Just a general thought on the original subject. Frankly IQ's are a very crude method of measuring human intelligence and the IQ tests generally have to make all sorts of assumption about education, culture, etc. In other words, it almost certainly can't deal with special circumstances like individuals who dedicated their minds to studying very specialized knowledge like Go, music, etc.

--
Bill

Exactly. They ask too many knowledge based questions rather than questions that require intelligence to answer. For instance, one time I took an IQ test and was asked to name which Pope presided over the erection of the Egyptian obelisk at the center of the Vatican. I'm a history buff, but what in the world does that have to do with intelligence?

_________________
"Those who calculate greatly will win; those who calculate only a little will lose, but what of those who don't make any calculations at all!? This is why everything must be calculated, in order to foresee victory and defeat."-The Art of War

What IQ test was that, Nagano? All I remember from the one I took as a kid was making patterns using cubes (each cube had a different red and white pattern on its face, and I had to match a reference pattern as fast as I could).

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I don't remember the name of it, but I am sure it was a standardized IQ test.

_________________
"Those who calculate greatly will win; those who calculate only a little will lose, but what of those who don't make any calculations at all!? This is why everything must be calculated, in order to foresee victory and defeat."-The Art of War

I suspect that most such tests are not quite that cultural specific. That being said, they generally assume basic knowledge of language, math and logic... as they are used in the general world. The problem is that someone who focuses intensely on a specific activity, like Go, have trained their brains in different thought patterns than the general population.

--
Bill

You're probably right. But also, if such tests are so good at judging true intelligence, how come we are still unable to predict who will be the next Einstein or Hawking?

_________________
"Those who calculate greatly will win; those who calculate only a little will lose, but what of those who don't make any calculations at all!? This is why everything must be calculated, in order to foresee victory and defeat."-The Art of War

Don't ask me, I pointed out that they measure intelligence rather crudely. It might be better to say they measure the ability to reason logically. Ultimately, I don't think there is a test that can determine real genius (as opposed to simply a high IQ). Einstein, Hawking, Mozart, etc. combined a certain... creative spark with their ability to reason within their domain of specialization (and I am sure it is true of players who reach the highest levels of Go, Chess, etc. as well.).

--
Bill

For any plausible definition of intelligence, it doesn't mean the same thing as success. You wouldn't expect an intelligence test to predict discoveries like Einstein's. Of course it would be bad for the theory if Einstein's IQ turned out to be 103. But physicists do typically have very high IQs. IIRC, as a field, they may be the only ones higher than philosophers.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

You know, it could be, that Korean Go players, by and large, just aren't that smart.



"The problem is that someone who focuses intensely on a specific activity, like Go, have trained their brains in different thought patterns than the general population."

Holy Cow, that made me laugh!

People who do one thing, to the exclusion of other things, are often quite ignorant, about those other things. Athletes, actors, you see it all the time. Since IQ tests try to be general, specialists fail.

So, does this mean there is something "wrong" with the test? Or is there something wrong with people who devote every waking monent to just one thing?

I suspect neither The test is good for general intelligence...but some people simply excel at one thing, which says nothing about general intelligence but rather their ability to perform a specific task. That, of course, doesn't mean that them excelling at one thing is any less valuable than someone who is a "jack of all trades", as it were. In fact, post WW2 in the west, we've lost our use for the traditional Polymath, to the point where they're a curious oddity. We love specialists, above all else.

_________________

Is there any rules maven saying so? E.g., I think that the worst rules disaster ever WAS in Europe around the 17th century: An unplayable game because of missing access to rules information.

1) It depends on the continent. Your statement does not apply to 17th century Europe.

2) It depends on purposes. E.g., mathematical and computer go theory require some precise rules. E.g., when the aim was Japanese isolation, then too imprecise rules for spreading abroad fit perfectly.



It depends on who is "we", on purposes and accordingly a consensus of an involved group on what is considered good enough.



Have there ever been any people both talking about their rules and calling Japanese (in general) stupid? Give examples and provide evidence! E.g., when somebody says that some rulesets written by Japanese are stupid, then this does not imply that the Japanese are stupid. E.g., when I say that the authors of J1989 were not able to solve the Japanese rules problem, then I do not imply that they would be stupid. Making mistakes or flaws and not being able to complete research at once is not definition of stupidity.



We have to distinguish here: verbal Japanese rules have - written Japanese rules have not.

Duration is not evidence for quality.

"well enough": I disagree.



That it is only a matter of rarity and exclusive relevance within J pro tournaments: I disagree. See decades of earlier discussion.



In case of Japanese rules, they have failed to adapt them to the context, which includes a naively perceived identity of strategic life and death concepts (in case of doubt, as understood by strong players) and rules life and death concepts.



Not at all. They have always been unhappy with the discrepancy between strategic and rules descriptions.



Exactly. It is not a matter being or not being stupid.



Nope. They failed, so it was not. (Unless you want to praise the social consensus of unhappily maintaining the failure of not yet describing the aforementioned identity.)

Has there ever been any such a person? Who? Evidence?

Thickness: You will see in my next book. From that, it is an easy exercise to translate a description for players to some derived from axioms.

Aji: Using a definition in my books, time is ripe for developing a mathematical definition but requires quite some effort.

Flow, Rhythm: I am not sure if it is worth defining these. I think I could but for which purpose? To describe with one word specific kinds of combinations of changes of development directions and temperature drops? Rather I would like to see more general terms. Defining flow and rhythm is like defining "beauty of shape". Superfluous. What we need is useful general definitions like for the terms "ko threat" or "capturing race".

"Flow" may not be the most practical term and defining it may also be of little use, but it is interesting that Magicwand uses it so often. As far as I can tell from reading his commentary, it is for him the single most important game deciding factor. In one of your recent posts, you indicate something similar when you write: "...I prefer to play elsewhere because there is the psychological, optimistic advantage of superior decision making:)" Perhaps defining "flow" is superfluous, but being able to get it is probably not.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Not surprisingly, you and I seem to have different ideas of what "flow" might be because in my text you cite I have not even thought of flow at all:) It does not matter though; flow is surperfluous. Maybe Magicwand uses it in a third kind of meaning, which could be more important?!

This is actually an interesting test of Robert's approach to the game. There are concepts, like the thickness and aji he mentions, where he claims to be able to produce a useful definition. There is no reason to doubt that the resulting definitions have been useful for him. But the obvious questions that arise are: (1) Are the definitions "accurate"? and (2) Are they useful for other players?

I put "accurate" in quotes because there are two views of this. In Robert case he will start with axioms and his resulting definition is almost bound to be accurate in the sense that it flows from these axioms. If the axioms are good, the definition they give probably stands a good chance of being good, too. But another view is to ask how his definition accords with Oriental practice and does it include every nuance they see. Lack of tight definitions for many concepts such as haengma in Oriental books makes this a hard question. My own assessment, and that's all it can be (but I have read far more in Oriental languages than Robert has) is that there are significant differences between, say, his description of haengma and theirs. That does not mean his version is weaker. Even if it is weaker (in the sense of more restricted), it may be better in the sense that it makes the topic more accessible to a western audience. My own assessment is that his version is indeed weaker, in that sense, but probably not to a degree that matters much provided its usefulness can be demonstrated. There I have doubts. His axiomatic, list-based presentations no doubt appeal to some. They don't appeal to me and I have an impression that for a wider audience he needs a co-worker who can translate his lists into more palatable form.

However, there is a possibility that his definitions can be weaker in a more serious way. Flow or rhythm (I'm guessing that we are talking about choshi here) is often mentioned in Japanese as the mark of a very classy player. I have even seen it mentioned as the sign of a 6-dan amateur (if using it regularly in an unprompted way, not merely understanding a specific example). That would bring it within Robert's range, but it would seem to be on the outer fringes of his go competence. I sense from what he says above that he certainly understands the concept but whether he has mastered it is an open question. If he has not mastered it, he may have overlooked reasons why it should be brought within the compass of his method instead of being dismissed as too abstract.

I certainly haven't mastered choshi, and I'm not entirely certain I really understand when shown an example. What I do observe, though, is that in commentaries it tends to be reserved for those aimed at higher level players, so it is clearly not a trivial concept, and the frequency with which it is mentioned makes me sceptical that it can be dismissed as easily as he suggests. I have never seen choshi well defined, though, so if he put his mind to it and found something useful, that would be a big contribution.

It is easy to imagine that we are misled by the tenuousness of many concepts into thinking there is something the pro sees that we do not, but that may be a delusion. Still, choshi seems to be on the cusp between pro and amateur. That is why I think choshi is a good test of the "good pro/lousy teacher" versus "lousy amateur/good teacher" dichotomy. I have no idea what the answer will be, but for a specific example easily available to all, Black 39 in the 1926 Shusai-Karigane Insha game must take the biscuit.

As I have described at great length in the new book about this game, this move has been discussed very widely. It is an example of choshi but not in the sense of a tactical sequence that automatically "flows" and leaves a clear result. Just the opposite. There is a vigorous debate about how to play it and when to play, and whether to play it all. And once it has been played, far from dropping the temperature locally, it raises it. It even defines the rest of the game as Karigane struggles to avoid the choshi-starting stone becoming a mochikomi (which suggests BTW that a definition of choshi that does not include consideration of mochikomi may be flawed).

It may be that Robert is not referring to choshi at all, of course, but that wouldn't negate its value as a touchstone. Perhaps we can look forward to this in Robert's Book 3.

This approach I use as a rules and definition theory researcher. In my books, I omit the low levels of axioms and formal definitions of "strategy" and "force" but explain the high level parts useful for interested players.



Wait and see...:)



I use different approaches in rules research and my strategy books. The books can have lists indeed such as 20 reasons / criteria of when to play elsewhere. These I do not derive from axioms though but from definitions. For example, one criterion can be: "locally there are no urgent moves". I have defined "urgency" earlier in the book so that 1) this strategic concept is understood well in itself and 2) application is better understood. E.g., it is easier to apply "there are no urgent moves" if one already knows what "urgent" is.



It is your horror to know what is "urgent" before applying it in a criterion like "locally there are no urgent moves". Are you sure? Of course, it is also possible to read the criteria for playing elsewhere first and then come back to the strategic concept of urgency. You seem to say though that you'd rather prefer to never ever hear a) the criterion and b) a definition / explanation of what "urgency" actually is. Happy confusion with "big" versus "urgent" moves then!:)



Rather readers rejecting the idea of being told what "urgent" is and that "locally there are no urgent moves" can be a very useful criterion for playing elsewhere should ask themselves whether they want to improve. Had I rejected the idea of learning from Akira Ishida what "overconcentrated" is, I might still be a 5 kyu.



It is possible that "flow" might have more meaning that I have overlooked. It is wrong though to imply that my definitions (of many other terms) would be weaker. (In fact, they are often much stronger than any definition attempt by others). Concerning "flow", currently it is nothing but a nebulous, pretended concept. The strongest usage I have ever heard was Saijo's comment on a game: "Follow the flow of the game like water!" He did not and could not explain that though. The association with water gave me at least a principle idea though: Water flows to the deepest sink. In Western theory speech, this might be translated as "Always choose to play the move having the highest temperature (aka value) first!" Why then would one need to stick to "flow" astrology, when one has clearly understood values? Superfluous!



Comparing values before making decisions is an ability often learned only by 4d+. So if "flow" does mean something like that and as long as value theory remains another mystery in typical teaching, it is no surprise that only high dans get at least the gist of it.



Knowing which is the most valuable move (supposedly aka the move best following the flow of the game) is not just frequently but always very important. However, I dismiss alchemistic phrases for what can be expressed clearly instead.



The good (amateur) teacher uses terms that he can and does explain. A bad (professional) teacher uses terms that he cannot and does not explain. Teaching ability does not distinguish amateur from professional!



See, even you, who claims to reject such formal concepts, draws a connection between flow and temperature...!



Rather vol. 2, which has all the strategic concepts. Vol. 3 will be more in the variations field.

Rather writers rejecting the idea that they present their ideas in an unpalatable way. Your's is a reasonable emotional reaction, but a more rational one might be to take the suggestion seriously. It's not as if it's the first time that someone has criticized your style. Perhaps JF is not the targeted audience of your books, but I for one want to improve, do not reject the idea of being told what "urgent" means and appreciate useful criterion for deciding where to play, but feel that he is right in suggesting that the way in which you present your thoughts in writing can indeed detract from what might otherwise be valuable information.



And this is the only quality of water?

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Concerning ease of understanding, a proofreader commented on theory-heavy parts: "extremely clear and well presented".



I could not do worse than to apply advise from somebody who confuses lists with structures and applies unstructured lists in some of his own books.



It is easy to criticise other writings (like rules texts or formal ko research) without noticing that I use a very different style in my books or to criticise online discussion messages written within limited time instead of the MUCH greater time spend per page of a book. I have seen many requests for book quality presentation in my online discussions. Impossible. Nobody has that much time.



Basically my audience is 18 kyu to 9p, if the reader wants to improve his go theory knowledge or playing strength. Besides there can be potential minority audience among expert system programmers, people interested in go theory for its own sake or journalists like JF interested in comparing different approaches to the game.



Read volume 2 and if then you uphold your fear, it is still time to make suggestions for improvement. It won't be easy though because I teach roughly 20 times as much theory as the typical book and that for all playing strengths. Therefore the book will be dense. Of course, it would be possible to write 20 books instead, present each topic from 20 different POVs and collect 20 times as much money?! I believe in quality per page and this requires readers willing to learn a lot and in preferably the one way of presentation I have chosen: first general explanations of a concept, then examples of application; first easier concepts, later the more advanced concepts; first more fundamental chapters, later chapters relying on them.