The harder part of Go

[Phoenix]

Of course I can't let him catch up - ever.

Congrats. Let us know if one day he starts crushing you on the board.
Maybe later he'll enjoy a Malkovich game with you here, too?

I've been eyeing the Malkovich section for a while, contemplating it. Right now, though, I'm in the middle of a major overhaul in my whole approach to the game, and am filling a lot of serious gaps in my knowledge. "Under construction" is what I say now instead of rank.

Maybe a Big Brother one once he has a reasonable sense for the game on the large board. It won't be sensational unless I have a Big Brother myself.

[EdLee]

I've been eyeing the Malkovich section for a while...and am filling a lot of serious gaps in my knowledge.

That's nice. And if you find yourself completely befuddled in a Malkovich game and say so,
and if you're lucky, sometimes you'll find the solution after the game
in somebody's hidden comments.

[tekesta]

Snacks, caffeine and friendly chatter between games can all make a new player remember the club in a positive light. Sometimes you can pull somebody through those first 50 losses not because they see that Go is a beautiful game yet, but because they like to go to the club meetings.

This would be a very important feature of any Go club meeting, at least where I live. Even if newcomers are not very interested in Go at first, they'll come for free snacks and drinks. Eventually some of them will want to play their first game of Go. At least outside of East Asia, lack of public exposure is one barrier to expansion of the ranks of Go players. If Go can be associated with free food & drink, it would be a start.

[tekesta]

I think that go always has an aspect of jumping in the river to learn how to swim. After all, if you opponent is any good, he will give you problems to solve. (I suppose that it would be possible to create a course in go that would have enough detail so that the beginner never faces that challenge. After a year or two of study, he would be ready to play a game. )

Bill, you always come up with great ideas A school course in the game of Go would be good for introducing uninitiated persons to the game. One or two years of study before the first game. Plenty of fuseki, life & death, and other problems, plus some theory. By the time of the student's first game (preferably on a 19x19), he/she should have enough background knowledge to play a decent game of Go. Of course there is a good chance of losing the first few games, but - instead of playing with scarcely an idea of what to do on the board - the student will be playing with enough background knowledge to make educated guesses at every play.

[Twitchy Go]

I think that go always has an aspect of jumping in the river to learn how to swim. After all, if you opponent is any good, he will give you problems to solve. (I suppose that it would be possible to create a course in go that would have enough detail so that the beginner never faces that challenge. After a year or two of study, he would be ready to play a game. )

Bill, you always come up with great ideas A school course in the game of Go would be good for introducing uninitiated persons to the game. One or two years of study before the first game. Plenty of fuseki, life & death, and other problems, plus some theory. By the time of the student's first game (preferably on a 19x19), he/she should have enough background knowledge to play a decent game of Go. Of course there is a good chance of losing the first few games, but - instead of playing with scarcely an idea of what to do on the board - the student will be playing with enough background knowledge to make educated guesses at every play.

Speaking from my experience learning the game, I'd be biting at the bit to play well before the first week of this course(maybe even the first day). Of course I'm very much the kind of person to jump into the boiling shark infested water because I heard this swimming thing was pretty cool.

[Phoenix]

I think that go always has an aspect of jumping in the river to learn how to swim. After all, if you opponent is any good, he will give you problems to solve. (I suppose that it would be possible to create a course in go that would have enough detail so that the beginner never faces that challenge. After a year or two of study, he would be ready to play a game. )

Bill, you always come up with great ideas A school course in the game of Go would be good for introducing uninitiated persons to the game. One or two years of study before the first game. Plenty of fuseki, life & death, and other problems, plus some theory. By the time of the student's first game (preferably on a 19x19), he/she should have enough background knowledge to play a decent game of Go. Of course there is a good chance of losing the first few games, but - instead of playing with scarcely an idea of what to do on the board - the student will be playing with enough background knowledge to make educated guesses at every play.

Speaking from my experience learning the game, I'd be biting at the bit to play well before the first week of this course(maybe even the first day). Of course I'm very much the kind of person to jump into the boiling shark infested water because I heard this swimming thing was pretty cool.

I have to agree with Twitchy Go here. Why would you give someone a long course before they can even start to play a game, the main feature of it (in my opinion) being that it's really fun? What if someone introduced you to Chess this way?

Losing your first X games and learning through trial and error, while enjoying yourself, is far better IMO.

P.S.: I don't think anyone has ever been bitten by sharks whilst playing this game. Diving in is perfectly fine.

[tekesta]

I have to agree with Twitchy Go here. Why would you give someone a long course before they can even start to play a game, the main feature of it (in my opinion) being that it's really fun? What if someone introduced you to Chess this way?

Losing your first X games and learning through trial and error, while enjoying yourself, is far better IMO.

At least in North America, the fun factor would be a primary one. Many mothers send their children to after school karate courses because they are fun as well as conducive to building character. Something to keep the kids busy until Mom can get home from work, while learning the things they will need to have when they become adults and enter the workplace.

The idea of a structured Baduk course would work for those wanting to do more than just play for enjoyment, as well as for those would would prefer something more formal than a club setting. Of course studying for a year or two before ever playing a game would be excessively long a wait, but a 40/60 ratio of practice games to problems would, in time, allow the novice to gain enough background knowledge to play the game reasonably well. Eventually the ratio of games to problems can be partially reversed. The students would concentrate on developing tactical proficiency, then develop strategic proficiency to allow them to apply tactics according to a strategic plan. Of course by no means will such a course guarantee pro status for its participants, but the playing level of the casual player can be raised through widespread availability of such courses. Ultimately this would mean more people for me to play Baduk with

Imagine if the first thing a student had to do upon enrolling for karate courses is to fight with the instructor or senior student and win. He tries and his opponent beats him badly, of course. On top of that the winner berates the novice student for losing. Fortunately most senior students and instructors of Karate and other martial arts abstain from doing that. The discipline and humility that many mothers expect their children to learn are displayed on a daily basis by the majority of martial arts instructors and senior students. Were this not true, the current number of martial arts students would be much lower.

IMHO having Baduk players that rub it in after defeating novice opponents do much to obstruct popularization of the game in North America, one meeting at a time.

[Phoenix]

At least in North America, the fun factor would be a primary one. Many mothers send their children to after school karate courses because they are fun as well as conducive to building character. Something to keep the kids busy until Mom can get home from work, while learning the things they will need to have when they become adults and enter the workplace.

The idea of a structured Baduk course would work for those wanting to do more than just play for enjoyment, as well as for those would would prefer something more formal than a club setting. Of course studying for a year or two before ever playing a game would be excessively long a wait, but a 40/60 ratio of practice games to problems would, in time, allow the novice to gain enough background knowledge to play the game reasonably well. Eventually the ratio of games to problems can be partially reversed. The students would concentrate on developing tactical proficiency, then develop strategic proficiency to allow them to apply tactics according to a strategic plan. Of course by no means will such a course guarantee pro status for its participants, but the playing level of the casual player can be raised through widespread availability of such courses. Ultimately this would mean more people for me to play Baduk with

Imagine if the first thing a student had to do upon enrolling for karate courses is to fight with the instructor or senior student and win. He tries and his opponent beats him badly, of course. On top of that the winner berates the novice student for losing. Fortunately most senior students and instructors of Karate and other martial arts abstain from doing that. The discipline and humility that many mothers expect their children to learn are displayed on a daily basis by the majority of martial arts instructors and senior students. Were this not true, the current number of martial arts students would be much lower.

IMHO having Baduk players that rub it in after defeating novice opponents do much to obstruct popularization of the game in North America, one meeting at a time.

We're touching on quite a few things here. First off I'd like to say your games to study ratio for Go is about what is expected of someone who plays to improve anyway. What I don't agree with is the idea of having a wait period before placing stones on a board.

The aim, in Go as well as in Karate (or other martial arts), is to gloss over some basics and then apply them as soon as possible - against other beginners.

Crushing and then berating your lesser is not a lesson that is taught either through Go or MAs. I was taught quite the opposite in my martial art classes. There are those who feel they have to act in this kind of juvenile manner in order to feel better about themselves. Point being, the problem is with these types rather than the general structure of such activities. If you have a beginner, pair them with the person with the nearest skill level.

Starting a beginner off with a master can be challenging on its own. In Taekwon-Do, I was sometimes paired off with beginners. I quickly realized I had to structure the sparring in a way to avoid hurting them as well as them hurting themselves (and trust me, when they're jumping around flailing aimlessly, it's a challenge!).

All in all, your method sounds like regular, serious Go study. If a beginner is fanatical about becoming stronger, then it would be a good fit. I still believe, however, that playing as much as possible in the first stages is the way to go.

[tekesta]

We're touching on quite a few things here. First off I'd like to say your games to study ratio for Go is about what is expected of someone who plays to improve anyway. What I don't agree with is the idea of having a wait period before placing stones on a board.

Now that you mention it, even for those studying Baduk on an academic basis, waiting any length of time before playing a game is questionable.

The aim, in Go as well as in Karate (or other martial arts), is to gloss over some basics and then apply them as soon as possible - against other beginners.

It's difficult to do when most Baduk players are either very strong or very weak. Being able to match beginner with beginner is a desirable state of affairs, but it appears we'll have to create a pool of such players first.

Crushing and then berating your lesser is not a lesson that is taught either through Go or MAs. I was taught quite the opposite in my martial art classes. There are those who feel they have to act in this kind of juvenile manner in order to feel better about themselves. Point being, the problem is with these types rather than the general structure of such activities. If you have a beginner, pair them with the person with the nearest skill level.

When I was learning judo back in 2004, one of the very first things I was taught was to behave respectfully towards everyone, inside the dojo and outside of it; once we took up judo, we in effect became ambassadors for the art, so we had to project a favorable public image at all times. I believe that positive public behavior on part of the practitioners of an art is one incentive for novices wanting to take it up. One reason why in North America many mothers enroll their young children in MA classes is because, in addition to being good, clean fun, the students learn discipline, humility, and other virtues considered essential for functioning well in society. MA instructors almost always display these virtues in their daily behavior. It would be nice if the same could be said of Baduk, but it is not yet as widespread as Karate and other MAs. A bit more public exposure is in order, I think.

Starting a beginner off with a master can be challenging on its own. In Taekwon-Do, I was sometimes paired off with beginners. I quickly realized I had to structure the sparring in a way to avoid hurting them as well as them hurting themselves (and trust me, when they're jumping around flailing aimlessly, it's a challenge!).

This is one reason why, at least in traditional dojangs, a student practices a particular form of technique countless times before being taught another one; by learning it with the body instead of the brain, the situation you just described does not occur often. One major difference between Asian practitioners and North American practitioners of MA is that, whereas Asians simply obey their instructors and perfect their technique until the instructors say that they are ready for the next one, North Americans tend to want to learn the next technique after practicing the current one only a few times - and often seek an explanation to help them understand the purpose of said technique. (Asian instructors prefer that the student experiences the technique before knowing its purpose.) I believe one reason why Baduk is considered difficult by most North Americans familiar with the game is that even the most basic techniques take quite a bit of time to master and many would like a shortcut. Shortcuts to success in Baduk do exist, but even these take some time to master. The important thing, in Baduk as well as in martial arts, is to have an intimate knowledge of all the basic techniques needed to exercise the art well. We can summarize by saying that Baduk is a game for the patient, regardless of their social or academic background.

All in all, your method sounds like regular, serious Go study. If a beginner is fanatical about becoming stronger, then it would be a good fit. I still believe, however, that playing as much as possible in the first stages is the way to go.

I agree with you on this one. The students should play 50 games before opening even a basic problem book. At least with a few games under the belt understanding even the most basic tsumego is possible. Speaking of which, I like Kim Sung-rae's Speed Baduk series very much as a tutorial. I've learned quite a bit of Baduk technique from those books.

[Phoenix]

When I was learning judo back in 2004, one of the very first things I was taught was to behave respectfully towards everyone, inside the dojo and outside of it; once we took up judo, we in effect became ambassadors for the art, so we had to project a favorable public image at all times. I believe that positive public behavior on part of the practitioners of an art is one incentive for novices wanting to take it up. One reason why in North America many mothers enroll their young children in MA classes is because, in addition to being good, clean fun, the students learn discipline, humility, and other virtues considered essential for functioning well in society. MA instructors almost always display these virtues in their daily behavior. It would be nice if the same could be said of Baduk, but it is not yet as widespread as Karate and other MAs. A bit more public exposure is in order, I think.

I really like the way you put it. "Ambassadors of the art". It's a state of mind that seems to come naturally in some cultures. And it's one I strongly believe in. It's a give and take in America. It's simply harder to make a point embodying it when the level of respect for and understanding of skill is so fundamentally different, culturally. Most people would not take my advice in any field I was competent in despite the tremendous gains others would get from it. I once helped an average badminton player become twice as effective in a three-minute lesson.

One of the things people fall in love with in cultures such as Japan's, it's this entire "ambassador of the art" mindset. I strongly believe it's the kind of trait worth incorporating in your own life.

Here, it's the pervasive idea that if you get lucky and win once, it makes you better. Take luck away, though, and you get frustrated people who are too angry to try and learn. Strangely (and happily), I've found quite the opposite trend in Go.


I won't bother with your other arguments. We agree on everything else, it seems.