That's just terminology. But I think Araban is right about the terminology. If you went to a martial arts dojo, you might say "wow, those guys really know how to fight."

What you're after is the distinction between knowledge you can express in sentences and knowledge you can't.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

If you can't kill the door group, it isn't dead.
If you can't kill the L-group, it isn't dead either.

But I fear KGS style (Western amateur style) often is this particular "we know it is bad, but we don't know why, so let us both avoid this situation". Anxious go. If applied this way, knowledge = lack of experience = weakness. It should be the other way round. In fact you can see this in the dan range, where knowledge is backed up by a little more reading muscles the relation between KGS/AGA/EGF and Tygem/Wbaduk etc. ranks is practically inversed.

In my opinion, Western DDK, low SDK players usually know too much (books, SL, this forum are among the culprits), on some issues more than dan level players. Most of it is useless baggage however, unless backed up by a better grasp of the basics and middle game fighting strength. I mean, people do not have to love tsumego, but at least when playing, you should read. If you do this, those door groups will soon enough end dead. It isn't knowledge, if you can't apply it.

Sorry for the rant, but I couldn't hold back.

It depends on the system of evaluation. If that is mathematics, then most non-mathematical knowledge is neither right not wrong but annotated in a non-fitting syntax.



Like late yose?

We strong players test your fighting skill, your knowledge or both.



This is basic knowledge designed for the sake of DDKs' predominating abuse of thickness to approach it carelessly. At a higher level of principles, thickness can be used for different purposes like "attacking at a distance" or "building a (big) moyo". Even for the latter, closely approaching thickness is still doubtful; the moyo in front of it should be large enough. Etc.

Nice rant!

In any case, what we do see is that there appears to be a difference in styles between western KGSlers and same ranked players on asian servers.

My gut feeling is that many of the people playing on the asian servers are following a different set of fundamentals than we in the west. At least at my level, my opponents on Tygem seem better aware of the ebb and flow of the strength of groups, and have a better eye for weaknesses in a position. Often it happens to me that I make a temporary assessment of a local position, but forget to revise it as the game progresses, only to be dumbfounded when my opponent revives a group that I thought I had killed. Yes, this is faulty reading on my part, but it seems symptomatic of a perhaps somewhat more static mentality, one that my Tygem opponents excel at taking advantage of.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

But that's the key issue right there, isn't it? Fundamentals.

Perhaps we in the west do not yet understand what the fundamentals are? (this has been discussed extensively in other threads here).

This whole thread makes me think of Loons' old signature:

_________________
We don't know who we are; we don't know where we are.
Each of us woke up one moment and here we were in the darkness.
We're nameless things with no memory; no knowledge of what went before,
No understanding of what is now, no knowledge of what will be.

Exactly what I am trying to say! Unless you back it up with fighting strength, theoretical knowledge is not only useless, but might even be harmfull.

_________________
If you say no, Elwood and I will come here for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day of the week.

What kind of theoretical knowledge? How?

It is rather difficult to draw a line between theoretical knowledge and practical applications.
Nevertheless, I can come up with many examples, one of which is the following:

You know from joseki/fuseki study that it is generally not advisable to cut a one space jump as in a typical low pincer joseki.

Can you call this an example of theoretical knowledge?

If "yes" go on reading, else this discussion will be fruitless (because it will lead to discussing definitions).

This theoretical knowledge, as learned from a book, is not yet internalized. You don't yet have the gut feeling what will happen if you do cut.
Consequence is that in many situations, you don't even consider cutting a one space jump. Somebody who has never heard of something like that, may try to cut and learn it by experience which means internalizing the knowledge.
Hope it's clearer.

_________________
If you say no, Elwood and I will come here for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day of the week.

I don't know the west but for me they are unclear. I remember the fundamentals discussions many threads here. Strongly diverging opinions from strong players.

Some say reading is fundamental, thus you must read for having learned the fundamentals.
Some others say for studying fundamentals you must solve over and over again easy tsumego.
Some others say fundamentals are defined by the proverbs.
Some others say fundamentals are best summarized by basic shapes (whatever they are).
Robert mentioned that he had defined in his books a good number of simple rules as fundamentals (I didn't have time to read unfortunately).
And and and...

Somebody may say fundamentals are all of these. Fine... Again, I don't know about the rest of the west, but at least for me the concept of fundamentals is still as useful as unidentified flying objects.

But that was enough discussed in these forums I think, I don't intend to prolong it further. Just my opinion...

_________________
If you say no, Elwood and I will come here for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day of the week.

I call it technical knowledge.

In my experience, the "fake knowledge" versus "real skill" is exemplified by weak players (I consider anyone below 5d rather weak) talking about their style or the effect of fuseki on their game result. The worst are the cases who consider themselves ahead after the opening but then lost the game due to a "blunder". Here are a few of my laws of weakness:

- Below 5d, everybody's style is amateurish more than anything else
- The opening is interesting and fun, but irrelevant up to and including at least my level
- If you lost because you misread, that's probably all there is to say
- Avoiding mistakes will have an effect of a magnitude higher than seeking the exquisite move
- It ain't over till it's over

But there are a few things I "know" and which have helped me become a better player. Most have to do with thickness
- understanding the difference between thickness and influence
- staying away from thickness
- understanding the long range effect of thickness

and another few with life & death. Knowing the status of the L-group is really helpful, because even if you have to think again how it works, you know what should be the result.

I agree.

One analogy I like to use for pepole who are musicians is to ask: what's the difference between a muscial performance artist and a musicologist? A musicologist is essentially a theorist and critic. They know a lot of music history and have a lot of technical knowledge about how music is structured. But very few of them are going to show up in Carnegie Hall. (Well, maybe in the audience. ) It's academic. They seek to understand.

On the other hand, there are very talented performers who know little music theory. There are some famous artists who can't even read music!

At least in the west, I think there are an awful lot of "scholar kyus" out there that are well on the path to becoming the go equivalent of musicologists. And there's nothing wrong with that if they are happy. But maybe it's a different path than just trying to become a strong player. The paths sometimes cross and some activities are important for both, of course, but there are some notable differences in goals.

As I am a musicologist, let me answer here. Musicology is a multi-faceted discipline, involving analysis, editing, history and performance issues, and, of course, explanation of how music works in more general terms. Personally, I don't have much time for musicologists who don't do anything to add to music in a creative way, but, to be fair, most of the musicologists I have studied under and alongside have been outstanding musicians in their own right, as performers and conductors.

Now, I'm not the most skilled of performers, but I am a (published) composer. You can find my classical choral works on chichestermusicpress.co.uk. I've also started pursuing the path of the singer-songwriter. Without my knowledge of music, my compositions would not be what they are. If I can turn out a good tune, and produce interesting harmony, then it's largely because I have spent interminable hours studying everything from Josquin to Metallica.

Getting back to go, I'm starting to think that everything positive you do to stretch your abilities will prove useful. I read recently that when asked how he got so strong, Ilia Shikshin replied it was because he just studied everything he could. And, Miyamoto 9p said something along the lines that if you try hard with a sincere attitude, then you'll improve no matter what method you use. Every joseki, tesuji, fuseki, yose technique, every mistake you learn to avoid - they're all drops filling the barrel of strength. You need to understand how to use these things, and I suppose that comes with experience and instruction. For instance, I might learn a melodic shape or contrapuntal device from Bach, but it's my judgement that tells me how and when to apply it or not.

So, how about this? Instead of concentrating on one area like gaining knowledge or learning principles, how about just trying to learn as much as you can, whether it's by learning a new joseki or by rethinking a proverb, putting it to the test in real games, and trying to understand why you succeed and why you fail?

Now I believe the real reason people don't improve is because improving involves a lot of failure (does everybody remember what is was like to be a DDK?). If you reach SDK or low dan, you find a level and win on a 50-50 basis and become comfortable. After that, it's hard to rethink everything that got your there and to learn, crash and burn with new ideas and techniques. In my case, I used to avoid playing handicap games with stronger players because I didn't like the beatings, and I used to play only people around the same level; it's only since I shook off that attitude and began to bend my sorry butt over for whippings from anybody willing to give them that I feel that I started to make progress again. Right now, I am losing a lot; but I'm also starting to beat people I'd never have beaten a few years ago. So, either you take on the challenge, get beaten up frequently but learn new punches and moves, or you choose to stay the same.

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:

I like this analogy, and think it can provide insight into the discussion about go. I would propose that a "musical performance artist" and a "musicologist" know different disciplines, though both disciplines are referred to as "music".

In the same way, "go theorists" are studying an interesting discipline, but it is slightly different than the discipline of "winning go".

This does not stop individuals from knowing both disciplines. It's just that it's not required to know both.

_________________
be immersed

In my personal experience, Eastern/Asian players especially at weaker levels have a much better feel for ahead/behind, or perhaps just generally do more counting than their Western counterparts...even players in the double digit kyu range can feel when they are starting to fall behind.

To me the 'duality' reminds me of a bit of basketball in the US, where you will have a culture of kids who just grow up playing a lot of street basketball and excel at ball handling, etc, and you may have an entirely different subset who takes a different (more theoretical if you will) approach to the game, involving coaching and drills and such. They might have a better idea of general strategy in the game, but the tactics and direct physicality won't be the same.