10 books to reach 5 kyu, more books beyond

[Bantari]

with nothing to support them

As said before, I support my statements by my observations, e.g., of how players up to 5k play and which mistakes they make. You might not believe it, but what I witnessed in hundreds (thousands?) games of such players was that everybody makes almost all the same kinds of mistakes, which prevent them from already becoming stronger.

It is not "evidence" in a strict sense, because I did not film everything I saw, but it is pretty convincing, would you not agree? Go books must teach them to avoid their mistakes; it is this simple!

Otherwise its only an opinion, not better or worse than the next guy's.

The difference is: I rely my opinion not on my own experience of having needed only 4 books and a half (until 5k), but on having observed or carefully studied many games of many other players, see above.

***

Everybody speak up who has studied the regularly occurring mistakes of players up to 5k in at least hundreds of games and found a greater variety of mistakes than can be cured by 10 such books as I mentioned.

But, as some said here as well, this question is either trivial or badly defined, as must be the answer, by extension.

What are you really trying to say here? The best I can approximate it is this: there exists a subset of books (10 or so) which when carefully chosen can cumulatively address the common shortcomings observed in play of players up to 5k. If my approximation is correct, it seems to imply that there are no books which deal with issues above 5k. If it is not correct, then I am not sure what this is all about...

So:
Can people reach above 5k with 10 books or less?
- if only thing they do is reading books, i would say that my guess is: Absolutely No! They probably can't even reach 10k or 15k.
- if they do other forms of study (play, analyse, whatever) then they can get above 5k with much less than 10 books, possibly with no books at all.

When I started playing, there were less than 10 books altogether, and there were still dan players. What does it prove? Exactly nothing.

[dumbrope]

Go books must teach them to avoid their mistakes; it is this simple!

I don't think it's simple. Here's the problem. When a stronger player reviews a weaker player's game, they see mistakes. Then if they want to explain a mistake, they have to put it into words (except when showing a variation should suffice.)

Examples (S = "Stronger Player", W = "Weaker Player")

S: You have to move from the weak side.
W: Yes. (Thinks: I thought that was the weak side.)

S: If you play this way, your opponent will be over-concentrated.
W: Yes. (Thinks: Well, only if I think there's a chance my opponent would respond that way.)

S: Black can just cut this way. (Shows variation far beyond W's reading.)
W: Of course! How silly of me for not seeing that.

My point is: this kind of conversation can go on even if W has read all the suggested books and S never uses a concept not introduced in those books. It takes a lot of game experience and feedback from stronger players to make the right interpretation of concepts. Even then, the concepts are often useless without reading to support them.

IHMO, most books help to the extent that they save some time for the teacher and the student, because they provide a common vocabulary and set of concepts for analysis. The tactical books can help the student improve reading, and since many mistakes are reading mistakes, I have to concede they should help there. But since real games aren't often exactly the positions shown in books, subtle differences can make a good move in the book be a bad move in a game or vice versa.

[RobertJasiek]

That would seem to indicate that he believes you need more than 10 or so books to get above 5k. Many dan players have done with less.

No. I think that it requires more than 10 books to make MOST players stronger than 5k. (Of course, there are players needing fewer and a tiny number of players never reading any book. Maybe even "many" players need fewer, however, the "many" is "smaller than 50%. We tend to recall anecdotes of fast improving players, but actually their percentage is small.)

Excluding any other ways of learning, such as teaching games, watching/replaying the games of stronger players etc. Learning in a vacuum with only access to players of your own strength or weaker as opponents or similar. Purely a thought exercise rather than something prescriptive.

I mean neither "excluding other ways of learning", nor "learning in a vacuum". However, I do require the assumption that players reading the books actually learn well from them.

If they get other advice isn't this discussion kinda moot?

No.

If a 9d would teach someone for a period of time that guy would probably get more information than 10 books are worth without actually reading any.

Sure, but MOST players do NOT get a paid teacher's advice. Most players do, however, have a chance to read 10 reads.

there are no books which deal with issues above 5k.

Nobody has said this.

Can people reach above 5k with 10 books or less?

The question is whether MOST players can.

- if only thing they do is reading books,

This is not a requirement.

- if they do other forms of study (play, analyse, whatever) then they can get above 5k with much less than 10 books, possibly with no books at all.

The question is whether MOST players can. Anyway, my point is that at most 10 books suffice for most players.

When I started playing, there were less than 10 books altogether, and there were still dan players. What does it prove?

Your anecdote contributes to the evidence that presumably at most 10 books suffice.

[RobertJasiek]

Examples (S = "Stronger Player", W = "Weaker Player")

S: You have to move from the weak side.
W: Yes. (Thinks: I thought that was the weak side.)

Books should teach better than your typical club teacher.

It takes a lot of game experience and feedback from stronger players to make the right interpretation of concepts.

Or it takes a few good books.

Even then, the concepts are often useless without reading to support them.

Yes. Reading support is necessary.

since real games aren't often exactly the positions shown in books, subtle differences can make a good move in the book be a bad move in a game or vice versa.

There will, of course, be players not overcoming this hurdle. I think, however, that most players can overcome it, especially if the books inform them to avoid slavish application of book knowledge and advise them to apply knowledge flexibly to fit varying positions.

Conceptual books should teach concepts. Examples in these books should not be understood as "in positions like this, always play exactly that shape move".

[Bill Spight]

Go books must teach them to avoid their mistakes; it is this simple!

I don't think it's simple. Here's the problem. When a stronger player reviews a weaker player's game, they see mistakes. Then if they want to explain a mistake, they have to put it into words (except when showing a variation should suffice.)

A strong player is not necessarily a good teacher. However, you don't have to send them off to get a teaching certificate to benefit from their knowledge. You do have to take an active role. For instance:

Examples (S = "Stronger Player", W = "Weaker Player")

S: You have to move from the weak side.
W: Yes. (Thinks: I thought that was the weak side.)

S: You have to move from the weak side.
W2: I thought that was the weak side.
S: No, it's stronger than the other side because . . . .

S: If you play this way, your opponent will be over-concentrated.
W: Yes. (Thinks: Well, only if I think there's a chance my opponent would respond that way.)

S: If you play this way, your opponent will be over-concentrated.
W2: My opponents don't play that way.
S: The way I showed you was the best reply. If White tenukies, then you have a strong attack like this.

S: Black can just cut this way. (Shows variation far beyond W's reading.)
W: Of course! How silly of me for not seeing that.

S: Black can just cut this way. (Shows variation far beyond W's reading.)
W2: I would never be able to read that out in a game.
S: But you see the point, don't you?
W2: Yes.
S: OK. Do you think that your opponents will be able to read it out?
W2: No.
S: OK. So give this kind of cut a try in your games. You understand the point of doing so, now. That means that you will probably be able to handle the cut, even if you can't read it out. If you wait until you can read everything out, you would never make the first move in the game.

Well, maybe I made the strong player a better teacher than usual. But if you just shrug the strong player's advice off when you don't understand, then you won't get much out of it.

[Bantari]

The question is whether MOST players can. Anyway, my point is that at most 10 books suffice for most players.

The important point, what I (and presumably others) disagree with, is not the part when you say that (most) people can advanced to 5k with (at most) 10 books - this seems obvious to everybody, I think. The problem is that you also state that people cannot get stronger than 5k with only 10 books - which I think is an utter nonsense. Especially if, as you yourself seem to admit - other forms of study are not only allowed but also required, either way.

[RobertJasiek]

The problem is that you also state that people cannot get stronger than 5k with only 10 books

Uh, this appears to be a misunderstanding:) Also there, I refer to "most" players! (Surely, there can be those going farther with their first 10 books.)

[kupus]

20 years ago I was 2 kyu EGF (closer to 1 kyu I think) without reading a Go book. I don't count briefly skipping through Davies's Life and Death which was extremely boring for me at that time.

But I played a lot with dan players, asked questions, went to couple of tournaments, ...

There are many ways to skin a cat.

[Bantari]

The problem is that you also state that people cannot get stronger than 5k with only 10 books

Uh, this appears to be a misunderstanding:) Also there, I refer to "most" players! (Surely, there can be those going farther with their first 10 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.

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

This seems to be pretty clear: according to you, it is not possible to advance above 5k with 10 books or so.
If I got it wrong, explain.

[RobertJasiek]

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.

This seems to be pretty clear: according to you, it is not possible to advance above 5k with 10 books or so.
If I got it wrong, explain.

Please note the emphasis. Therefore "Above 5k: no." means "With fewer than 10 books, IMO, probably not MOST players advance beyond EGF 5k.

BTW, how many books to make everybody 1d or 1p would be other interesting questions.

[hyperpape]

What exactly are we judging about these books?

"Would they probably suffice to turn most of their readers from absolute beginners to EGF 5 kyu?" (The players must a) play regularly and think about their moves, b) learn from their mistakes and c) learn the books' knowledge to apply it in their games. The players may get other advice, such as talks with other players or advice from club teachers.)

So the question presumes that most players would not reach 5 kyu following the same path without the books, and most players would reach 5 kyu following that path with the books, no? Or, at a minimum, that substantially more players would reach 5 kyu with the books than without.

Otherwise, there's an air of triviality.

[Bantari]

Please note the emphasis. Therefore "Above 5k: no." means "With fewer than 10 books, IMO, probably not MOST players advance beyond EGF 5k.

Oh, you are implying in your words emphasis taken from what you quote. Ok then, I can see it.
What you are saying is that, for most people, it is not possible to reach above 5k with 10 or less books.

I admit that this is a slightly different statement than I initially thought you made. My bad.

However - I still strongly disagree - and examples abound, me being one of them. I would say that pretty much everybody can make it to a much higher level without any books at all, provided they have a good teacher, appropriate competition, and good discipline and help in going over their own games and mistakes. Books help, but they are by no means a necessary factor in order for anybody to reach whatever level they want to reach.

[Xyiana]

I mean - this is ridiculous.
Robert - you are widely known (at least to me, heh) as making wild but (un)authoritative statements with nothing to support them but your own perception, and this is a good example.

Show me the proof, the numbers, the studies... show me somebody who did that and then prove its not an outlier. .

You know that we dont have acceptable researches results in this area. So we can have only "best guess" advices/opinions. And in this area i think Robert´s opinions are o.k. And i think we can give him credit for serious thinking about this because it is crucial part of his book writing process. I dont think that all his writing on forum in this area is only aggresive marketing. Ofc some forums members disagree

I am old enough and not from western/english speaking world to remember problems with books or at least usable information for study outside of rulebook and handicap play book. And Robert´s list is what our group needed most when started. Even when i started teaching my sons his list is similar to my own teaching experience.
Only thing where i disagree with him is tsumego/tesuji problems study. We have enough application for solving problems in all levels of difficulty that you can start right after basic rules knowledge and never stop.

[blacklyche]

Many many players reach 5kyu without touching a book in their life...

Is the question suggested reading to HELP get to 5kyu and beyond ? If so.. the list is completely valid.

As stated.. playing games.. watching kibitz.. getting thru online L&D problems and playing more games seems to be more than enough for most people.