Why does the "standard of western go" have to be equated to the "level of western play", and in particular to the number of pros?

It may well be desirable to nurture pros, but go can be enjoyed or appreciated in ways other than playing at pro level, and for almost all of us that will have to be the case anyway. If books or any other activities stimulate ordinary people into understanding the game, appreciating the finer points and building up respect for the achievements of better players, they will eventually help create an environment in which tadpoles can become frogs.

I believe there is an analogy from tennis and baseball. The introduction of aluminium bats almost overnight transformed the standard of tennis/baseball for almost every player not good enough to be a pro. They did not make pros any better relative to each other, and in baseball aluminium bats were even banned for pros. But now that a young kid can swing for the fences with his alloy bat and possibly reach them, I'd guess that he gets a greater enjoyment out of baseball, appreciates the pros' efforts better, and so is more likely to support the pro game.

They were available for incredibly low prices at big tournaments a few years ago. So look around and good luck!



Read ISBN 8971865822 by Seolim Publishing Co., Vol. 16 of some series.

http://books.google.de/books/about/%EC% ... edir_esc=y

Easy looking shapes, but partly surprisingly hard. Has all the corner shapes you need. Suitable for 5k - 5d.

I equate "standard of western go" with "level of western play" because that is how I interpret the expression. Not because I think having pros is the most important aspect of western go, but simply because I think that is what those words mean. Personally, I think expanding the playing population and maximizing the enjoyment of the players are the most important goals. Those are certainly the goals I expend my own efforts on. Lets have as many people as possible enjoy playing go as much as possible.

I could not disagree more. (JFTR, go books is one, but not the only factor. Not each player profits from good books, but many do.)



Such (or available also for adults) can also be good for raising the standard of Western go. As could be a successful spreading of go as a mass culture in every Western country.

I don't feel my improvement at Go is held back by a lack of books, but my being too lazy to do loads of tsumego to improve my reading.

I agree with Charles.

To reach 1 dan, through literature, you are supposed to buy a series of books. To reach 10 kyu or 5 kyu, I don't think you could give a series of books aiming at that level. Wouldn't it be nice to have something like a step by step course
e.g. Techniques in Go 30-20k , Techniques in Go 20-10k , Techniques in Go 10-5k, etc

That's probably more use than buying books one by one from the internet - I guess most of us aren't lucky enough to have a nearby bookshop selling paper books anymore.

This might raise the general level a little. It probably wouldn't have a spectacular effect though!

_________________
North Lecale

When I was learning go in Japan, there were books aimed at absolute beginners, akin to Lasker's book or Iwamoto's book in English. Those books aside, there was next to nothing aimed at DDKs. Maeda's tsumego series started at 10 kyu. Sakata's Killer of Go series was also SDK material. In Takagawa's Go Reader he has a nice feature of commenting on kyu games. IIRC, they all were SDK games, around 4 kyu. It is not easy to write for DDKs. What are they thinking?

My impression is that things have changed. You have Graded Go Problems, for instance. And, I suppose, Janice Kim's books (which I have never looked at, sorry to say). Still, it boggles my mind to try to think, well this is a 25 kyu technique and that is a 15 kyu technique.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

For many years, one of the greatest mysteries was: "What the heck did I think as DDK? I can't remember!" Well, there was one game of mine, and I discovered the incredible: both players had overlooked an "obvious" killing cut and played as if it did not exist;) (I do recall a 3d kibitz commenting while we were playing: "This is the tournament's most exciting game!" Now I understand the true meaning of his comment...) As I learnt later by studying DDK games, this is very typical. To write for DDK, the best way is to study their games carefully!

That's easy: What the hell am I suppose do now?

_________________
"This is a game that rewards patience and balance. You must think like a man of action and act like a man of thought."
-Jonas Skarssen

Play more games and get reviews.

Regarding theory (and books on theory):

In my experience, most humans are not good at remembering abstract theory without context to give it meaning and practical usefulness. Go theory is most effectively absorbed when there are burning questions, born from the crucible of actual play, anxiously awaiting answers. Answers in the form of a proverb or piece of theory that make the student go, Aha! I see how that would work! And they immediately begin to apply the theory because they understand, from first-hand experience, the tactical needs those theories meet. Without the need, the theory has nothing to stick to in the brain.

I think this is the underlying, and unspoken, value of playing 50 or 100 games as soon as possible so that you acquire a body of tactical questions that need answers. At that point, theory can come to the rescue and it will actually mean something to the student. So if someone is having trouble absorbing theory, I suggest that the cure is to play more games so as to acquire lots of recurring, internalized, (general) problems in need of (general) solutions. Simply reading what those recurring problems are is not ideal because the problems float around in the same abstract theoretical realm as the solutions. Nothing sears a problem into one's brain like encountering it (repeatedly) in one's own games.

Ah, what a sorry state. However did all those players in the golden era of go manage to learn without carefully guided books of thousands of problems continuously and steadily increasing from 30k? Or without the internet, to play countless blitz games against other 30ks?

I wonder if this is the same feelings pros have when watching ama dans play.
What the heck are they thinking?!?

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

Let me try to be a little controversial here and ask the simple question: Why?
Why are we trying to raise the standard/level/whatever or western Go? Whatever it means...

I mean look...

• there are tons of books, and more will get written/translated - where there is demand, somebody will fill it, and the demand is getting greater. Even Robert stared writing.
• with the advances of the internet, you can find a game at any level and with any conditions you want at any time of day and night. Long time ago, when players were dependent on who showed up in the local club (if there even was any) and had to play the same 3 people over and over - such rush to popularize Go made much more sense.
• what else?... there are more and more tournaments organized online, if this is how you swing.
• there is more software/tools/materials out there than any sane person can reasonably use, or close to it - and the pile is growing steadily.
• I could keep going on here, but I'm sure you get the drift...

To be perfectly honest, the pleasure I personally derive from the game and all its aspects would not change in a bit if we had 1000 pros in US. Publish another 1000 books. Write another 1000 Apps. Add another 100K players. Nothing much would change for me. I cannot play/read/enjoy more than I do now. And I bet there are many out there in the same shoes, if you think about it.

So... why do we worry about it so much?
I think Go reached the point at which it will not disappear anymore from western countries - there will always be a niche. And this is a major victory. I am not sure we can ever really get much further qualitatively (although we surely can advance quantitatively.)

Just look at chess and the depth of its history in western culture. There will always be a small niche for chess. But that's all, even given episodes like Fisher (which we will probably never have in western Go.)

PS>
Most of the above is just to stir juices and make you think about where we are going and why.
I actually know why we do it... And whatever we do, I will support.

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

I want someone available to play at lunch in every company I work for, for the rest of my life. I want my children to have plenty of friends their age to play with if they take up the game.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Exactly this!

I for one am much more interested in introducing new people to Go than in getting stronger myself (as long as I’m strong enough, that is ), so that I will some day always have somebody to play with IRL. I have no children … so this is totally egoistical.

_________________
“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?

Ok, but... how about something realistic?
Not even chess is there, and I do not think Go will ever surpass it in popularity in wester hemisphere.

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

Interestingly, I was trying to define my position to myself: and from my point of view this is the "wrong argument". Then I remembered an anecdote that says something quite helpful here; unfortunately it is about chess, but you can't have everything.

So I think the "European" attitude is something like an axis "reading versus theory". And the question is not which you need more. It is whether there is another axis you could call "Asian" that is still missing from the Western literature (better, is not as well supported). I think there is, "heuristic versus exemplar". "Exemplars" are pieces of pro games that one should study as, well, exemplars. But we are not talking here about very full analyses of pro games.

So the anecdote is about Tal and Botvinnik analysing a game. Tal was showing endless detailed variations of a complex endgame position. Botvinnik just said "in this kind of position the player with the extra pawn needs not to exchange the rooks". Which is a heuristic, and the point here is that the heuristic trumps the reading.

So I think the attitude that "proverbs" yield to "reading" is a certain kind of thinking that "Europeans" fall into. Why is it wrong? Good reading wins many games, but an unbalanced style is not a reliable foundation for further improvement, to put the point concisely.

Because "better" go as an end itself is a kind of resistance to the "sportification" of so much. I actually now think the "mind sport" business is a kind of selling out (yes, I know ten years ago I was organising something called a Mind Sports Olympiad). We now have "cooking sport" and "singing sport" and "dancing sport" and so on (maybe even "social skills sport") all over TV. But sport is not the only way of judging human endeavour. Go is also a traditional art, and by valuing it in a different way we can make contact with some things which are not reduced so much to a common denominator.

"Basic Techniques of Go" was not the greatest Ishi Press book, but I learned plenty from it, and it had that ambition to cover multiple areas. (The problems were to do with the writing itself.) In particular you can learn tesuji from a book that doesn't have tesuji in the title.

The issue with kids is not that they should study directly from books. They should learn in an environment where the go knowledge is implicit: their contact being with others whose coaching is well-informed. As far as I can see this is still much more the case in, for example, communities with a Chinese background.