I see. Forum posts are indeed recreational, aren't they? I never really thought of Malkovich posts as "work" persay, but maybe that is an indication that I should have tried harder.

_________________
be immersed

Yes. As recreation, forum posts are often junk food, but they're still recreation. But I agonize over my Malkovich game.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Well, I've agonized over forum discussions in the past, too, but I see your point

_________________
be immersed

I feel like when I learn things like certain patterns and fuseki it helps me play a little better, but if they break it in a new way I'm weak for that time. But when I play with it for awhile I learn to deal with it it helps me.

Some things like vital points and invasion lines cannot be explained and I would consider subconscious knowledge.

I feel like as you learn new concepts you learn things that you think about mentally for awhile, but when you forget them you still do them subconsciously. Also if you think about go without being by a go board, ie: on the train or in the shower you might learn some things without being able to explain what you learn.

Me too. But it's rare to spend a lot of time on a forum post. Typically, it's when I'm apologizing.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I`m a bit frightened of entering this discussion, but I`ll try to be an angel...

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? By studying very carefully and practicing hard and deliberately for a long time, a lot of processes become automatic.

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.

I`m better at composing and performing music than I am at go, but the process seems to be more or less the same. I`ve spent countless hours studying great music by masters like Schuetz, Josquin, Byrd and Palestrina, and I`ve learned to internalise their compositional principles, so that I can write reasonable pastiches (my choral music is published by chichestermusicpress.co.uk if you want to hear it). I don`t need to think consciously about many points now, because I have already been through that as a student. However, there is much more to composing music than simply knowing a few stylistic traits and techniques - try as I might, I will never compose something on this level of genius:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUAgAF4Khmg

Likewise, I no longer need to consciously think what note corresponds to what fret on my guitar, because I have already done the work over many hours. I reckon that I have become pretty familiar with the contents of my hero Jimi Hendrix`s style, but again, I despair of writing a "Little Wing".

Further, I can speak in everyday Japanese without having to remind myself of the grammar, because I have practiced it. Students and friends of mine, who have not practiced English grammar, often have little cogs and wheels visibly whirring behind their eyes as they speak English.

So, unless go is absolutely unique, I think the same thing must happen. You study thousands of examples and practice principles deliberately, and over time you build the ability to come up with good moves to match the situation you see. However, the game is extraordinarily difficult, and no scene is ever exactly like another, and so there is nothing else for it but read carefully, to invoke and weigh principles to guide your decisions, and to play what seems right. With about 20,000-30,000 more hours of experience in the bag, Cho Chikun is bound to be more successful at doing this than somebody like me. However, even he must feel baffled a lot of the time (I saw a quote from him about knowing only a small percentage of what there is to know, but I can't recall its provenance).

As I see it, there is a tension between individual situations and general principles. General principles can be found out through logic (for instance, it is easier to make territory in the corner than in the centre) and through experience, but beyond that every game is different, and frequently you have to decide between applying one principle and another.

Again, I don`t think anybody would seriously deny that knowledge is important, but surely there is a tremendous difference betweem memorised knowledge and considered knowledge. If all you had is memorised knowledge, then you`d be better off trying to figure out a position for yourself (I believe Kageyama said words to that effect regarding joseki). What`s the good of knowing a word or a joseki if you did not know when it did not work? Considered knowledge - i.e., knowledge which is understood or at least given some real thought - can be used appropriately, with purpose and design and creativity, and the more of that you have, the better. However, as reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_and_mathematics should make you realise, there is a limit to what you can accomplish through gaining knowledge. Go is quite hard, you see.

This is why I feel increasingly sceptical about Robert`s methodology. He seems to have a principle for everything, 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. For example, the concept of being "N-alive" seems very dubious to me, because there are too many possible confounding variables.

My choice is to learn from the masters, who humble themselves before its vastness, and try to play each position on its own terms. They are stronger than us because not only because they know a great deal more and are more skilled at applying principles, but because they know better their limitations, too. Jonathan Rowson quoted words from Nabakov concerning the "abysmal depths of chess"; since go is exponentially more complicated than even that terrifically rich and beautiful game, imagine how much more abysmal its depths.

You can learn a great deal, train a great deal, but thinking is something you have to do for yourself. Nobody can build you a mind.

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:

Tami

FWIW, from my recent reading, the only thing I'd say that needs changing in what you wrote is that "the subconconscious mind is simply a lot more efficient" may be better put as "the subconconscious mind is simply a lot more efficient".

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.



Being able to function as a body is something different from being able to make go-move-decisions.



No, because performing music requires a skill absolutely not needed for go: physical performance.



Speaking a language and go-decision-making are different.



Go need not be absolutely unique for being relevantly different from performing music or speaking a language.



In situations with insufficient reasoning, one must play what seems right. In situations with sufficient reasoning, one can play what IS right.



(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."



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.



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.



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'.



Not only the masters do so.



Amount of knowlegde does not imply better knowledge of everything.



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.



How do you know that?



See far above.



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...)

Robert:

Your constant harping on about the virtues of logic is wearing for most of us, you know. But even if we accept it has some relevance, there are other views apart from yours of how it impinges, e.g. Rowson: "Chess is a logical game, in the sense that is concerned with a kind of reasoning, but the most salient logic is not the digital logic of theoretical mathematics or the emotionless logic of Star Trek's Mr Spock. It is a logic that swims around the sticky undercurrents of our thoughts, the logic of our psyches, what I call our 'psycho-logics'". There is also the separate field of fuzzy logic.

The brain apparently has an entelechy of its own. We do not know what the vital principle is exactly, but what seems clear already is that the brain has evolved, for reasons of biology and survival, NOT to work routinely in what you would regard as a rational way. The brain is capable of rational thought, of course, but (a) it appears to treat this capability merely as a tool that can occasionally be useful, and (b) all the other tools in the box are very apt to override or interfere with this one, so that the results of rational thought need to be treated with circumspection.

There is therefore a case to be made that it is more fruitful to work with the brain as it is, to accept its foibles. Many thousands of those who have done that have reached a go grade much higher than yours, and in many cases in a rather short span of time. As far as I can see, no-one using the 100% rational method has reached even high amateur standard, and even those who claim to have done that may well have enjoyed much of their improvement from subconscious workings of the brain. This all sounds to me like another success of the rationale of non-rational survival strategies. Or don't you believe in biology?

I won't need a second invitation.

The results of those rational thoughts reflecting absolute truths need not be treated with circumspection. Only for the other results, doubts can be good.



1) Concerning absolute truths: no.

2) Concerning conscious move decision: no. Better moves are better; intentionally allowing slightly weaker moves opposes that and corresponds to making blunders. One's go becomes, by experience, much stronger by always avoiding mistakes that one can avoid.

3) Except for (1) and (2), it is possible that it hardly matters whether one allows one's subconscious brain to work with the degree of inaccuracy it likes. Any mistakes made during learning can still in principle be filtered during move decision making. OTOH, the opposite is also possible: that training the brain with more correct learning leads to better results; the expectation would be: what is trained is what one gets.



If you want to refer to me as a comparison, then you should also add circumstances: a) I started at 20 (almost 21). b) I spent as much study on doing go research as on strength improvement study. c) I have suffered and still suffer very much from limited information input and information presented in forms not fitting my best learning styles well. d) I have not had good, regular, real world training environments for dan level players.



Whilst (b) to (d) did not apply, I improved quickly (10k to 3d in 1.5 years).



Where "high" is what? "6d+" so that you ensure that my 5d is excluded?

As long as all preferring that method suffer from information presented in forms not fitting their best learning styles well, this only confirms sparsity of that kind of information.



Even I do not deny that. What, by experience, I deny is your and Tami's suggestion that letting the brain work mostly on its own would be efficient. My experience is contrary: the better the quality of input information the faster improvement can be. Quality means that the results are already worked out and that the brain does not need to work out them by itself.



I believe in the experience I have made: the "biology" of my brain handles results (such as formulated in correct principles) very much more efficiently than working out them.

Robert:

Since amateur 8-dan grades are now routine, a high amateur dan is surely 7 or 8-dan, even 9-dan on the servers, and not 5-dan (or kgs 4-dan). And many pros and top amateurs have likewise found time to pursue other things such as an education or a job while studying go, or have started late or had impediments of their own.



As ever, you like to misrepresent the other side (this attitude is part of what spoils your credentials to be a serious researcher in my eyes). Neither of us has said that the brain should work mostly on its own. We have both said that very hard work by the person is necessary - just as much work as with your method. What we (or at least I) claim is that this work is best done in such a way that the brain is left to sort out for itself where and how all the bits of information supplied are sorted out. The brain appears to work by making associations and to have the ability to use those associations in a way that makes us efficient, even if we don't understand its method fully. Trying to make the brain work instead with lists or hierarchies or by formulating principles can actually interfere with the brain's normal work and so can be highly inefficient. Square pegs in round holes. I don't think either of us can prove or explain all of that, but our experience (which is at least as valid as yours, and maybe more so because it is shared with many others) is that the method of leaving the brain to do what it does best gives the best results in terms of numbers of 9-dans and high-dan amateurs.

I hasten to add that the order in which information is supplied to the brain, or its quality, can be optimised, but the brain should still be left to pigeon-hole everything, I gather, for best results. That optimisation still does not imply lists. It does seem to imply, most of all, much repetition, which helps the right associations to be made. Round pegs in round holes.

How many are there? How many are 8d in the sense of winning at least ca. 2/3 against 7d of the strength seen in European tournaments? Japanese 8d having bought their certificate don't count. I know one 8d. Who else exists?



According to your definition, I see.



Server ranks are a) incomparable from server to server, b) insecure and c) allow professionals. So referring to server 9d has very little meaning.



Oh, for the sake of completeness, me too.



Many pros? Hear, hear. Please tell us details! The usual information given us so far has been: far over 90% of the pros started early during their childhood.



What about explaining your side better?



I do not do the thing you try to do: a meta-discussion about your research credibility on the grounds of this non-research forum discussion.



Thank you for the clarification of your opinion!



And this "just as much work as with your method" is wrong. Depending on what is being studied, it is wrong by a factor between about 2 (for knowing which moves to read in a highly tactical problem with little scope for greater efficiency due to principles) and 10,000 (when knowing an easy, correct principle (such as for the gap between a wall and its extension) can replace study of 10,000 times as many examples).



Wrong, see above.



My experience proves the opposite, see above.



Reaching your 3d rank is relatively easy with the available literature and its contained principles. Become 5d and report your experience again!



What is it that the brain does best? (IMX, applying already available refined knowledge!)

What is the experience shared with many others, especially of the 9p and 7d+?



Indeed. The "lists" are your invention to describe badly whatever I present as general knowledge. It is of little relevance whether something is listed or not. It matters whether it does present general knowledge.



Very clearly presented knowledge is understood without the need for much repetition.

Robert:

Off the top of my head I can think of Hong Malk-eun Saem, Hu Yuqing, Fu Li, Bao Baixiang, Sun Yiguo, Hirata Hironori, Nakazono Seizo and Iwai Ryuichi as 8-dan amateurs in the various countries who have played in pro tournaments. Once again, your contemptuous allegation about Japanese people "buying" 8-dan diplomas says much about you. AFAIK 8-dan is not available for sale even in Japan, though there are a couple of honorary examples around. It is a grade given for winning major events. If you want a long list of amateurs above 6-dan, try looking through Chinese events such as the Wanbao Cup or Yellow River Cup, or the much more numerous Korean amateur events, but I'm not going to do your work for you.

Even if only 5% (a big under-estimate, I'm sure) of pros had a difficult time studying or started late, that is many. Again I'm not going to list them all - you can read the available literature as all good researchers should do - but as I've just written about them this week in the Shuei series I'll mention Hirose Heijiro (Iwamoto's teacher) who qualified as a pro in his twenties as he had a day job as a newspaper reporter and Ito Kotaro who managed to find time to fight in real wars and win a medal. Among modern players there are many who have combined pro-dom with university degrees and some who even practise a second profession (e.g. one is a lawyer, another a computer scientist, etc etc)

My experience is observation of what results have been achieved in the go world as a whole over several hundred years. I therefore repeat: my experience tells me the traditional method works; my experience tells me your method has yet to be proven. You have also yet to demonstrate why your brain is apparently so different from the brains described elsewhere.

Simple assertions by you that something is wrong mean nothing to me, even with a number attached. What comes over to me over and over again is that you are starting from a belief that something must so because logic tells you so and yet the only "proof" you adduce is your own, and only your own, experience. I start with the observable and apparently reproducible results of very many people (and thus very many experiences). I personally can't explain these results, but a brief foray into cognitive sciences literature tells me that some people can, and that their theories are much better grounded in biology than yours.

As I have said before, your attempts to show the superiority of your method can be commendable, and I will be one of the first to cheer if they work, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Thanks!



1) Rather it says something about what I have read in go forum discussions.

2) Currently you are about the only possible source of better information on the topic. Being provocative is the most probable way to motivate you to reveal more history / current state information to me.



Such is bad enough.



I.e., it is not a grade expressing regularly beating 7d opponents.



Back in anti-Robert-mode again? Nobody expects you to WORK to answer questions. Forums are for voluntary discussion. If you know something, then you might share it - not because it becomes work but because you want to share.



I can't because I do not know the related languages, but you know that.



A researcher is not good or bad defined by the number of foreign languages he knows. A researcher's quality is given by the quality of his findings.

There are exceptions: history, linguistics etc. if the study topic is related to countries with foreign languages. As a historian, you have a different view.



The series only available in a proprietary file format?



Having some other activity is insufficient information. To some extent, one can have other activities. However, one cannot be, e.g., a full-time researcher while studying go for improving. There are also limits for hard work per day. E.g., I cannot work 7+h per day for writing go books and then spend more time for serious go improvement study on the same day. I can study / play go for up to 16h per day if I do not do anything else, but research or writing books are mentally more exhausting activities than go improvement study.

Now I wonder whether among the people you mention there would be some with greater mental stanima, who could do say 5h hard job I (say, laywer), 5h hard job II (say, programmer) and 5h go improvement study of the hard work kind (solving problems) per day?



The traditional method works in an environment suitable for it to work (teachers and fellow inseis available easily) for people for whom it works (those learning well by the method).

There is also counter-evidence: Among the highly praised English books there are mainly those existing already when there were relatively few books and every book could spread well. Among those, the most praised books include Attack & Defense, Strategic Concepts, Tesuji (Davies), Lessons in the Fundamentals, Invincible, Graded Go Problems. The last two are special cases (for years, only quality game collection; only suitable problem collection for near-beginners). The other four books share something in common that distinguishes them from other early available English books: they give generalised advice such as principles or types (of tesujis). The kind of advice that I like so much because it has made me stronger quickly and that everybody likes.



I do not know if my brain is different. My thinking appears to be more methodical and my analytical skill of reading my own thinking appeas to be more efficient than an average person's thinking.



You can also view the complement: where is the teaching of the contents that a) I found after studying 10,000 examples and b) by people said to have worked out the result by such or similar hard work? I have never seen any related teaching. Have you? The only related "teaching" is your "Do the hard work! It is the efficient way! That Robert can teach the same by stating a principle and providing just a few examples for it does not count!".

The simple assertions by me are accompanied by simple principles. The hard work proponents fail to provide the related teaching.



State their advice for the gap between a wall and its extension! And no, do not state the ridiculous, too often false proverb "wall n high, extension n+1", which is good enough only to keep 5k at 5k level.



Where is their go theory advice for us? If they can explain, then they must also be able to apply what they can explain, mustn't they?;)



Where "work" means "producing countless 7d+"?;)

Don`t you think we should all just stop here and agree to differ?

Let each of us think what he or she likes and say what he or she likes. If one party sees a discussion more like a battle in which their view must prevail, even it the only way to get in the last word is to outlast the other, then let`s just leave them to it. For me, at any rate, I only want to share ideas, knowledge and experiences with others. I learn a lot by reading what others have to say, and it is a pleasure.

Nobody knows all the truths about the human brain and its workings. I think it would do Robert a great deal of good to read about Memory Consolidation on wikipedia and elsewhere, but if he is determined to stick to his own concept of mind, then let him.

Yes, it can be irritating when somebody just declares your view is "wrong" or trumpets their own theories as "correct" or "mighty", but, so what?

I`ll continue to share here and continue to learn from others. It would be gratifying if Robert would be a little more humble and more open to what others say, but ultimately, it doesn`t matter.

Two little things that I would like to add:

1) A principle is only a guideline, it is not a law. If in fact Robert is trying to find Laws of Go, then all I can say is "Good luck!".

2) It's disingenuous to dismiss analogies that don`t support your view simply because they are analogies. Yes, go is different from speaking a second language or playing the guitar, but not so different that comparisons cannot be useful or meaningful. Playing the guitar does involve a physical component, but it also involves comparable mental processes to go, namely, pattern recognition, principles (!) and exceptions, memory, reading, shapes, precognition and planning, creativity, etc.

3) It`s not cool to pull rank. There's always somebody higher up than you (unless you happen to be Lee Sedol or Gu Li, in which case it`s debatable).

4) It`s even uncooler to be disparaging about much stronger players than yourself. You don`t get even an honorary 8d certificate without showing very good reasons for deserving it. Again, 9d on KGS means something alright - it means you`re a lot more skilful than a 4d on KGS.

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:

And how would you define it?

What I sometimes wonder is if the reason you are so convinced of the validity of your approach is that it works for you. The question is: is it truly enough for someone else to get at least equally strong by being spoon-fed your well-thought-out principles. You say that reading about the principle (plus the examples you provide) is a more efficient way of learning than whatever it is that many others do without the help of good go literature. Have you considered the possibility that the reason that the use of such principles works for you is that you have spent such an extraordinary amount of time and energy thinking about them and figuring them out for yourself whilst preparing and writing your books?

I don't doubt that your idea of applying your principles in the correct hierarchical order and confirming your findings is a good way for you or a computer to make go decisions, but who knows whether there is anyone else capable of approaching the game in the same manner, and even assuming there is, the question remains whether this would indeed be a more efficient way to improve. What would a reader really have to do in order to apply your ideas. In some of your comments you suggest that a good principle makes repetition superfluous. The fact that you don't include problems in your books supports this position -yet how much repetition did you need?

Recently you gave Tami the advice to put some stones on the board in order to better understand the concept of n-alive. Apparently just reading about the idea is not enough.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Your third saying of this does not make it any more correct. There are two types of principles:

a) stating absolute truth and being always correct

b) guideline (usually with high likelihood of correctness far above 50%, unlike proverbs with close to 50%)



Truths are not revealed by luck but by go theory insight or research skill.



The cute analogy reference does what you just do: state the aspects that are applicable to both fields.



No. KGS 9d shows that on average one can expect the player to be stronger than a KGS 4d. There have also been KGS 9d that are 3d in the real world.

(More skillful on KGS does not equate more skillful in explaining go theory.)

***

Another note on N-alive: You know what alive is. The N adds a degree to describe how little or much something is alive.

My teaching methods "work" for somebody if one or several of these points happen:

1) He follows my methods only lightly and improves slightly or enhances his knowledge to enable the ground for better improvement later.

2) He studies my methods seriously, applies them regularly and improves a lot.

3) He improves due to those methods suitable for his strength, later reads the book again for the advanced contents, then improves again.

4) He would need significantly more time to acquire a skill by alternative teaching methods.

Note that usually improvement requires acquiring knowledge and playing games and reviewing one's games also to see if the acquired knowledge is applied consistently.



There are several reasons why I am so convinced:

1) They work for me or would have worked for me if I had gotten such knowledge as a weaker player.

2) Similar contents in other books by other authors works for many others. The major difference in my books thus far is that I teach more contents. IMO, more knowledge helps more. I am aware that there are readers who do not cope well with the greater density because they read the books as if they had an only ordinary amount of knowledge. IMO, slower or repeated reading of my books can help also those readers. It is, however, every reader's choice how much of the contents presented in a book he actually bothers to understand. For those readers insisting on low density, I am actually not convinced that my methods work. I cannot force a reader to absorb all the knowledge needed for a topic to reach 5d level (or, in case of a beginner's book, to reach 9k level).

3) From my playing experience, I know which knowledge I need during playing. Very much of that knowledge is not available in other books (or sometimes other English books) but is available only verbally or apparently even never taught anywhere. AFA my books discuss a topic, they do convey also such knowledge. I am convinced that available explicit knowledge is better for improving than not explicitly available knowledge.

4) I compare knowledge presented elsewhere with knowledge presented in my books and find that much of the latter has a better or even much better quality. I research specifically for finding and creating greater quality (or, for (3), new things). I am convinced that higher quality is better than lower quality. (Tami: humility is wrong when it contradicts facts. Easy example: a joseki dictionary stating every joseki's stone difference is better than one not stating it.)



No, because
- he must also apply the "spoon-fed" knowledge in his then (self-)reviewed games,
- my books so far do not cover all topics of go theory yet,
- some skills require (also) different things than learning principles, e.g., reading skill.



I have considered and rejected the thought because very roughly 65% is desperate searching for good knowledge still hidden in the dust, 5% requires the kind of thinking you describe, 30% is dull typing / editing effort.



Everybody enjoys Attack & Defense, Strategic Concepts and Tesuji (Davies), i.e., books with a similar approach to knowledge, except that they do not state principles prominently in bold font and have less density.



Everybody is welcome to report such. But... improving alone is not directly related to acquired knowledge. Some improving quickly by other methods then tend to have knowledge gaps. For further improving, they still need the knowledge they overlooked thus far. (I had the same experience: as 3d, I had to collect the knowledge I missed while improving "too" quickly.)



As my books tend to have knowledge for a range of levels, the reader must start with the knowledge he can already understand and postpone the advanced knowledge until later. (E.g., in Capturing Races 1, he can postpone semeai classes 3 to 6.)

To apply knowledge, first of all, the reader must play games and so give himself the chance to apply the knowledge. Very easy, but some go "players" seem to enjoy just reading and have almost stopped to play much regularly. Check if you have applied the knowledge by reviewing your own games.

Recall the ideas. Forgotton knowledge cannot be applied! If necessary, learn explicitly. Learn while understanding. If you don't understand a joseki (eh, some knowledge), then it is hard to remember. If you don't understand, then study the knowledge by going through examples, if necessary, look for more examples on your own.

Start with the most important knowledge. Leave the more specific, rarer principles for later if you cannot recall all at once.

Never forget the global context of verification by reading and embedding by positional judgement.



My books vary WRT to numbers of examples or problems. A reader needs as much repetition until he understands and recalls easily. If necessary, use other sources for more examples. If there are none, don't be shy but ask.



Tami does not appear to be a principle-only player and she does not (yet) want to read Joseki 2 Strategy with the relevant examples. Nevertheless, for those not understanding from reading only the definition, the very basic examples can be very enlightning.

Anyway, examples are not evil. What is evil is nothing but examples, or even unsorted random examples:)

I am looking at your sample material.

Why do we need the concept of "stone difference"? Do you really need to say a joseki is S=2 to know that a tenuki joseki where Black plays two more moves than White is going to be locally favourable for Black? Shouldn`t it be obvious?

Is there really any point in having "influence stone difference"? What use is a heuristic for evaluating thickness that does not consider whole-board position?

Again, if a group is 2-alive (N-alive), then what exactly does this tell us? Does it mean you can play tenuki twice before needing to defend? But so what?

Your explanations of joseki choices in pro games seem fairly conventional, and they look to be worthwhile, but there`s nothing about them that suggests a higher quality than similar explanatory comments made in other go books.

I think your books look quite good, but certainly no better than anything else that I have read. I agree on the need to evaluate joseki, but I don`t think any of the Jasiekian terminology that I`ve so far seen actually tells us anything original. You simply give fancy names to things that either don`t need them or could easily be described in other ways.

To be fair, I have only seen samples, and perhaps there is much more to your work than this post implies. But if you`re going to be critical of other people`s books while using only limited information about what they contain, while boasting of the superior quality of your own work, then you deserve to be given the same treatment.

All the above is not to say you`re not good at teaching go and it is not to deny that people can learn from your books. It`s only to note that I doubt very much that your work is any better than that of other authors. I have decided against purchasing because I can learn the crucial things more easily from MyCom books and others, but I`m sure from what I`ve seen that your target audience would get acceptable value for money from your books.

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here: