Quotation reference:
viewtopic.php?p=172152#p172152



Exactly. There are countless of problem books but they hardly teach how to read, and their readers are supposed to already know it. Currently, in the English literature, there are only the short Reading chapters in First Fundamentals (ch. 10) and Tesuji (Davies, ch. 1). However, I have good news for you: I am writing a book that is solely devoted to learning how to read!

I haven't read "First Fundamentals" but the Davies' Tesuji treatment is mostly just depth-first search of a finite graph. That's great when the problem is closed and simple enough for one's skill level, and no doubt it's a skill worth working on, but it doesn't characterize most game positions which are more open and evaluating common lines of play starts to be become useful.

I'd be interested in learning more about how reading relates to risk management, given the reality that our reading skills and available time in a game are both limited. For example, I have seen commentaries to the effect of "black might consider continuing here, but the position is complex and there is no way to know whether black can get out in sente, so black played over here instead."

Such a comment is really just a frank admission that the author's (and maybe also the players') reading is limited, but there is still a need to manage the position somehow.

Another example: when reading out a sequence in the mind's eye, there could be a path where at some point the opponent can cut---the shape makes it looks a bit unreasonable to do that, but due to limited skill and/or time it is hard to see what happens after that cut. Many players would just play it out and hope for the best. For beginners, almost every position is like this and they have no choice. But once some reading skill is developed maybe some better options become available. Maybe there's a way to fuzzily consider: what's the worst that could happen if my opponent saves that cutting stone? and compare it to: what's the worst that could happen if reach that position and suddenly realize I have to defend that cut in gote? Or maybe: which extra moves could appear later that could make this sequence obviously good for me?

So to me, both improving the raw skills and also being able to manage the position while acknowledging limited reading are important. I've read very little in English on either topic.

In my experience, it's impossible to read any position to much depth if you don't engage in aggressive pruning of variations. The only way to prune effectively, however, seems to be to train your subconscious to make particular moves stand out to you for consideration. When you look at the board in some position, say an early one so that there are less stones to take in, with experience your eye tends to be drawn to certain areas or points on the board. I've heard people describe them as shining, but to me they just stand out more than the others. Often, and more often as I get better, they are good candidate moves for consideration, but I didn't perform any mental calculation to make them appear. Once they're there, I can read through what I might expect my opponent to do, but again, their options get limited by what stands out in my mind as reasonable. It's also frequent that common situations get broken into chunks rather than individual moves, which has benefits and drawbacks. It helps me read farther, but I need to be careful to consider other alternatives in the process as well.

I suppose what I'm saying is that the bulk of reading is done by my subconscious, followed up with conscious verification of limited sets of moves. I don't have the time to read large open-ended areas out exhaustively, and I doubt too many other people do either. There are documented examples of professional games where both players played out a certain area, where there was a variation that completely destroys one side or the other. Both players missed the variation, because it involves a bad-shape move that happens to work in that particular situation, and generally the stronger the player, the harder it is for them to consider automatically.

The questions you posed, and particularly the last one, are all good questions to be considering as you play as well. In Zone Press Park, one of the things that O Meien speaks of are finite moves and infinite moves. Finite ones he defines as moves where the variations can be calculated by the players to a certain conclusion. Infinite ones are those with too many variations or otherwise too much complexity for either player to be able to discern what will happen. He stresses that (my interpretation) it's important to consider the surrounding positions to get an idea of whether the result of an infinite move will lead to an overall favourable result for one side or the other, or if the position should favour a balanced result. As for your last question, this is a good thing to consider about any position, as it helps you generate a plan for the rest of the game that might get you stones in the right places for these sequences to start working. You can't have a plan that doesn't involve aims, after all.

Not exactly, because there are very many chess books that discuss the topic, and also quite a few devoted entirely to it. One that is sitting on a shelf in front of me is "How to calculate chess tactics" by Valeri Beim which devotes over 170 large pages to it. I haven't read it and am not likely to, but the blurb claims that Beim "strikes a balance by explaining how to use intuition and logic together to solve tactical problems in a methodical way. He also offers advice on when it is best to calculate 'like a machine', and when it is better to rely on intuitive assessment." A very large part of the book is dedicated to "The technique of calculating variations", and seems to be partly about how to scan trees in your head, and partly about selecting candidate moves, but there is also a section on what to do if the situations read out are unclear or complex. The focus appears to be the body of the game (opening and middle game) rather than checkmate combinations, meaning you have to learn to evaluate as well as read.

Although the details of the evaluation must differ, this seems to cover everything a go player needs. While there is not a huge amount of Japanese material on this subject, what I have seen is a very close fit with the chess material. The only significant difference at the tactical level is that go allows for longer forced sequences than chess, which means reading depth can go further, at least nominally, and for this reason also there is greater reliance on suji (or haengma).

You could argue that go is different in having more scope for tenuki and in that mistakes are not often as fatal as in chess, but the very criticality of correct reading in chess surely implies that the chess writers have had a more urgent need to come up with good techniques. One way or another it would seem foolish to ignore them.

For those that have the Kitani volumes of the Gendai no Meikyoku series, there is an excellent appendix there illustrating how Kitani thinks reading should be done, and he was one of the deepest and best calculators ever.

tl;dr

Cheers,
Vesa

There are

- strategic reading with incomplete tactics and possible subconscious thinking by those liking it and
- detailed tactical reading, which should be explicit to reveal definite answers.

The core of tactical reading is the same for every two-player, complete-information, zero-sum game. In particular, it is the same for Chess and Go. However, techniques (e.g. for simplifications / pruning) accompanying the core can differ. They are rich and important in Go; I do not know about Chess, but I would guess that the more dynamic nature of pieces' placements spoils some simplifications applicable in Go.

What are Kitani's key ideas for reading?

One of my favorite lessons is Inseong Hwang's 1-2-3 reading video. It has helped tremendously for finding the right way to solve problems.

http://www.yunguseng.com/

Unfortunately have to be a member to get access to all the videos.

I haven't seen the video(not a member), but from a free lecture that I found somewhere it seemed like the 1-2-3 method is more on what to read than how to read. (Though i agree, it was super helpful)

What's the basic idea?

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Don't know about InSeongs' method.

The basic idea behind a probably similar method (mentioned by another semi-professinal) was to think about playing "3" first.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

If your obvious move gives your opponent a good move in response, you will often find a good move by playing the move that your opponent would play.

If so, what is the "3" good for ?

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

It's free here: http://www.advancedstudyroom.com/3rd-in ... go-easier/

Hmm... isn't it like painting a picture to teach a blind person about colors?

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

Another attempt: http://senseis.xmp.net/?HowToRead

This webpage teaches too little about how to read, contains bad or wrong advice and confuses specialised L+D reading techniques with general reading techniques.

It's a wiki

Yes, and since the same few people cannot spend 10 hours per wiki page to correct it, the editing work should be done by dozens of different people.

I'm also quite curious about this.

I seem to recall someone writing that he would start reading with the move he thought least likely to work, and then work his way up through more likely candidates, rather than the other way around. I couldn't say any more than that, though.