Hi ellegarden,

Very rudimentary ( and incomplete ):

- subconscious memory;
- system 1 consciousness; ⁽¹⁾
- policy network ⁽²⁾


_____
⁽¹⁾ Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow. ( versus: system 2 consciousness )
⁽²⁾ AlphaGo paper; versus: the other layers.

Did you, as I presume yet another username of the creator or that site you are advertising by means of posting a link to it, not also just "write" it, by which I mean copy and paste that translation which appears to have been made some years ago by this forum's very own tchan from a book by Cho Chikun?

Same text on reddit 6 months ago:
https://www.reddit.com/r/baduk/comments ... _memorize/

Which links to tchan's blog with that extract and more:
https://tchan001.wordpress.com/2011/06/ ... lculation/

Intuition is a word used to hide the writer's missing knowledge about what the concept means. This is so because research does not have an accurate description. It might have aspects of genetically inherited instincts, inherited memes, general-purpose subconscious thinking or trained specific-purpose subconscious thinking. I prefer to speak of subconscious thinking to avoid at least any confusion with genetic inheritance or memes.

What then is subconscious thinking? Thinking below explicit, analytically describable, reasoned thinking.

Intuition? Don't worry about the definition. You'll know it when you see it.

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

In that article, intuition is opposed against reading.
In short, when you play a move or you read beforehand the possible variation s generated by your move, or you trust that it will work whatever you didn't read.
It's a bit simplistic as for example you can use concepts (influence, aji...) for choosing a move and this is not intuition, neither reading.
When you read you often use your intuition for electing variations.

So most texts using this dichotomy push the reader more to read as to play by chance. And postulate a strong relationship (as strong as mandatory for progressing)between reading and intuition.
Watching pro games, reading books are less valued activities because reading should come first and developed to its maximum

Ok at least these are no proof of anything, just opinions. Never read any solid proof besides the consideration you may have for the level of knowledge of the masters talking.

Do you mean that most of those texts suggest that watching pro games and reading books were less valued activities because tactical reading should come first and developed to its maximum? Uhm, you would exclude books from those texts;) What many other such texts remain? I doubt that there are that many to count as "most".



Eh? Do you suggest to deny absolute truth as presented by mathematical theorems and their proofs? Theorems can replace "complete" / properly done (according to theorems to avoid complete...!) tactical reading because their results are equal.

Apply theorems (and their "solid" proofs) to extremely accelerate absolutely correct decision-making compared to tactical reading!

We are talking about efficiency, and this is not considering other factors like the fun you may have to read or watch without active research. It's surely a bit of a paradox for books which are trying to make you play better by offering you to amplify your own intuition, but in many of them the author first reminds you to lay down the stones on a real board and read the variations instead of passive reading. They would like you see their work more like a collection of puzzles as a evening watching movies.

All in all books, articles, advices here and there postulate strongly against a passive lecture by using a bit simplistic opposition between reading and intuition.

What do you mean by passive reading and passive lecture?

I mean you look the diagrams, find there are beautiful sequences and good illustration of what the writer wants to expose to you; you don't bother to find these moves by yourself ( when the layout permit it) and you don't bother to check if it works if there could be other way. You simply enjoy the beauty

It's fair that the writer reminds you how he thinks his work could be used with most efficiency, but I may disagree myself not being convinced by that simplistic dichotomy. I may want to just get the inspiration here and then try it in my games, reserving the reading side at that moment I play with my opponent.

Not sure either that if I go against my fun to play and read ingame but to read asap when I should more enjoy the intuition side of a book it would be so beneficial.

I put some emphasis on my doubts but I did agree and enjoyed an active reading with a very few books, like Tesuji (J. Davies) with this book it was symbiotic and really profitable to me .
In the other side I was full passive with "in the beginning" "fundamentals"even at that time "Ishida" lol well whatever and I did develop a pretty good sense of fuseki(got some proof not just an overestimated opinion) I was proud of it. ( I was then just some low sdk)

I agree that active reading of books is always good, reevaluating every statement, move and sequence incl. unshown sequences. I have always done this.