Understanding of Top Level Professionals

[Magicwand]

Yes. And I'm sure Einstein will have made calculation errors in at least one of his papers.

off topic but...
Einstiein is not a genius.
His math skill was so poor he could not solve simple (?) math calculation to prove his theory.
he actually failed his algebra class.

[EdLee]

Einstein math myth

[Bantari]

Yes. And I'm sure Einstein will have made calculation errors in at least one of his papers.

off topic but...
Einstiein is not a genius.
His math skill was so poor he could not solve simple (?) math calculation to prove his theory.
he actually failed his algebra class.

Thus spoke an authority...

Which makes me think... what makes one a genius?
And then - what makes one an authority of declaring or unmasking geniuses?

[Bantari]

Top level professionals read faster, deeper and more; calculate endgames faster and presumably on average more accurately; know a few more concepts not all amateurs know. All fine and well, but where is the "level that amateurs do not even start to comprehend"?

Hmm.... are you asking us or telling us?

Methinks that if there was a level amateurs do not even start to comprehend, you would - by definition - not be able to comprehend it. Possibly, you would not be able to even see it.

As for the rest of your post - it is hard to prove the negative. Again. The fact that you/we do not see something (a big gap), or that something has not been demonstrated (a deeper understanding), does not prove that it is not there. I am not trying to argue one way or the other - I simply do not know. Just making a point about the validity of your argument.

PS>
You possibly need to be more precise when you try to talk about the gap between pros and amas. Which pros, and which amas? There are amas out there as strong as many pros, and there are pros out there as weak as some amas. If we are talking about, lets say: you personally and any given top pro (i.e. recent winner of major title) - I would assume that the difference in pretty much everything is pretty big, and I am trying to be polite here and not hurt your feelings.

Except maybe in the field of formally presented Go theory as you see it. But then - we have had this 'fruitless' argument before: in your particular pond, you are a pretty big fish, but then you define your pond so that this is the exactly case and then exclude all else.

Still, once you are more precise, pick an ama and then pick a pro - then we can start measuring. Providing both have nothing better to do than to participate.

[daal]

Einstiein is not a genius.
His math skill was so poor he could not solve simple (?) math calculation to prove his theory.
he actually failed his algebra class.

Which makes me think... what makes one a genius?

I am a genius. I passed algebra.

[RobertJasiek]

Oberservers see only the results and think "Genius!", but those producing the results work ultimately hard and think "Genius is the result of ultimately hard work.". Applies to researchers as well as top sportsmen / players.

[illluck]

Top level professionals read faster, deeper and more; calculate endgames faster and presumably on average more accurately; know a few more concepts not all amateurs know. All fine and well, but where is the "level that amateurs do not even start to comprehend"?

Hmm.... are you asking us or telling us?

Methinks that if there was a level amateurs do not even start to comprehend, you would - by definition - not be able to comprehend it. Possibly, you would not be able to even see it.

Sorry for going a bit off-topic, but that response made me literally LOL.

[badukJr]

Oberservers see only the results and think "Genius!", but those producing the results work ultimately hard and think "Genius is the result of ultimately hard work.". Applies to researchers as well as top sportsmen / players.

There is something flawed with this argument, as factory workers work extraordinarily hard yet nobody would call them geniuses. There is something else at work here.

[Phoenix]

Oberservers see only the results and think "Genius!", but those producing the results work ultimately hard and think "Genius is the result of ultimately hard work.". Applies to researchers as well as top sportsmen / players.

There is something flawed with this argument, as factory workers work extraordinarily hard yet nobody would call them geniuses. There is something else at work here.

Does everyone remember the day a preteen beat Lee Changho fair and square?

A 6-Dan will beat Robert 75% of the time (that's how it works, right?).

Does the kid understand Go at a deeper level than Lee Changho? Should we choose any 6-dan's book over Robert's?

I think the issue here is that 'deep understanding' is an extremely hard to quantify construct. What does deep understanding lead to, exactly? What concepts are we not getting? Can we not tell a good from a bad result by looking at it?

I've read hundreds of explanations, comments and spats of theory from top players, and they all seem within the realm of the same small bunch of concepts that we are all aware of. If we want to achieve something here, we should first look at what it is and how we're going to know when we're getting closer.

[jts]

Oberservers see only the results and think "Genius!", but those producing the results work ultimately hard and think "Genius is the result of ultimately hard work.". Applies to researchers as well as top sportsmen / players.

There is something flawed with this argument, as factory workers work extraordinarily hard yet nobody would call them geniuses. There is something else at work here.

Does everyone remember the day a preteen beat Lee Changho fair and square?

A 6-Dan will beat Robert 75% of the time (that's how it works, right?).

Does the kid understand Go at a deeper level than Lee Changho? Should we choose any 6-dan's book over Robert's?

I think the issue here is that 'deep understanding' is an extremely hard to quantify construct. What does deep understanding lead to, exactly? What concepts are we not getting? Can we not tell a good from a bad result by looking at it?

I've read hundreds of explanations, comments and spats of theory from top players, and they all seem within the realm of the same small bunch of concepts that we are all aware of. If we want to achieve something here, we should first look at what it is and how we're going to know when we're getting closer.

I think it would be misleading to imply that the pre-teens haven't worked hard. Child prodigies are often monomaniacs. Children who respond to difficulties and challenges by becoming more excited and putting in more effort accomplish more than normal people, who, without being dumb, avoid activities that make them feel like failures.

As for workers - traditional craftsmen often did become geniuses. Some of them even won recognition as such (Giotto, for example). But when you break down a task into its component activities, they eventually become deadening. No one is a genius at lever pulling - that's the advantage, in fact: you can be an expert lever-puller without a lengthy apprenticeship.

[RobertJasiek]

badukJr, usually genius refers to thinking achievements. Therefore "ultimately hard thinking work".

[badukJr]

Not really, it just means an aptitude for any activity, although usually focused on creative pursuits. Like art. Definitions of the word will back me up here.

[tekesta]

I would love to have 8 hours a day and several hundred USD an hour for a professional dan player to come and show me the right way to play in a situation, but - alas - it won't be happening soon. One reason is that, even if I did have the money and the time, I probably do not have the background knowledge needed to understand even the most basic lessons imparted by so strong a player. Another is that professional students are given careful training to realize their full potential as Go players - and stand to make some money in the process. Most amateurs - myself included - seem to play Go along very different lines of reasoning when compared to even the lousiest pros.

Pros have basic skills (e.g., L&D, tesuji, opening theory) and even some advanced ones, such as positional judgement and comparative calculation of endgame scores, down to a science. All that results from long hours of careful cultivation of the same. Most amateurs would not have 8-12 hours a day to devote to said activity. It's like comparing a kid who plays football after school to a professional association football player. The main difference is the amount of time and effort devoted to perfecting one's own skills and the instruction one receives toward that end.

Finally, going back to something I mentioned in an earlier post, I am sure that students aspiring to a professional diploma are carefully trained by professionals and strong amateurs to play using the right mindset. Minute correction by minute correction, the student is guided towards the right way to assess a situation on the board, whether global or local, and employ the right techniques in the required order. Of course, at first many more games are lost than won, but the student gains experience with the information imparted to her by the instructor and, soon enough, she masters it and begins to win most of her games. For much of my first 2 years of playing Go, I just flat out did not know what I was doing. I would lose games in the most embarrassing fashion. It was only later that I began to correct by most obvious bad habits. I am still endeavoring to weed them out, one by one.

Even if I were to have been playing Go for 20 years and playing at well above (amateur) shodan level, unless a pro player were to come up to me and tell me a few things about his/her approach to the game, I simply would not be in the know. Our lines of reasoning would be very different.

[aokun]

OT, but Einstein was a genius, if the word means anything at all. Physicists are fortunate if they come up with one thing in their lives of such merit and importance that it earns them a Nobel. Einstein came up with four. The only comparable figure is Newton. And those "regular" folks who just come up with one are awfully impressive.