Before skipping (EGF) 6k, I read

- Tesuji (Davies)
- 38 Basic Joseki
- Attack and Defense
- Endgame (Ogawa)

in this order, because those were the books available at that time. Nowadays, further suitable books, which can be used for the purpose, are available:

- other joseki selections or introductions
- Fighting Fundamentals
- other problem books on various topics

Endgame (Ogawa) is neither particularly good nor particularly bad, the other endgame books are not better either, one wishes better endgame books. They have not been written yet (other than the endgame topic and important principles in First Fundamentals). Since one needs to know about sente versus gote nevertheless, Endgame (Ogawa) can still be recommended.

38 Basic Joseki is a work-by-yourself book. If you can meaningfully think and study for 4 hours per chapter, you can use this book for first joseki learning. Today, further books exist or are being written that explain more or even everything; i.e., books where the authors do the major work. Hence, 38 Basic Joseki is not essential any longer.

Attack and Defense or Fighting Fundamentals? IMO, this is the wrong question. Absolutely read both!

At 7k, I did not need books on the opening, life and death, or reading. If, however, part of those topics are your weak points, surely you must read also books on them.

Opening: I am not sure if Opening Theory Made Easy is too easy or still suitable for 7k.

Life and death: The most suitable book for the purpose of surpassing 6k is Life and Death Problems 1 - Basics, but Life and Death (Davies) has its fans, too.

Reading: Bad news: a book specialising in reading theory does not exist yet, AFAIK. So far, the (English: for sure) literature has only abundant choice for learning by examples problem books, of which part offers at least some structure or principles. So I wish you good luck with learning reading from solving problems. If you fail, there are only the short chapters on reading theory in First Fundamentals and Tesuji (Davies). Actually, reading is really important; if you are weak at that, then excellent knowledge of most other topics of go theory won't make you stronger much. Increase the hardness of your work on solving problems and, if that does not succeed either, seek the help of a teacher capable of analysing your reading mistakes. Books alone might not do it for everybody.

For getting over any wall in go, meditation might be a good idea.

Walls are in your mind.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I can echo Bill's comment. I think if you were to ask a lot of different players when they got "stuck" in their learning process, they will give you various ranks, but this really isn't all that meaningful. For me, the fastest way to get unstuck was to play a few serious games and have them reviewed by somebody significantly stronger than myself. If you do that, stronger players might be able to spot which area of your game is lacking and could use some work.

Also, as far as books go: why is "Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go" by Kageyama Toshiro not in this list? It's the best book to get unstuck and improve, in my humble opinion.

I have implicitly presumed First Fundamentals and then Lessons in the Fundamentals to have been read earlier. They can be read before the listed books, especially if the level is KGS 6k rather than EGF 6k.

Funny that Robert didn't mention it, but another book that helped me get past 6k after being there for about a year and a half was Joseki 2 Stratagy by Robert Jasiek.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

daal, what specifically in the book helped you get past 6k?

I just now grabbed the book off the shelf thinking, "I wonder how I'll find that part?" I opened the book somewhere in the middle and literally, the first words I saw on the page were what I was looking for.

"A so called 'big move' like a wide extension from a corner enclosure claims firstly an enhanced sphere of influence and later more territory. However, big moves are not as big as their visual appearance tempts one to believe because it requires several moves to turn a sphere of influence entirely into territory. Contrarily an urgent move realises its aims much faster. Therefore the territorial value on average per played stone tends to be greater for urgent moves than for big moves."

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Or, more tersely: "Urgent moves before big moves"

Many of us have seen the phrase urgent moves before big moves numerous times, so was it the discussion and examples that really hit home for you in this part of the book?

I saw the proverb "Urgent moves before big moves" as a 5k, but hardly started to understand it until 5d, because there was no clear information on what are urgent moves (other than that the life of unsettled groups should be defended), what are big moves and how to compare them. The mentioned book explains these (and other) things.

"Urgent before big" sounds nice, but I had previously thought that the reason was simply because if you didn't play an urgent move, you would get in trouble. What I realized when reading the above quote was that premature big moves were inefficient. Pressing one's advantage in an unsettled situation meant points that were not adequately compensated for by the "big" move. Getting these points that I previously had been giving away for free made me win more games.

If anyone wants to argue about it, and point out that the proverb implies the above, go ahead, but without me. All I wanted to say was that this (Robert's words, nothing else) is what turned on that particular light for me. Urgency was just one of 20 sub-chapters of strategic concepts, and I would expect that most 6ks have a concept or two that could benefit from Robert's twist of the dimmer.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

daal, is it possible one of the "problems" here is how we understand "getting in trouble" ?
For you previously, did "getting in trouble" mean a big group would die, or some huge disaster like that ?
Because for a pro, losing 1 point by mistake could mean getting in trouble.
So your previous idea of "if you didn't play an urgent move, you would get in trouble" was correct, after all. -- Is this part of the "confusion" ?In any case, if you improved in this area, that's good news.

It's spitting in the wind, I know, as we've been through all this before, but I still feel compelled to point out that there is no such Japanese proverb as "urgent moves before big moves". If you know what the Japanese proverb really is, this translation would not faze you, but if you don't it can lead you - especially if you think mainly of numbers and sizes - into error.

The Japanese proverb tells us to attend to urgent areas (kyuuba) before flexible extensions ooba . Ooba is a technical term in go and has a precise and limited meaning, which is almost entirely to do with flexible extensions on the third or fourth lines in the opening (or empty areas left over after some fighting).

Urgent areas are also well defined as areas in the opening which affect both attack and defence in the opening, i.e. to do with things like bases or not being shut in. An ooba ("major area") deals mainly with either attack or defence. Since a move that does two jobs is much likelier to be better than a move that does one job, it doesn't take a book, theory, detailed argument or moment of enlightenment to suggest that you would normally play it first. After a play in a kyuuba you have either taken sente or prevented a sente move by the opponent. You either threaten to rob him of his cash or stop him robbing you of yours. After a play in an ooba you have surrendered sente to the opponent in return for making an investment in a bank, which may or may not pay off.

Perhaps confusion has arisen because someone was confused about yori in the original proverb. It's true that it's nowadays the particle of comparison ('than') but in the proverb it has its literary meaning of 'after' (modern 'kara').

Surely the Japanese original is more informative than what has become the English proverb. However, I disagree with your conclusions (and putting them in a "normally" context does not really help).

Multi-purpose can be better than single purpose, or (probably less frequently) vice versa. Combining attack and defense can be better than only one of them, or (less frequently) vice versa. It is not only about attack and defense, but also about stability and instability. Maybe the Japanese original restricts considerations (and a too restrictive definition of 'urgent area') to the opening, but the same considerations are relevant in the middle game. You have not mentioned that values per play (necessary theory!) are relevant.

I.e., there are essential aspects not found in your description of the Japanese original or in earlier Western verbal go theory about the topics urgent versus "big". Here, the book provides suitable, detailed information.

Don't think: "spitting in the wind," think: "feeding the pigeons."

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.