I think I sped up my reading

[NoSkill]

So before I noticed I could make my head "lighter" or something similar and read really fast, although basically I wasn't thinking as much about each move, it was just really fast compared to anything I normally could. So I started doing this on command, and now after awhile I feel as if I can read this fast on command, but now it is the same understading/thought out as my normal reading. So now I can use this "super fast read" when im in the middle of a fight, but its not just quick instinct reading, its like regular reading.

Has anyone else ever experinced this? Where you can tell yourself to read at a super fast rate compared to normal and you can, and with practice this type of reading gets better?

I can't do this the whole game though, i end up confusing myself if I try to read too much, but persay when im in a L&D fight, i can usually read out the situation this way.

To explain, when I "normally read" I think "white goes there, black goes there" and I think about each position as I read. When I do this "speed read" I think "black white black white black white" and im not thinking so much about each move, but its more like my awareness of the local and surrounding stones increases so I don't need to think as much and I can just read.

Hopefully that made sense..

[Shaddy]

Happens when I study a lot. I try to be more careful when I'm like this, since I'm more likely to miss something subtle.

[Tami]

Yes, I think you`re on to something, as I`ve had the same kind of experience. It's distracting to hear "white goes here, then black" in your mind while you think; it is much smoother and quicker if you watch a line of play go forward like a silent movie. Still, if other skills are any guide, the key thing is to practice slowly and carefully with L&D and so on, so that you can do this kind of "performance" in a real game with fewer errors.

[snorri]

There's a book for trumpet (or other brass) players called "Brass Playing Is No Harder Than Deep Breathing", by Claude Gordon.

I'm not sure why I think of that, other than hyperbole helps sell things. I've always thought someone should write:

"Go Is No Harder Than Controlled Hallucination."

In the same vein, there's a trumpet book titled, "Casual Double High C", by Bob Odneal. Again, a ridiculous promise. But someone with a similar bent should write:

"Casual 6 dan."

Somehow, I think there would be a market...

[LocoRon]

Personally, I found the faster reading to be more along the lines of wishful thinking. I end up getting better results when I actually slow myself down, think about each individual stone, and think to myself "what am I missing?"

Maybe that's just me, though. Maybe it's because I don't care to do any serious level of study, tsumego, or anything else, outside of actually play the game.

[NoSkill]

Personally, I found the faster reading to be more along the lines of wishful thinking. I end up getting better results when I actually slow myself down, think about each individual stone, and think to myself "what am I missing?"

Maybe that's just me, though. Maybe it's because I don't care to do any serious level of study, tsumego, or anything else, outside of actually play the game.

What I find is that if I do this reading I will be reading fast .... as in im not trying to read the right variation the first time, but im just reading several variations very very fast, and I stumble upon the answer and am like oh wait this one works. then I search for a refutation, if I don't find one its good, if I do I know there should be another way to kill or live with the same moves but a different order, because if it works in a way or two usually it is right or close.

[Phelan]

I've rarely had this kind of fast reading, and I don't remember if it was good consistent reading or just wishful thinking reading.

Most of the time, when I read fast, I'm jumping to intuitive positions, and only read moves that are not intuitive/pattern matched.

[Fedya]

For some reason I'm reminded of a quote from The Simpsons:

Homer: There are three ways to do things: the right way, the wrong way, and the "Max Power" way.
Lisa: Isn't that the wrong way?
Homer: Yes, but faster!

[Tami]

I can't understand why everybody is being so sceptical, even cynical, about NoSkill`s description. It seems to me he is describing a skill - i.e., being able to think in a purely go way, just seeing the variations. That sounds like it is worth having, and it certainly harmonises with what Rowson says about how grandmasters calculate chess positions:

My impression is that a grandmaster`s encoding will be almost entirely of abstract images and relationships and non-verbal, while a weaker player will encode the position by consciously trying to apply certain concepts in verbal form. Without the words, there would be too much to take in. The words are used by weaker players in an attempt to reduce the problem of cognitive load - a problem that a grandmaster rarely feels.

However, Rowson also suggests there is a stage beyond non-verbal thinking

Click to show

(Chess for Zebras, p. 82)

So, if this is in any way analogous to go thinking, what we are aiming for is the ability first to read without using so many words, i.e., to be able to ditch this "black goes here, white goes there, then I cap and she answers with kosumi" etc., and after that to be able to see the position and know what`s in it, without having to actually play it in your mind.

The irony is, though, that the way to get to these stages of a) non-verbal thinking and b) non-verbal and non-visual thinking is probably through slow, deliberate practice of the kind that LocoRon hints at!

However, there has to be a point at which you transition or leap from verbal to non-verbal to abstract thinking. At some point you have to make the change, either consciously or sub-consciously. But I wonder if most people don`t even recognise the need to make that change, and so don't know what to aim for, instead living their go lives always thinking in the same old "white plays atari, I pull out, wait there`s a ladder" etc., etc. (And that's probably a good argument against making "commented go videos" while you play, because you are practicing the kind of thinking you want to leave behind!)

[NoSkill]

I can't understand why everybody is being so sceptical, even cynical, about NoSkill`s description. It seems to me he is describing a skill - i.e., being able to think in a purely go way, just seeing the variations. That sounds like it is worth having, and it certainly harmonises with what Rowson says about how grandmasters calculate chess positions:

My impression is that a grandmaster`s encoding will be almost entirely of abstract images and relationships and non-verbal, while a weaker player will encode the position by consciously trying to apply certain concepts in verbal form. Without the words, there would be too much to take in. The words are used by weaker players in an attempt to reduce the problem of cognitive load - a problem that a grandmaster rarely feels.

However, Rowson also suggests there is a stage beyond non-verbal thinking

Click to show

(Chess for Zebras, p. 82)

So, if this is in any way analogous to go thinking, what we are aiming for is the ability first to read without using so many words, i.e., to be able to ditch this "black goes here, white goes there, then I cap and she answers with kosumi" etc., and after that to be able to see the position and know what`s in it, without having to actually play it in your mind.

The irony is, though, that the way to get to these stages of a) non-verbal thinking and b) non-verbal and non-visual thinking is probably through slow, deliberate practice of the kind that LocoRon hints at!

However, there has to be a point at which you transition or leap from verbal to non-verbal to abstract thinking. At some point you have to make the change, either consciously or sub-consciously. But I wonder if most people don`t even recognise the need to make that change, and so don't know what to aim for, instead living their go lives always thinking in the same old "white plays atari, I pull out, wait there`s a ladder" etc., etc. (And that's probably a good argument against making "commented go videos" while you play, because you are practicing the kind of thinking you want to leave behind!)

Well to be fair I guess if they have never thought about being able to read faster it wouldnt sound hard. The way I noticed or thought of the idea was one day im like, do pros really read FASTER than us, or do they just read more efficiently? I said okay they read faster, so why can't I read faster? And focused more on the go board than usual, and tried to read faster and it sort of started working. I don't know if I realized it before or until I saw you say it, but the part about not having to think mentally about each move is true, you sort of play the move in your head without thinking why, it is just the first move you think of, and instantly or super-fast understand the effect/reasoning of the move without having to think like normal.

Normally you think "okay so how does this change the position.." wait 2 seconds "oh okay" then visual the next move by willing your mind to do it, but in this "super fast reading" as you think of the move, bam it is there, and you understand it without taking the time to think, bam next move. That is why it is faster, less time inbetween and less conscious thinking in my opinion.

[Phelan]

I hope you're not seeing me as one of the skeptical/cynical comments. I do believe NoSkill. I'm just not able to read the same way, or haven't been able to do it so far without glaring gaps in the move tree.

When I read fast, my brain jumps to intuitive positions without passing through intervening moves, and then I slow read the non intuitive ones.

[Tami]

My conjecture, and it's not more than that really, is that non-verbal reading and further abstractions are skills than develop from being able to read in the more familiar, plodding way.

You can practice these skills once you become aware of them, but presumably your ability to perform them well would be related to, probably dependent on your ability to do the basic kind of reading.

Still, it must be useful to be able to read non-verbally. I suspect there is a similarity with speaking a second language (sigh, I have used this analogy before, but oh well!): when you start off, it`s common to translate mentally, but at some point you have to just attempt to think in the other language. If you`ve never done that before, it feels extremely strange. But it gets easier the more you practice it. So, it feels quite strange to read a go position without using any verbiage, but it`s possible - I`ve been practicing it. It may not always be as accurate as the basic kind, but if it enables you to evaluate many possibilities quickly, it would probably give you a marked edge over a player of otherwise equal ability.

Now, forgive me for boasting, but I`ve just won a 3-stone game against a pro. I was using non-verbal reading to assess certain strategies, and it helped me a great deal. I would not have been able to find the ideas quickly enough relying on Step Reading (see below).

For convenience, I propose using some compact terms to describe different kinds of reading:

* Step Reading - reading each move by step, using words where desired
* Visual Reading - just watching the moves flow in front of the mind`s eye
* Abstract Reading - knowing and manipulating relationships without having to verify the steps either verbally or visually

I don`t know what Abstract Reading would feel like. Maybe it is something like knowing that a shape is, say, a crane`s nest and that playing at the key spot will win the fight; maybe it is being able to combine several such items in one`s mind and understand their interaction without needing to visualise them.

Perhaps this is another dead end after all, but something feels promising...

[NoSkill]

My conjecture, and it's not more than that really, is that non-verbal reading and further abstractions are skills than develop from being able to read in the more familiar, plodding way.

You can practice these skills once you become aware of them, but presumably your ability to perform them well would be related to, probably dependent on your ability to do the basic kind of reading.

Still, it must be useful to be able to read non-verbally. I suspect there is a similarity with speaking a second language (sigh, I have used this analogy before, but oh well!): when you start off, it`s common to translate mentally, but at some point you have to just attempt to think in the other language. If you`ve never done that before, it feels extremely strange. But it gets easier the more you practice it. So, it feels quite strange to read a go position without using any verbiage, but it`s possible - I`ve been practicing it. It may not always be as accurate as the basic kind, but if it enables you to evaluate many possibilities quickly, it would probably give you a marked edge over a player of otherwise equal ability.

Now, forgive me for boasting, but I`ve just won a 3-stone game against a pro. I was using non-verbal reading to assess certain strategies, and it helped me a great deal. I would not have been able to find the ideas quickly enough relying on Step Reading (see below).

For convenience, I propose using some compact terms to describe different kinds of reading:

* Step Reading - reading each move by step, using words where desired
* Visual Reading - just watching the moves flow in front of the mind`s eye
* Abstract Reading - knowing and manipulating relationships without having to verify the steps either verbally or visually

I don`t know what Abstract Reading would feel like. Maybe it is something like knowing that a shape is, say, a crane`s nest and that playing at the key spot will win the fight; maybe it is being able to combine several such items in one`s mind and understand their interaction without needing to visualise them.

Perhaps this is another dead end after all, but something feels promising...

I agree with all of this.. the ideal of abstract reading is hard for me to understand though. I would compare it to positional judgement, when you know which side to block in a 3-3 because you know in the future it is better to have blocked that way. In a way this is that kind of reading isn't it? And if you could do that normally it would be better... but I wonder if pros really can do that in go.

[Tami]

I agree with all of this.. the ideal of abstract reading is hard for me to understand though. I would compare it to positional judgement, when you know which side to block in a 3-3 because you know in the future it is better to have blocked that way. In a way this is that kind of reading isn't it? And if you could do that normally it would be better... but I wonder if pros really can do that in go.

Unfortunately, I have no idea whether abstract reading is possible in go and if it is possible I am unable to do any more than wildly speculate on how it might feel.

By the way, I only got on to Visual Reading by accident. It was last year, and I was doing a tsumego, when suddenly the moves simply began to roll past my mind`s eye. It was quite startling. Somehow I neglected to build on this, but I haven`t forgotten the experience, and reading your thread and also reading Chess for Zebras reminded me of it, and so I have decided to investigate further and attempt to practice it.

[NoSkill]

I agree with all of this.. the ideal of abstract reading is hard for me to understand though. I would compare it to positional judgement, when you know which side to block in a 3-3 because you know in the future it is better to have blocked that way. In a way this is that kind of reading isn't it? And if you could do that normally it would be better... but I wonder if pros really can do that in go.

Unfortunately, I have no idea whether abstract reading is possible in go and if it is possible I am unable to do any more than wildly speculate on how it might feel.

By the way, I only got on to Visual Reading by accident. It was last year, and I was doing a tsumego, when suddenly the moves simply began to roll past my mind`s eye. It was quite startling. Somehow I neglected to build on this, but I haven`t forgotten the experience, and reading your thread and also reading Chess for Zebras reminded me of it, and so I have decided to investigate further and attempt to practice it.

I see.

I discovered it by accident as well, by thinking about reading and whether you really read better, or just know things intuitively, how to read faster etc. As well as when I was tired I stopped thinking about just played the moves in my head.

So we are at the same point, but no further continuation other than to try it