This reminds me of something I learned when I was interested in Meyers-Briggs personality assessment. One facet of the categorization was to characterize people as "sensing" types or "intuitive" types, and of course it's a spectrum. I haven't read those books in years, but here's something I took away: For the sensing type, the details are paramount. The particulars of particular situations are the ultimate truth. For intuitive types, understanding is found in the patterns and principles of situations taken as an ensemble.

Yes to both Bill and Abyss. Indeed, rinse and repeat.

Hi Susan, yep, in Go the details are paramount.

I knew you'd say that.

I guess I'm that "street fighter" type of player.

Are there really that few of us on L19? I think most of the people I see posting have an eye towards principles ...

Hi Susan,Because it's true.

Life is funny. A few moments later I ran into this Slate article.Marcus, I agree with you.

Hey Ed,

I started playing this February at age 49. No prodigy here, but at least I'm improving.

Personally, I'm an intuitive type who trained and worked in a sensing field. So perhaps I am unusual in having spent far more time polishing the skills I'm not naturally good at.

As for Go, there is no question that the details determine everything that happens. One liberty short -- death; just enough liberties -- life. But would it be such a compelling game if the only meaning was move 1, move 2 and it's physical relation to move 1, move 3 and its physical relationship to moves 1 and 2, etcetera? Our ability to comprehend anything boils down to being able to say "oh, one of those is happening." Or this is different from the pattern I know, now I'm really interested in what's going to happen next. And of course life and death are generalities, too. No need to enumerate the organization of every living and dead group.

Another of my interests is music. As a child I flat out refused to believe that I should pay attention to certain boring details, so I didn't get anywhere as a child. As an adult, I've spent countless hours paying attention to detail and nuance of musical things. (It's so much better to learn things as an adult, even if it's not as effortless.) And yet it's similar to what I'm saying about Go -- while the devil may be in the details, the art transcends them. A great player can play a different scale, alter his dynamics, stretch, bend, manipulate the template ... so that no particular set of details is necessary to his result.

So there was (is?) this jazz oriented magazine that published "analyses" of instrumental solos. They consisted of dozens of pages detailing every note and every chord and their relationship to the previous notes and chords. A computer could've easily have done these analyses without the programmer having to break a sweat. I was totally disappointed. To me, an analysis is a reduction that provides insight.

Anyway, maybe I've come to the forum with this question too soon since I haven't gotten as far as I can into Contact Fights. It's been an interesting discussion though.

Hi Susan, your experience and expertise in music
are invaluable for your Go. Excellent.

Exactly. Why ? Because he has spent the proverbial 10,000 hours on the fundamentals, on the details.
His details are superb.

Top level experts in any field, whether it's jazz, Go, or F1 racing,
can break all kinds of rules; they look like they can
do whatever they want, because they can make it work.

They can do this only after the countless hours polishing
their fundamentals, studying the details. Not before.
This is why beginners cannot do these things (yet).

The sequence is vital: first, he mastered the details.
Then, he is free. Not the other way around.

And yet, even at beginner level, those details are only meaningful in relation to various abstractions. Can I live in the corner? Am I in atari? Is this an opportunity to take a group from a stronger player? Then I am "big game hunter." Did he give up that stone on purpose? Is this a way to surround that group? I think I am alive, will my opponent teach me otherwise?

Exactly. Which is why we need to look at an actual game, an actual board,
a precise position, to start our discussion, instead of vague, general thought balloons.

Now you're saying that the abstractions are only helpful in the presence of details.

I'll keep that in mind.

Getting OT here, but I can't believe that this ChatBot passed a Turing test:

Hi Susan, everything I've said in this thread is consistent.

You can try to contact Bruce either by email or through
his KGS account, which is still active: bwilcox

I'm resurrecting a dead thread here, but I would like to say that I had a great experience with Bruce Wilcox's Contact Fights.

I've only been playing for 5 weeks, now, total, but when I started, I immediately realized I was completely out of my depth -- diving into an ocean. I lost every single contact I made against the computer, or anyone else. I knew I needed to get some sort of basic framework in place in my head to build on. So I got Contact Fights and Sector Fights.

I did Contact Fights first, and the first three sections really helped me. The Advanced -- not so much. I am not advanced. I am new. Phrases like "shape points" and "good shape" currently mean nothing to me now, other than "make a ponnuki" or "make a tortoise shell".

I tried to dive into Sector Fights right after Contact Fights, but it was a bit too much. I had to take a break for a couple of weeks, to let the first course sink in. I'm only now getting back into it. What makes it harder is that for a lot of the first course, I've already seen Nick Sibicky go over similar concepts in a video. So it's hard for me to focus and shake out the extra details -- especially when I could be playing. Or reading about basics. Or practicing ladder reading or tsumego. But I will get there.

Definitely valuable, even for 30+ kyu beginners like myself.

-Sam

Beyond the basics of L&D, I think that getting a sense of good shape is essential for improvement. Often it seems that seeing where key points exist for making or preventing your opponent from making good shape lead to what I would term "natural play." Not that I am good enough to see it all of the time...or even most of the time.

Have you looked at Charles Mathews' Shape Up! (Senseis is currently down, but for future reference http://senseis.xmp.net/?ShapeUp) Also, Yilun Yang discusses shape in one of his workshop books. I forget which one, though, as I returned it to the library. In any case, welcome to L19!

you can directly go to “Shape Up!”, authorized version, here: http://www.badukworld.co.kr/biz/lesson2 ... shape.html

Enjoy, Tom

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

Thanks to both of you!

Are these good for dan players?

_________________
be immersed

Does anyone know where I can get a copy of the Bruce Wilcox Contact Fights SW? Went to Yellow Mountain, they don't have it.

Any pointers to current availability?

Thx,

TCS