We are all Rumbolds

John Fairbairn · Post by **John Fairbairn** » Tue Jun 25, 2013 6:28 am

A propos recent and not so recent discussions here about the relative superiority of study by grind and repetition and study by attempting to understand general principles (all the reading I have done since confirms my strong belief in the former for go), I was amused by a line from a play:

Schoolmaster: Someone once said, Rumbold, that education is what is left when you have forgotten all you have ever learned.

He then added: You appear to be trying to circumvent the process by learning as little as possible.

I fear too many of us go students are Rumbolds.

daal · Post by **daal** » Tue Jun 25, 2013 1:43 pm

I tend to share the suspicion that learning by principle is a like a shortcut that leads you over the river and through the woods when Grandmother's house was just next door - but... the view is nicer. After all, who would read your books, and for that matter most go books, if all we did was grind and repeat?

Boidhre · Post by **Boidhre** » Tue Jun 25, 2013 1:55 pm

daal wrote:I tend to share the suspicion that learning by principle is a like a shortcut that leads you over the river and through the woods when Grandmother's house was just next door - but... the view is nicer. After all, who would read your books, and for that matter most go books, if all we did was grind and repeat?

I've a more cynical view. If go books, in small quantities, were a quick and easy path to strength in go there wouldn't be much of a go book industry.

John Fairbairn · Post by **John Fairbairn** » Tue Jun 25, 2013 2:24 pm

It's true that a certain type of go book, or even just having too many of any type, gets in the way of learning. But, in my case I have always tried not to teach but to motivate. By exploring the histories or personalities of people who have achieved go nirvana, I have always hoped to inspire others whose grind and repetition I can then watch, sharing their eventual success vicariously from the bed of nails that is my sofa.

Peel me a grape, 5-kyu!

Boidhre · Post by **Boidhre** » Tue Jun 25, 2013 2:32 pm

John Fairbairn wrote:It's true that a certain type of go book, or even just having too many of any type, gets in the way of learning. But, in my case I have always tried not to teach but to motivate. By exploring the histories or personalities of people who have achieved go nirvana, I have always hoped to inspire others whose grind and repetition I can then watch, sharing their eventual success vicariously from the bed of nails that is my sofa.

Peel me a grape, 5-kyu!

Personally, your books have made go even more interesting for me more than anything else, and really I could not ask for anything more than that from any go book. Thanks.

Bantari · Post by **Bantari** » Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:35 pm

John Fairbairn wrote:A propos recent and not so recent discussions here about the relative superiority of study by grind and repetition and study by attempting to understand general principles (all the reading I have done since confirms my strong belief in the former for go), I was amused by a line from a play:

Schoolmaster: Someone once said, Rumbold, that education is what is left when you have forgotten all you have ever learned.

He then added: You appear to be trying to circumvent the process by learning as little as possible.

I fear too many of us go students are Rumbolds.

Not sure I agree with that, if I understand you correctly.

Certain things are can be understood/applied easier and faster studying a general principles rather than grinding. For example: the general concept of life and death. You can grind for a long time to cover all the situations, or until the light finally goes on in your head and you will 'get it'... or somebody can explain to you that two eyes live and why - and you can stop that grinding and maybe go do some more advanced grinding instead.

I think that grinding helps you achieve two things: better reading and expanded shape/position database. If we were perfect calculating machines, this would be sufficient, and indeed possibly the best way to achieve success. However - we are not, and most of us will possibly never be any good without at least some general principles guiding our moves.

I also think that the higher your level the more the reading and database (i.e. grinding) trumps general principles. Thus the pros might sometimes have hard time explain things in terms we, mere mortals, can understand - they just think differently. Alas, for us, mere mortals, there will probably always be a balance necessary with general principles being the crutch we have to lean on.

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:04 am

Bantari wrote:I also think that the higher your level the more the reading and database (i.e. grinding) trumps general principles. Thus the pros might sometimes have hard time explain things in terms we, mere mortals, can understand - they just think differently. Alas, for us, mere mortals, there will probably always be a balance necessary with general principles being the crutch we have to lean on.

The more I study pro games, amateur games or go theory, the more I recognise general principles, whose average becomes increasingly fundamental and simple. However, go theory does not converge to triviality. There also is room for complex tactics, complex strategy, increasingly precise judgement calculations and advanced, detailed generalisation defying simplification. E.g., greatest efficiency can demand choosing a complex fight, whose fate depends mainly on reading of complex tactics involving principle-sparse life and death reading.

Professional players often have a hard time to explain things in terms of general, fundamental, simple principles, because it requires meticulous, long research to discover them or recognise them amidst unorganised or subconscious knowledge.

Boidhre wrote:If go books, in small quantities, were a quick and easy path to strength in go there wouldn't be much of a go book industry.

There are a couple of books, of which each equals an improvement of ca. 2 ranks. However, 1) there are countless of books without this potential, 2) this great potential ends somewhere between 5k and 1k, 3) not everybody is able to profit (fully) from such books' potential and 4) other factors can prevent realisation of that potential. In particular, weak tactical reading can prevent it. Players magically already having a good tactical reading ability and not being stopped by (3) can reach EGF 5 kyu by just a few books.

Starting from EGF 5 kyu, the amount of necessary go theory explodes exponentially. A few players are able to explore it by hard work. Others can explore it by books. While you dismiss that as "industry", a significant number of books is required to describe all the go theory useful beyond 5 kyu. The Western literature still covers only a fraction of it.

Beyond 3 dan, another boundary occurs: available relevant knowledge in the literature is sparse and in the world go population's verbal heritage is hard to access. Players gifted and willing to learn are confronted with having to have luck / great effort to discover or be accidentally told such mostly hidden knowledge.

Therefore, IMO, it is unfair to blame everybody for laziness. It can be an important factor, but a learner can run also into one of the mentioned or implied other factors of missing talent (ability to read deeply at all, ability to prioritise and order great amounts of relevant and irrelevant knowledge), misleading inefficient literature (and a missing talent to distinguish good from bad book recommendations), missing time to overcome the effort-aspects such as reading, running into the still hidden knowledge land without having accidental access to relevant verbal heritage.

daal · Post by **daal** » Wed Jun 26, 2013 1:26 am

RobertJasiek wrote:...a learner can run also into one of the mentioned or implied other factors of missing talent (ability to read deeply at all, ability to prioritise and order great amounts of relevant and irrelevant knowledge)...

This sort of player should probably grind and repeat more, but maybe they are too lazy for that. Reading a go book to combat insomnia is a time honored Rumboldian principle.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:21 am

John Fairbairn wrote:A propos recent and not so recent discussions here about the relative superiority of study by grind and repetition and study by attempting to understand general principles (all the reading I have done since confirms my strong belief in the former for go), I was amused by a line from a play:

Schoolmaster: Someone once said, Rumbold, that education is what is left when you have forgotten all you have ever learned.

He then added: You appear to be trying to circumvent the process by learning as little as possible.

I fear too many of us go students are Rumbolds.

It seems to me that grind and repetition vs. general principles is a false dichotomy. IMHO go is a very conceptual game, and concepts play a role in both aforementioned approaches to study. Go has concepts of different sorts at different levels.

These five positions illustrate eight go concepts (at least). All of them illustrate the concept of two eyes for independent life.

The position in the top left illustrates the concept of capture and the related concept of atari.

The position in the top right illustrates the higher concept of the snapback.

The position in the bottom right illustrates an even higher concept than the snapback. AFAIK, this concept has no name.

The position in the bottom left illustrates an even higher noname concept, which is an exception to the concept in the bottom right.

Armed only with the concepts of capture and two eyes for life, a player could read out all four of these positions, and, with repetition, could learn to do so quickly and reliably. I submit, however, that, as a human being, the player would also learn at least the concepts embodied in the first three positions, so that if confronted by those positions and similar positions in a game, would understand them and play them correctly without having to read them out.

The position in the center illustrates a particular nakade concept, as well as the concept of almost filling and subsidiary nakade concepts. What player who understands this nakade concept bothers to read the position out?

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:40 am

Bill Spight wrote:The position in the bottom right illustrates an even higher concept than the snapback. AFAIK, this concept has no name.

Iterative snapback.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:46 am

RobertJasiek wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:The position in the bottom right illustrates an even higher concept than the snapback. AFAIK, this concept has no name.

Iterative snapback.

Auf Englisch that means a series of snapbacks.

Boidhre · Post by **Boidhre** » Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:19 am

RobertJasiek wrote:
Boidhre wrote:If go books, in small quantities, were a quick and easy path to strength in go there wouldn't be much of a go book industry.

There are a couple of books, of which each equals an improvement of ca. 2 ranks. However, 1) there are countless of books without this potential, 2) this great potential ends somewhere between 5k and 1k, 3) not everybody is able to profit (fully) from such books' potential and 4) other factors can prevent realisation of that potential. In particular, weak tactical reading can prevent it. Players magically already having a good tactical reading ability and not being stopped by (3) can reach EGF 5 kyu by just a few books.

Starting from EGF 5 kyu, the amount of necessary go theory explodes exponentially. A few players are able to explore it by hard work. Others can explore it by books. While you dismiss that as "industry", a significant number of books is required to describe all the go theory useful beyond 5 kyu. The Western literature still covers only a fraction of it.

Beyond 3 dan, another boundary occurs: available relevant knowledge in the literature is sparse and in the world go population's verbal heritage is hard to access. Players gifted and willing to learn are confronted with having to have luck / great effort to discover or be accidentally told such mostly hidden knowledge.

Therefore, IMO, it is unfair to blame everybody for laziness. It can be an important factor, but a learner can run also into one of the mentioned or implied other factors of missing talent (ability to read deeply at all, ability to prioritise and order great amounts of relevant and irrelevant knowledge), misleading inefficient literature (and a missing talent to distinguish good from bad book recommendations), missing time to overcome the effort-aspects such as reading, running into the still hidden knowledge land without having accidental access to relevant verbal heritage.

No, Robert I'm talking about the similarities between the Eastern, specifically Japanese, go book industry and the Western, primarily English, chess book industry. Both seem to year on year produce many, many books aimed at adult learners of the game and year on year we have the same adult players bemoaning their lack of progress. Are great books created? Sure. Are some people able to improve significantly in both using the books available? Sure. Does it seem to work with most people with most books published? No. I don't think it's deliberate or anything, that chess or go writers withold the secrets so they can sell more books, just that go and chess aren't the kind of things that you can sum up in a small number (10 or so) of books for most players. No slight was implied to writers or readers of such.

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:37 am

Boidhre wrote:just that go and chess aren't the kind of things that you can sum up in a small number (10 or so) of books for most players.

For go and up to EGF 5k, it is possible. Above 5k: no.

John Fairbairn · Post by **John Fairbairn** » Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:50 am

Bill Spight said

It seems to me that grind and repetition vs. general principles is a false dichotomy

It may be but it's not the dichotomy I referred to. I used the phrase "understanding general principles". I accept that may be as woolly as "grind and repetition" but I think this forum by now is aware of the references. There are some people who believe they have to understand something before they find it useful. Others pick up the concepts subconsciously through grind and repetition. Both sets of people can end up with the general concepts embedded. The former may find it easier to pass on those concepts to other people but will probably not be as fluent in using them in their own games. The latter type may not be able to explain to others how they know what they know but will be able to use it in game situations faster and more creatively.

It's an informed guess, but I think the different performance level comes about because the G&R type, through the very same process of letting the brain take care of all the neural networking, allows the brain to make many more useful and faster connections between different concepts and applicable to more situations. The jigsaw has already been done inside the brain. The UGP type tries to take away control from the subconscious brain and ends up with what is possibly an illusion of understanding but certainly only one jigsaw piece which he has to match with other jigsaw pieces (which may be missing) under time pressure.

But what has all this to do with a joke?

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:59 am

John Fairbairn wrote:but will probably not be as fluent in using them in their own games. [...] will be able to use it in game situations faster and more creatively.

I see no evidence for these statements.

Life In 19x19

We are all Rumbolds

We are all Rumbolds

Re: We are all Rumbolds

Re: We are all Rumbolds

Re: We are all Rumbolds

Re: We are all Rumbolds

Re: We are all Rumbolds

Re: We are all Rumbolds

Re: We are all Rumbolds

Re: We are all Rumbolds

Re: We are all Rumbolds

Re: We are all Rumbolds

Re: We are all Rumbolds

Re: We are all Rumbolds

Re: We are all Rumbolds

Re: We are all Rumbolds