Hmm... Interesting.

Here is what I believe: for sporting purposes, the traditional method is better because the knowledge, being in some/large part subconscious, is more efficient in execution, even if it might be less efficient in acquisition. So, it ultimately creates better players even if the learning might under circumstances be slower. Just like in Golf - practicing a swing and making you muscles 'remember' it 'subconsciously' by constant repetition makes for an overall better player than the one who has to consciously think about the mechanics of every move.

From what I see you are saying, basically, the more formal approach you practice might help create more efficient ways to eventually get to the same results by improving on the methods on training the subconscious? For example, a research into a nakade, including formal definitions and enumeration, might help organize the methodology of presenting nakade examples more efficiently or methodically, and this can speed up the process. Just like research into the physics of a swing in Golf might lead to designing better club or better ways of training your muscle 'memory' and thus create better players.

In a sense, it is the separation of theory and applications which I might not have considered here - since it is contained within one and the same player. Very interesting thought, although certainly nothing new (just my blindness, heh, which is also certainly not new.)

Well, we will have to see how it goes.
I am still not totally convinced, by far, but there is something new for me to think about, in this context. Thanks.

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

Or conscious.

This is certainly true, but we shouldn't forget that there are a lot of go players who haven't benefited at all from go theory, those who have been stuck somewhere in the SDK area (some even in the DDK area). Every method seems to work for some people, for some other people more than one methods works - these are the players with fast improvement - and again for other players no method works well enough to get beyond their barrier.

Being stuck at a level is not the same as not having profited from go theory at all. I think that, e.g., every 10k knows that "One does not kill an already dead group.". This is go theory, from which they have benefitted to become 10k. Part of the 10 kyus would improve if only they always applied the principle. (The other part does already apply this aspect of go theory correctly in all their games.)



This is often said, but actually many players can try a) to spend (much) more time on go and go study and b) apply other methods they have not been applying at all or enough (such as regularly asking stronger players for advice or getting teachers, and at best a variety of teachers emphasising different teaching methods).

(Of course, there are indeed players having reached their final barrier, where any amount of extra effort is lost due to a too flat logarithmic ratio of additional increment per amount of effort.)

Apart from the applied values of research mentioned so far, there are also the following important aspects:

Research expressing explicitly earlier implicit information:
- A player missing some particular knowledge need not study arbitrary amounts of arbitrary implicit information in the hope of filling the right gaps accidentally soon and need not rely on traditional teachers providing him with examples conveying such implicit information. Instead the player can study the particular knowledge immediately. If he sees keywords referring to the knowledge, they tell him nothing, and it is clear that they are not just different words for something he already knows, he knows that he has a related knowledge gap, maybe some he was not even aware of at all.
- A player is given a choice of learning methods, where previously there was only 'learning from implicit information'. This is so especially for dan players, for whom the ratio of explicit versus implicit knowledge available is still low. The research raises the ratio by providing more explicit knowledge.
- Different players can understand each other much more easily, when they, thanks to research, can use both text and diagrams for communicating knowledge.
- Different players can find out more easily whether they share the same or different ideas about a topic. Such understanding is not limited any more to only small selections of specific examples or vague references to books or databases somehow containing specific examples.
- More new knowledge can be generated from general knowledge provided by research than from knowledge represented by a few specific examples of diagrams or moves in diagrams.

Research expressing new knowledge:
- See above.
- Players acquiring this knowledge get an advantage on a topic over other players.

Nice. You were also a strong chess player before, or am I mistaken? Still, there are many Japanese go players who clearly have access to the same books (should they choose to use them) and don't make anywhere near that progress. So you might have something else to share regarding the secret of your success.

Both testimonials are just anecdotes, like "I went on this diet and lost 50 pounds in two months." (Even when true, most people who can do that are semi-professional to professional bodybuilders, something the ads neglect to mention.)

I strongly suspect both you are RJ are like those ringers who underplay their die-hard commitment to hang out at the gym all day, at least for some critical period during your development. It's like that quote from Hyunjae Choi. He must be a great ad for Myongji University. "Yeah, I studied Baduk at Myongji and won the WAGC!" True, but then there's that 105 hours a week at a go club cutting his teeth against nigh-professionals and professionals. I'm glad he copped to that...

Accurate average figure in my case (but "the gym" was mostly "at home").

Maybe it didn't match your learning style but that volume could have given similar results to players using other methods of study.

In the end I fear this is going to come down to the success of your students. Students of pros often have insei-level commitment and are pre-selected in many cases, so it may not seem or be fair, but that is the comparison that will be made.

There are some who believe that the best teachers can turn the mediocre into good rather than those teachers who have students so talented and committed they will succeed no matter what. Such teachers can grow from there.

Take a look at the famous trumpet teacher Bill Adam. If you could have that kind of influence in go, that would be beautiful. Bill was never a very top performer but he could help almost anyone. But there is the issue of choices. You have the commitment but the human part...there are more effective paths. You can be 10 times as effective. It costs an ego.

You are more like the technician, Alan Vizzutti, yet I pick Bill Adam to recommend because he is more about the interior, psychological problems players face. And more loved. Don't get me wrong, Vizzutti is amazing, but if you think of moving forward the ability of a large population, well...

Nothing to fear about, except that Teachers/Club Leaders is the right forum for stating success rates. (If you mean the generic pronoun, both kinds of teachers can have similar success rates of the percentage of pupils improving quickly, even for pupils having little time for go besides taking lessons. But pupils should choose the fitting teachers for their best learning style. Pupils learning little from teaching by examples should choose a teacher giving general advice on the pupil's weaknesses, and vice versa.)

So, Robert, having read into two of your books now (which both I have not finished yet, guess I might need a year or two with my current rate of Go reading), and after reading this thread the idea occurred to me that it might be really interesting to see a book written by you, something like “Go for Dummies” (i.e. for complete beginners), perhaps even for kids age 10+, and preferably withouth too much delving into the mathematical parts of your theories, an introductory book that would be the first to read, before your book “First Fundamentals”. I’m really curious what such a book would be like, because, IF you’re right about Go theory, it might be good to plant the correct perspective on Go right in the beginner’s mind. Since I teach Go to kids I’d love to learn more about how to teach them better (i.e. more than just getting stronger myself).

Greetz, 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?

I second that motion!
Great idea, I think.

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