If you play it, initially it just looks different (because you put it on the actual board). But then when I consider hypotheticals (or if I'm considering it as a hypothetical) it "feels different" in the same way that putting stones down in different places "feels different". If I had to associate it with a particular variable it would be something like the "aim" is different. I don't mean the "aim" in terms of what I or you want to accomplish with the play, but the "aim" involved in putting it there.

Non-visual mental imagery is not all that unusual. It is not the norm in a number of activities though. A lot of people probably learn best using visual representations for reading in Go. I tend to favor it myself, but with complicated local scenarios I find visualization is not as effective as kinesthetic because I can capture the order of the plays better that way.

Despite the fact that most scholarly discussions of imagery, in the past and today, do indeed focus mainly or exclusively upon the visual mode, in fact, quasi-perceptual experience in other sensory modes is just as real, and, very likely, just as common and just as psychologically important (Newton, 1982). Contemporary cognitive scientists generally recognize this, and interesting studies of auditory imagery, kinaesthetic (or motor) imagery, olfactory imagery, haptic (touch) imagery, and so forth, can be found in the recent scientific literature (e.g., Segal & Fusella, 1971; Reisberg, 1992; Klatzky, Lederman, & Matula, 1991; Jeannerod, 1994; Bensafi et al., 2003). Although such studies are still vastly outnumbered by studies of visual imagery, ‘imagery’ has become the generally accepted term amongst cognitive scientists for quasi-perceptual experience in any sense mode (or any combination of sense modes).

(From http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/menta ... index.html)

I guess that's fine, as long as you are doing some sort of evaluation.

But the point remains, doesn't it? Doing a problem entirely in your head (in some way, be it visual, non-visual mental imagery, etc.) practices the art of keeping the information in your head, whereas not doing it in your head, and just clicking through a solution does not keep this information in your head.

_________________
be immersed

Monadology, suppose this situation occurs in one of your games. You may not place any stones on the board before you make your final decision. How will you solve it?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Black to play and capture white.
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . O |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . X . . . . . X O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O O O X O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

_________________
"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

If in one of my games, I were prevented from placing stones on the board, I would lose on time.

Unless you are white, and black has the same restrictions

_________________
be immersed

I solve it by playing it 'hypothetically'. I look at the position on the board and imagine placing the stones on the board. Sometimes I will twitch my middle finger as an aid (in the same way someone who visualizes probably moves their eyes to look).

How is this different from reading?

_________________
"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'm not certain we are even disagreeing, anymore. The process that you describe here is the process that I think is important to practice.

And this practice is overlooked if you do not "read everything through", as nagano originally commented.

The representation (I called this visualization, though it may be possible to do it in a non-visual manner) that you use to do this can occur in various ways, but I didn't think that was what we were discussing.

_________________
be immersed

It is not. It is, however, different from visualizing. As a result, a different approach may be more effective in cultivating it if it is your preference or proclivity (in this case, doing tsumego by playing them out).

EDIT: I think we still disagree about what gets it in your head. I think in the case of kinesthetic learning, the doing is essential. You have to train the muscle memory to associate with the game position. Then you use the muscle memory as a representation. Similarly, you kind have to have been exposed to what Go looks like before you can start visualizing it.

Putting the stones on the board is fine, but the point is, you visualize/represent/read/whatever the result before putting the stones down, as you did in nagano's example.

_________________
be immersed

Actually, I do the "place virtual stones with my hand" thing, despite being a visual thinker. Are you saying you don't look at the intersection where you imagine placing a stone?

Exactly. My point was, that if you just did problems by playing them out, you would never reach the level to solve a problem such as the one I posted, at least not if the situation occurred in a real game.

_________________
"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 do often look at the intersection, but I do not necessarily imagine seeing a stone there.

You believe one could never reach the point of solving a simple tsumego in a "real game", unless one does go problems? It's impossible to learn to read by simply reading while playing?

I think I thought you were arguing a different thing, Monodology.

Somebody earlier in the thread mentioned the approach of clicking through a go problem - getting the wrong answer - going back, and trying again.

I don't really like this approach, because in a real go game, you are not allowed to click through the game - undo - go back, and try again.

If you practice without this constraint, when you are playing a real game of go, you are adding an extra burden on yourself, which you did not practice with, yet.

This is the main point that I was trying to express.

The way you think about stones or intersections or feelings or whatever when you read is all fine and good. It's not something that I was trying to argue against.

---

The key advantage of being able to "visualize" or "think" or whatever is that you can imagine a hypothetical situation, see how it plays out, and if it doesn't work out, you can "undo in your mind" and try something else - all before you actually make a move.

You cannot, however, play stones out on the board, then take them back. Once you play a move, it is there for good. That's why I think it's good to practice going through hypothetical scenarios in your head before making a move - whatever way you want to represent it.

_________________
be immersed

You might be able to do some, but you have not trained yourself as much as you could have if you otherwise did problems beforehand.

_________________
be immersed

No, but it is a lot harder, and your reading would certainly never get to professional level without it.

_________________
"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

So you do use the board as a kind of "spatial reference", so to speak? Can you solve go problems with your eyes closed? If you can, how do you perceive the relations between groups and stones without a visual image?



* You will never get to professional level without studying and reviewing your own games
* You will never get to professional level without studying and reviewing professional games.
* You will never get to professional level without studying and learning joseki
* You will never get to professional level without studying the endgame
* You will never get to professional level without playing a lot of games

What makes tsumego more important that these? For most players, maybe tsumego is best, but I don't believe it is necessarily the right answer, always, for everyone.

I think you bring up a good point - those aspects of study are certainly important. But I think that reading ability is a very general purpose skill that can be used throughout the game - and can even be integrated with the different areas of study that you mentioned, which is why a lot of people think it's the most important.

E.g. If I only learn reading, I might be able to figure out a joseki by myself. If I only learn joseki, I don't think it follows that I can figure out reading just as easily.

But you're right, all of those skills are important. But I do think that reading is "special" in that it is a general purpose tool that can be used in many contexts.

_________________
be immersed

But I'm not criticizing reading, I'm criticizing tsumego as the one and only way to learn reading. Reading is the most important tool a go player has, and every one of the study topics I mentioned will teach you how to read.