - some value yes, but how much? In my view not very much. I expect you to disagree, but of course the how much may depend on the who.

This book of Yoda, was it translated into English perhaps?

Ah, Yoda... I see what you did there.

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

I wonder why they changed the title. The original title seems to make the book's message much more clear, and is therfore more appropriate, imho.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Never let clarity and accuracy get in the way of title that will sell better!

-Publishing Marketing and Sales Proverb # 42

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

There is an un-translated Go Super Book "ama to pro II", too, also written by Kageyama Toshiro.

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

The book's message is fundamentals themselves AND importance of fundamentals AND motivation AND amateur/pro different thinking AND entertainment. This cannot all be captured in a title. BTW, differences of thinking between amateurs and pros are fluent, especially between strong amateurs and pros, i.e., players with low blunder rates. Differences might be greater between explicit knowledge thinkers versus subconscious-only thinkers - hardly with respect to what they know but rather with respect to whether they can express well what they know.

What do you mean by 'fluent' here? I've never seen the word used this way before.

Die Unterschiede sind fließend would imply that the transition from amateur to pro thinking is gradual as opposed to abrupt. One possible translation could be: the progression from amateur to pro thinking is seamless.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Who cares whether the tile is perfect in any language? It's a damn fine book!

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

But still a highly dubious thought. As the wise Irishman said to the lost tourist who asked the way, "If I were you, sorr, I wouldn't start from here."

Pros start as amateurs, obviously, but seem to be a different kind of amateur from the rest of us. The rest of us are lost tourists in the world of go. But we do enjoy the scenery

No title can fully capture the book's content or the title would have to be as long as the book itself, possibly longer.
But one title might make the message more clear than another, or be more representative of the contents. This is what I was talking about. In my view, the original title is more appropriate than the english title. Sorry for the confusion.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

I also prefer the original title. I would like to know why the author changed it. I got the sequel, but I haven't had a chance to read it yet. I was first going to reread Amateur and Pro sometime.

Shaddy, with "fluent" as a description for the thinking differences between amateurs and pros I mean that there is no clear cut between amateurs and pros but they share lots of aspects of thinking, although most strong amateurs would be weaker than pros in a few other aspects of thinking. It is not the same aspects missing for all strong amateurs and present for all pros - so my impression of them all (AFAI could witness their thinking expressed) is a fluent transit from the amateurs' domain of thinking to the pros' domain of thinking.

Marcel, yes I mean the German "die Unterschiede sind fließend", and maybe "blurred", "fuzzy" or (daal) "seamless" are better translations.