Tami wrote:Is it not possible that the subconconscious mind is simply a lot more efficient at handling long-term memories and understanding than the conscious mind?
1) Memories: greater efficiency is possible (smaller efficiency is also possible, we do not really know). The question is whether all the relevant information can be raised to the conscious mind whenever necessary.
2) Understanding: We do not know the reasoning of the subconscious mind; therefore we cannot be sure that it would be more efficient if it should be.
At some point you have to learn to trust what you have consciously trained into your subconscious mind, if you are to be able to function.
Being able to function as a body is something different from being able to make go-move-decisions.
I`m better at composing and performing music than I am at go, but the process seems to be more or less the same.
No, because performing music requires a skill absolutely not needed for go: physical performance.
can speak in everyday Japanese without having to remind myself of the grammar, because I have practiced it.
Speaking a language and go-decision-making are different.
So, unless go is absolutely unique, I think the same thing must happen.
Go need not be absolutely unique for being relevantly different from performing music or speaking a language.
there is nothing else for it but read carefully, to invoke and weigh principles to guide your decisions, and to play what seems right.
In situations with insufficient reasoning, one must play what seems right. In situations with sufficient reasoning, one can play what IS right.
This is why I feel increasingly sceptical about Robert`s methodology.
(Let us, for the moment, stick to the case that the truth cannot be determined for a given situation. For the other case, see above.)
You draw the wrong conclusion that "go is complex" implied "principles are bad". A right implication is: "When specialised principles are inapplicable, then more general principles are tried. When also they are inapplicable, then decision-making by reading (etc.) applies." Another right implication is: "Principles suggest a short-cut. Use decision-making by reading for verification."
He seems to have a principle for everything,
You misunderstand principles fundamentally. There are specialised principles and there are generalising principles. There are truth revealing principles and there are guideline principles. There is a hierarchy of principles. The only principle for everything is "Maximise the score difference for and from the view of the considered player."
What I always have is some fall-back principle whenever a specialising or truth-identifying principle is missing or inapplicable due to complexity.
but I think the more principles you create, the more likely they are simply to break down in the face of go`s extreme complexity.
You misunderstand principles fundamentally.
Regardless of the number of non-fall-back principles, there can always be the fall-back principles.
Principles are not good by their number but are good by their scope of application. Rather than only learning more and more principles, one must also replace specialised by more generally applicable principles.
Go theory has lots of topics, so lots of knowledge is required and lots of principles can be needed to cover all topics. Rather than saying "It is too much for me, I try to play well without ever considering the topic 'life and death'.", you must accept the fact that the topic is needed and knowledge for the topic is needed and so principles representing such knowledge can be useful: E.g., "Life provides more local points for oneself than death."
One's memory plays a role. Everybody has a limited capacity to store principles. (I have said it before: organising them hierarchically in one's mind helps extremely well.) When one hits one's learning capacity, then one must still apply the fall-back principles. You suggest: one must break down. Nonsense! One must apply the fall-back principles! There is no need for breaking down.
the concept of being "N-alive" seems very dubious to me, because there are too many possible confounding variables.
1) There is only one variable: N. The variable is actually a parameter, when applied to a given position. It becomes dynamic during game sequences because life and death status can change dynamically during game sequences. One must update life and death status, so one must also update an N-alive status.
2) Does N-ko seem very dubious to you? You can also write "A ko with N approach moves." Do you reject the consideration of approach kos because they depend on the parameter N of the number of approach moves?! Does endgame play of size N seem very dubious to you? Do you never decide to choose a play of size N because a different play of size M is smaller? Does N eyes seem very dubious to you? Do you never think in terms of "The group has 1.5 eyes."? Does "A group consisting of N stones." seem very dubious to you? Numbers are very useful in Go! Determining numbers in a specific situation is very useful! Numbers are useful because they can be compared very easily! 1-alive is better than 0-alive! Thickness (with the same connection degree and territory potential) is greater if its group 1-alive than if its group is 0-alive!
3) Do you understand how a parameter works? When a term has a parameter N, then one applies the term to the specific object (such as a group) in the specific position by determining the size of the parameter! You say: "This group is 0-alive." You do not say "This group is N-alive, ugh, I do not know what N is, Robert's invention is stupid, because, ugh, I do not want to determine that N is 0 here." You do not leave a group's status at the parameter "It has one of the status values 'independently alive', 'dead', 'seki' or 'ko'", but you actually determine the status! Parameters are mysterious only if you fail to apply them by failing to determine them.
4) Learn what N-alive is! Put the simplest groups on the board that are -2-alive, -1-alive, 0-alive, 1-alive, 2-alive, *-alive (* means: can pass infinitely often).
5) Using the term is very efficient. (Admit it: you have said that efficiency is important.) It is so much more efficient to say "1-alive is better than 0-alive." than "'If the opponent starts and the player can make one pass before his first play and defends all the [group's] stones as alive.' is better than 'If the opponent starts and the player has to reply immediately to defend all the [group's] stones as alive.'.". Quite like it is much more efficient to say "Alive is better than dead." than "'If the opponent starts and the player prevents the stones from removal.' is better than 'If the opponent starts and the player cannot prevent the stones' removal.'.". If you kept talking like that, you would always wonder what relevant information you would be talking about at all. Terms allow efficient factual talking, quite like nouns allow efficient communication.
6) Do you consider the partial concept PON (possible omission number) very dubious? Applied to life, it is N-alive for only positive N.
7) Study applications of N-alive! If you refuse to do so, then OC the concept remains very dubious to you because you do not understand why it would be needed. E.g., compare its usage for my formal characterisation of thickness with typical Japanese characterisation of thickness along the lines "has no severe weakness". N-connected: you simply determine how often the player can tenuki before having to defend against a cut. No severe [for the sake of keeping discussion simple: connection-related] weakness: You need to clarify for yourself what 'weakness' is and what makes a weakness 'severe' in contrast to 'not severe'. You parse the shape for what looks like weaknesses. Then you guess: "Uh, I think this can be called severe." What you get is some rough description of weakness. What does this tell you? Can you compare it to a severe weakness of another shape? Which of the two would be severer? You need to guess again. Not so with N-connected: you already have accurate, comparable numbers.
8) Knowing that something is alive is fine, knowing that it is alive and how good that life's degree is better! 1-alive implies 'can ignore an ordinary ko threat'.
the masters [...] try to play each position on its own terms.
Not only the masters do so.
They are stronger than us because not only because they know a great deal more
Amount of knowlegde does not imply better knowledge of everything.
and are more skilled at applying principles,
Are they? Most of them insist on not knowing (well) how they make decisions. So we cannot even in general say that they would be applying principles. Considering only those of the masters that do apply principles regularly, why would you say that they were more skilled at doing so? Principles are stated clearly and everybody can apply them well! There is one limitation, of course: When principles refer to reading (etc.), then quite likely the masters will be better at doing the required reading.
they know better their limitations,
How do you know that?
since go is exponentially more complicated than even that terrifically rich and beautiful game, imagine how much more abysmal its depths.
See far above.
thinking is something you have to do for yourself. Nobody can build you a mind.
Thinking relies on genetics AND self-training AND information input! By means of providing information, everybody can help you to build your mind. (Of course, you can refuse all information input, especially if you do not read any games, books, forums...)
