Quickly improving kyu players =/= quick and easy way to strength. There is never a quick way to strength, even if some people learn faster than others. Even if there was someone was crazy enough to learn all of your formal definitions of nakade and "almost fill" and what have you - to actually become stronger at go - they would need practice, practice, tsumego and repetition. Theory doesn't make strong players. At most (if even then), it might help refine some tiny area of the game for someone who's getting stronger by "traditional means".

Why do you assume that #2 does not include "generalizing knowledge" as well? To me, it simply must, or we would never have had any strong players. Pros did not get that strong by simply regurgitating memorized examples - they have to understand the position on a very high level - so highly generalized knowledge must be part of the equation. The difference might be in the way by which this knowledge is attained and possibly by the means by which it is stored.



This is all just semantics.
Whatever word or words I chose, right or wrong, the underlying idea is that there are two ways of teaching/learning which I am trying to differentiate. Do you really want to side-line this conversation into the issue of me having used a singular or plural? Please....

The bottom of for what I was trying to say before you sidelined it into a discussion about semantics is that I disagree with you that there are more and more books out there which use non-traditional method(s). It might be some are more methodical than others, or that they give some more explanation that others, but they still all basically teach by example/problem not by definition/theorem approach.

If you disagree, we can discuss that. A discussion about me using plural or singular, or about using your words of differentiating between methods or mine - this is really waste of my time and not what I signed up for when I entered this conversation.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

What then do you call, e.g., my increment from 9k to 1k in about half a year? It was so quick, because I studied much go theory (and only a few problems) during that period. The major obstacle during that period was a necessity to learn only from examples about such topics, for which then go theory was hardly available at all.



1) To learn from go theory, it is not necessary to learn from only one author.

2) To learn from go theory, one should not learn only from formal definitions. Concepts, principles, methods, values often are more important.

3) It is a bad joke to sugggest that nakade and almost-fill suffice to become stronger a lot. It is an even worse joke to paint a picture as if learning from one specific person would equate learning only these two terms. Above 30 kyu, there is a lot of go theory that is much more important.



Practice alone can easily be insufficient. E.g., I was DDK too long because of practicing only. I left DDK and then quickly improved when I started to study go theory, while continuing practice (playing games).

From 14.5 kyu to 1 kyu, I did very little problem solving and my reading skill remained almost constant (I was lucky that it was pretty good already as a 14.5 kyu).

Tsumego was 1/3 responsible for improving from 1 kyu to 3d and 1/4 for 3d to 5d.

Repetition was not useless, but only a minor factor. It is suitable for updating rare taisha josekis one has not needed to apply for 10 years:)

All this experience points to a COMBINATION of go theory, practice etc. being the most useful. Especially go theory.

How fast and to which level have you improved with your own "practice, practice, tsumego and repetition" advice?



"Strong" is relative. Amateur 1d: theory does it. Amateur high dan: autodidactic theory does it and has to do it, because there is still not enough research on go theory. Professional: similar, but it is even harder to access the necessary "remaining" theory.

Note that theory ALONE does not make strong players. It needs a COMBINATION of ... (I have said that before). Quite like practice / examples ALONE do not make strong players. It also needs the aforementioned combination.



My example of improving quickly from 9k to 3d mostly by studying go theory proves that your "at most" statement is wrong.

Earlier research shows that it is much more than "some tiny area of the game".

Thank you for the clarification of your view. (But now, can please explain again what you call "my method"?)



Texts can be more methodical, have more explanation, or profit from both aspects more than other texts do.



Eh. Some of those you call "methodical" basically teach by example. Some of those I call "methodical" basically teach by principle with greater emphasis than by examples. (If you want this to become a books-specific thread, we need to move to the Books forum.)

Sigh...



By 'your method' I understand a hard-research-based approach, in which the general principles are derived from each other, presented in explicit and methodical fashion, and used to convey content and facilitate understanding - while examples are used more to illustrate and emphasize already attained knowledge. The whole process is mainly on the conscious level, and any knowledge and understanding is attained on that level as well. I call it definition/theorem approach - and even if you disagree, from what I see this is pretty much what you do... or at least - what you present to me/us in general.

To clarify - by 'you' I do not necessarily mean you personally, Robert Jasiek, but a group of people following this path. I single you out because I am talking to you, not to them.

By contrast, what I call 'traditional method' emphasizes studying examples, solving problems, and experience rather than any formal definition/theorem-based approach. The underlying idea is that by seeing enough examples and solving enough problems, the student will be able to derive the general principles by himself, consciously or subconsciously, without everything being explicitly spelled out.

What's more, it is my opinion that, while your method *might* (or might not) have advantages at certain level or for certain very limited goals - if you set your sights at truly mastering the game, traditional method is much superior. Your method might not even work at all, other than in purely supplementary fashion. I do not really have any proof of that, its just my opinion, and I am open-minded enough to admit that I am not sure that I am right. Thus - we have a discussion. If you wish we can go into what I base my opinion on, although I have already mentioned most of it somewhere in this thread.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

I went from learning to European 2-dan in six months. It was so quick because I studied traditional Japanese books. The major obstacle from that period was having no teachers except peers of mathematical bent whose approach bored me. I then effectively gave up studying and then playing, and now that there is so much talk of rules and go theory, sometimes feel like giving up even observing the game.

I think one problem in the debate between RJ and Bantari (et al.) is that "research" is being used to refer to much of what we usually call just study. Making lists and cataloguing definitions is not really research. True research can, but does not need to, include such clerical work. Doing it well is of course meritorious and often useful, but is still not the main criterion for calling it research. True research must also include testing and peer review, which I think RJ certainly strives for, but trying out someone else's study method does not qualify for research air miles. I think true research should also include consideration of all the prior art, something too often lacking here, as I no doubt tediously keep pointing out. I don't think application is a good criterion, either - there's nothing wrong with research for the sake of it, but even if an application results, that does not make what went before true research. Giving the work a lofty aim (e.g. solving go) does not cut the mustard either.

What I feel distinguishes the best research is that it includes a strong spark of creativity, or novelty. Do we have that here?

If we equate what is being done in the name of go theory here to a commercial venture, would the results translate into the granting of letters patent or a utility model? If so, we can deem that as proper research. If it simply translates into having a market edge over your commercial rivals, that would seem to me more like studying in go - we work because we just want to beat the guy who at present keeps beating us. Great fun and worthy - but "research"?

Give Robert a break. He likes making lists and categorizing things.

Is Robert's research actually research? Absolutely, in the same way that taxonomy is research. Just as we need taxonomy to make sure that the little labels in front of museum exhibits are correct (got to make sure the furry specimen has a name), so too do we need Robert's work to ensure that we can properly label a nakade shape.

On the other hand, just as knowledge of taxonomy is in no way necessary for advancement in molecular biology or drug development, a formal definition of a nakade is clearly not necessary for go playing strength.

There is no 'some of those I mentioned' since I mentioned only one author by name, I think - Davies.

And I have seen no books yet which would teach in the way you seem to be presenting your knowledge and findings, even if some of them do stress general principles more than others. To me, they are all example-centric rather than definition/theorem-centric, which makes them traditional in my opinion.

A discussion of a specific book does not have to be moved to the books forum - since it will happen in the context and support of this very general discussion. Which, it seems to me, gets more and more diluted into sidelines and squabbles about words.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

1k is not strong. And you didn't get there with just theory, as you said. Besides, anecdotes don't count for much.



1) & 2) Not relevant here. 3) If by more important go theory you mean playing games and getting familiar with common shapes and tsumego, I agree.


Correct. Except for the especially theory part. You just might be the unique gem who learns that way (or claims to), but you have been blinded by all your years of theorycrafting. Your general player has little use for the kind of theory you vouch for. And judging by how practically all the top Europeans as well as top pros have learned, I even seem to be right.

Why are you still "only" 4-5 dan and not competing for top 10 in EGC if go theory is so useful?



More anecdotes? Fine. I got to ~7k quickly and since then I have spent next to no time studying go. Never did I need the knowledge of formal nakade definition, perfect understanding of superko rules, or what "cannot necessarily permanently partition" means. (! Your theory just might kill people by overloading their brains)



The claim you make in your first paragraph is absolutely ridiculous. Say I'm an amateur 1 dan, I spend time studying go, but progress is slow as usual. Then BAM, I only study formal go theory and behold! I become strong by knowing formal principles and definitions of go terms, rules, theory and not playing.

.. So, in 2nd paragraph you agree that theory doesn't really make people stronger, aye? If you mean (in the combination part) that one needs to know how to count right in mid/endgame (ko's) then that I agree with. But theory the way you're advocating on these forums? You'll be hard pressed to find even one person who has directly become stronger by theory research (in this case, excluding you).



You make bold claims, but don't show any proof to back it up.

Remembers me to the sentence of star treck: "We needed hundreds of years to learn that it doesn't need hundreds of years to learn"

I'll start my response with a quote from an interview with Hyunjae Choi, the 2013 WAGC Winner from Korea:



First of all...sigh. What a luxury to have so much time! But of course he must sacrifice other things in life to get it, so it is not clear whether his situation is enviable on the whole.

So he studies a lot and plays an enormous amount. Whether the "go theory" he mentions bears any resemblance to that discussed in this thread is not known. Likely there is some overlap.

Roughly speaking, I think it's possible to think about different skills that contribute to go strength.

1. Calculation (i.e., reading ability).
2. Judgment.
3. Other, physical condition, time management, psychology, etc.

In calculation, I think there are some contributions from go theory. The best example I think of is in the area of capturing races, where knowing a little theory can save a lot of calculation. Texts in this area maybe don't propagate their entire level of detail down to most kyu players, because books like Richard Hunter's Counting Liberties and Winning Capturing Races can be extremely dry and can take some time to digest. Still, even books like Bozulich's The Second Book of Go, which is pretty popular, and Janice Kim's Learn to Play Go series touch on the theory of capturing races. The authors of the latter books are definitely targeting beginners, so they must believe even at that level some theory is useful, even if it is incomplete.

Another area related to calculation is endgame theory, regarding the sizes of moves and optimal move order, especially in the late endgame. I think there are some insights of practical value there. I'd never thought much about the values or corridors and rooms before reading the Miai Values List. Prior to that I would have played such moves rather randomly. Because such mistakes aren't punished in obvious way like life and death mistakes are, their cumulative effect is hard to expunge from one's game without some consciousness of theory. This is because teachers often ignore the endgame in their reviews, and so the student is often left with little feedback.

With respect to judgment, we need judgment because we can't calculate perfectly until maybe the very late endgame. IMO, this is hard, because anything in go can traded for anything else of equal or greater value, and often it seems like comparing apples and oranges. Is getting sente worth leaving this aji? Is black's thickess worth more than white's territory? And so on. Here, I think having a lot of examples helps. Players using tewari often compare game positions to known josekis, to see if there is some inefficiency that can be demonstrated. Here, it is harder to make concrete statements because the whole board position matters. RJ's books count outside stones, but not all outside stones are worth the same amount. A first order approximation is better than nothing, of course, but I think in the area of judging positions there is still a lot of work do.

In the 3rd area---other---the current go literature neglects this. If we thought of go as mainly a sport, it would be a huge emphasis, and there would be a lot discussion about practical things like mental endurance, managing time pressure, etc. Can theory help here? Maybe, but I think it would be a different kind of theory. I think one thing is the element of risk. How does one judge risk? The truth is there are some positions so complicated neither player can read them out. What do we do about this? Are there good ways to estimate the maximum risk of a fight that can't be read out? What do we know about when mistakes are more likely to occur and how can we use that information to improve our play?

Not true, unless you mean western go literature, but in any case there's a vast amount of relevant literature in chess.

But I've been quite surprised how sniffy many go players here are about learning from chess.

Bantari, although your descriptions of "your" versus "traditional" methods are roughly ok, I want to correct two important points:

- It need not be definitions and theorems, but instead it can also be principles and concepts of go theory. I.e., you portrait it as if it always were mathematics, while in reality it can be ordinary go theory language.
- A fixed order of first understanding textual theory and then examples is not prescribed. It is also possible to read both texts and examples, and repeat reading in flexible order them, until one understands.

***

John, whether making lists, stating principles, providing definitions etc. is study or research depends on how such knowledge is retrieved. If it is retrieved from already existing explicit (written or verbal) knowledge, it is "study". If it is retrieved from existing implicit context (such as game sequences), significantly improved from something existing, or found as something new, while having to make inventions, it is "research". There can be a grey area in between.

It is an ideal for research to precede it by checking all earlier findings. In practice, this cannot always be achieved, e.g., because of language hurdles. Classic science research has sometimes seen independent creations of same, new results. In go, one cannot check all games ever played before, just to test some new concept to each existing move. The closest I came WRT testing (where it was useful verification) was for the Japanese 2003 Rules and the Ko definition; I have checked each shape class I have had available. Such a high standard cannot be applied for all practically orientated research, if one wants to make much progress for the scope of practical application. Therefore, principle tend to be in the 90% or 95% class, only occasionally in the 100% class. If you don't want to call new principles "research results", then you'd better dismiss immediately all the traditional proverbs with their 55% "quality".

Surely, creativity is a must for research.

Since you even consider "market edge over [...] commercial rivals" and "we work because we just want to beat the guy who at present keeps beating us", you have not spent enough effort into understanding many results and their degree of usefulness. Compare the results of different authors with each other and with earlier go theory, and the success of application of such results! Then you can recognise what is research versus repetition of earlier knowledge, and appreciate the applied value of research. Meta-discussion about market shares or beating players do not let you recognise it.

For that purpose, a formal definition is as unnecessary as classic problems with many stones forming a nakade string. What is necessary for go playing strength related to nakade is the ability to distinguish what is from what is not a nakade at least in every practically relevant case. This ability can, in particular, be acquired from the essence contained in (a draft of) a formal definition: can almost-fill, cannot partition, without seki. Players getting these aspects wrong have problems in improving their L+D playing strength.

Really, sometimes everybody here reminds me of the one recognising truth only after having formally defined it;)

These are all good things, without which we'd have a lot less productive research, but I don't think peer review can count as part of a definition, unless we want to prohibit Perelman and Peirce from those who did research. Testing also is a strange case, since we could mean so many different things for different kinds of research (historical, mathematical, physical sciences...)

But certainly study is not generally research.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

No.



I don't buy "all". Apart from that:
they had no chance, because the literature and teachers for them had forced them to learn that way, or autodidactically.



1) This has a chance of being considered a thread derailment.

2) I have answered this in detail many times before.



Only those (like you) that pick specialised formal definitions to prove something very unrelated to other theory presented for application.



I have said it a hundred times, and say it again:

I do NOT recommed ONLY go theory. I DO recommend ALSO playing etc.



I see the contrary of you suggest.



Fine. You are beginning to understand...



...that research theory (in its form expressed as such) is not the form of theory I am teaching (outside these forums) for the purpose of application.

Research theory, where it exists and is correct, can be the basis for developing good applied teaching. Readers and pupils need not be aware of the research itself. But a good teacher can improve his teaching by knowing and applying the research results in his mind and refining their form suitably for the teaching.



This misses the point. Learners need not use it DIRECTLY, as soon as didactically refined versions are available.

Why is endgame CGT so unpopular among players? Because didactic refinements are not suitable yet. One still needs too much direct reading of original research.



My improvement from 9k to 3d:
I have described this earlier and elsewhere, providing sufficient proof.

Research more than a tiny area:
This requires extensive discussion of contents of papers and books of various authors. It is something for the Book forum or the unmoderated rec.games.go. We can discuss it later this year, but not know, because at the moment I lack the necessary time for such a presumably long discussion. For the moment, you can refer to parts of my contribution to see why "tiny" is the most inappropriate, especially when you recall that there are also other researchers:

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=7791&hilit=research+jasiek

Maybe the subject of this topic needs to be a bit more specific.

Most of the time I see "Go Research", it's discussing how professionals and others get together and study various lines of play and look for new moves and variations to get an edge. There is a lot of research in Go and most of it is practical.

What Robert discusses is research on various theories which seems to focus on definitions and formulas.

oren, both kinds are go research, although they differ in quite a few aspects.

I agree. I was pointing out the same thing.

I was just looking at the subject and noting there is a lot of applied value in Go Research that professionals do. You can see it every day.

What most of this discussion is about is applied value of theoretical research (which sounds kind of funny).

Of course, 1 kyu is strong. Players of average ability and more than average interest can probably reach single digit kyu rank. There are some 40 levels of go ranking, and 1 kyu is in the upper levels.



Robert is not the only player who has benefited from learning go theory. After all, theory condenses knowledge, so that a few concepts can take the place of much trial and error experience. In the 1970s Bruce Wilcox demonstrated the utility of learning theory through his teaching it in conjunction with US Go Congresses (IIRC). Many kyu players advanced two or more stones in a week or two. From my own experience I know that a single idea can be worth a stone at the dan level, and even four stones at the kyu level.



An ad hominem attack indicates the weakness of your argument.

Go pedagogy is not very well developed, mainly because, IMO, it has focused on talented individuals who devoted themselves to go at an early age. What has worked for them is not necessarily what works for amateurs who learn as adults. In other areas of skill and knowledge there is evidence that adults learn best by learning concepts first. Why should go be any different? But the thing is, most of the evidence we have about teaching and learning go is anecdotal, not the result of carefully planned and controlled research on many subjects. Anyone who thinks that they know the best way to teach and learn go is probably wrong. Moi, I think that there is no one best way.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.