Sometimes, it is enough for me, that someone points out an alternative superior move. If I see that move, I am also able to see, why it's better (maybe it takes some time...). The problem is rather how to find this move on the board than to explain it lateron (and this is where intuition might play an important role). Thus, a favorable variation of the teacher's vs student's discussion might go as follows:

T: I would prefer this move here
S: ok, but wait...
S: ...
S: It is because it allows to XXX while putting pressure on YYY?
T: You are almost right

Bantari (topazg, too), First off, peace out is good.
I'm all for having a mature discussion. Many good and interesting points to go over.
Have to start somewhere, so how about these two parts:(Emphasis added) I like the highlighted part a lot. To be clear: I'm not saying we should all suddenly drop all reasoning
and intellectual thinking. I'm saying intellectual reasoning and thinking has its time and place,
but so does sub-conscious non-intellectual processing. (Naturally, more on this later.)Just so you know how I feel -- during this whole time in Daal's thread and the discussions here so far,
I feel I am up against your (and topaz's) "everything reasoned on conscious level". (Of course, more on this, too.)

I also like to get the unpleasantness out of the way first. I gave two scenarios ("by examples").
In each case, I did not say whether it's good or bad, whether P is good or bad,
whether X or Y is good or bad, or whether the method is good or bad.
They are snapshots of what I've seen, from my experience. Other people may or may not have such experiences.

Here are two styles to continue the discussion:

The following is another style:
I find your style (above, at least in this case) annoying and immature.
In our previous PM chats, you were not like this. Here -- the two scenarios; a method --
you find them unclear or contrary to your understanding.
Instead of asking me about what I meant with the examples or my thoughts on them,
or rephrasing them neutrally like styles 1 and 2 above,
you immediately cast them in very negative light --
"who cares about understanding?", "it's your problem", "teach a dog to sit by beating him," etc.

I find styles 1 and 2 much more mature, and easier for me to continue a discussion with.

And maybe something struck a nerve, because you found it necessary to proclaim
four times that you are not a child. I found it very odd. I never suggested you were. Nobody else did, either.
In fact, from our previous PM and other forum posts I always guessed you are older than me.
So the entire notion never even crossed my mind, until you emphasized it multiple times.

Also, comparing how adults and children learn is not off topic;
it's very much on topic -- more on this later.

Consider a following example:

A position calls for a specific move which removes bad aji. The student fails to make this move, loses the game, and asks you for review. You can do the following:

1. point out the move and say 'this is better' and move on to the next move, or
2. point out the move and explain that it is better because it removes the bad aji, then you can show the aji and why is it bad

In both cases, something will be learned, and when this position next appears on the board, the student will not make the same mistake again. So far so good, right?

But how about the almost-the-same position, when a better move would be to leave the bad aji as it is and grab something else instead? In case #1 the student will still most likely play the aji-removing move (which is not so good in *this* position.) In case #2 the student will have some understanding, some tools to make the decision. He might still play the aji-removing move, but then he might not - he might be able to weight out the reasons and realize that in *this* position the aji is less important than something else. But to do that, he first has to *know* the reasons for the move in question.

Now, it is true that eventually both students will converge, and along both paths the knowledge will eventually be acquired and even used sub-consciously. However, it is my strong conviction that path #2 is much faster and more satisfactory for the student and leads to much less misunderstanding.

For the student to gather the same knowledge along path #1 - he and his teacher will have to look at many more examples, hopefully some that discern the difference between leaving the aji and removing it... and only after that - and a long dragged-out sequence of comments like 'good' and 'better' or 'bad' - does the student has a chance of making progress.

This does not really have anything to do with drudging or not drudging, as John describes it. It has to do with the simple fact that: if you can give your student a leg up, why don't you? Unless you can demonstrate that there is harm to the student involved in explaining at least a little, I believe this to be a much better approach.



Oh, no, absolutely not!!!
I believe very strongly in the subconscious learning, and this is the base of my argument with RJ! I also believe very strongly in learning/teaching by example and by problem. Its just that I also believe that some, even minimal explanation can not only speed things up greatly, but also help avoiding issues down the line. This is why I dislike when I see moves commented as 'A is better'... such comments have their value, but its like 10% of the value the teacher could give if he spent a few extra seconds.

To me, the subconscious understanding and application, in sporting terms, is the Holy Grail. But - and here is where our issue lies, I guess - I see absolutely no harm in supplementing any subconscious learning/teaching with conscious reasoning as well. What's more - I see a lot of value and a lot of advantages in such supplement.

Thus I argue against the dry 'this move is better, learn it, period!' method.

So my fundamental approach is as follows:

• If I know some reasoning, why not share it, at least as much as is appropriate to the student's level, but I make the best effort I can to explain
• If I don't know any good reasons, I share it too, so the student can be more suspicious of my advice and think more for him/herself.
• And if my reason is only 'experience shows' or 'pros do it' - then I share it too... it all can help the student in not forming bad habits and it fosters independent thinking instead of blind parroting until the lights go on.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

I think it might be that John takes his advice from a different environment where the expectations placed on the student are much much higher. For example - the student might be expected to work most of his waking time on Go and nothing else. The student might also be expected to have a very strong competition handy, as well as very strong players to discuss ideas with and test moves against. And so on... different world. Not to mention that the student might already be a dan-level player or better...

In our every-day wester Go life, faced with a beginner walking into a club or a DDK asking for comment on L19 - such expectations are unrealistic, mostly. We simply do not have the luxury to go the 'drudge' way, and in most cases we do not have the luxury to expect to become super-strong. We work with different material in a different conditions, so drudging it out might not be the most efficient approach.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

.
.
.
.
Time Lapse | Earth

I also notice that when you (Ed) give reviews, what you often do is point out a (bad) move and write: "see var," and the variation shows a different move without saying why it's better. This leads me to think that either you don't feel like writing a long explanation, or you think that it's better for the reviewee to consider the reasons himself. My impression is that you do in fact consider this to be a preferable method. Do you not?

I'm not sure if I consider this better or worse than explaining your reasoning, but I can say from the learner's standpoint that I appreciate anything that helps me remember the better move. What I consciously remember best are moves that illustrate an idea. On the occasion that you have reviewed my games, I have certainly spent time trying to figure out the reasoning for the variations you've presented, but in some cases I've just found myself scratching my head.

I must also say, that while I find a good explanation of a principle illustrated by a good example particularly enjoyable, my "professional advice" thread is all about an extremely tight-lipped teacher presenting better moves. In this case though, the sheer quantity and quality of the variations presented outweighs the lack of explicit instruction, and although I don't consider this a drudge method, I am banking on my unconscious to do some work.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Bantari, and Daal. I just re-read Daal's original thread What is "the direction of play?"
and this spin-off thread. There is a huge amount of misunderstanding. There's also some
shared experience, some common ground (which is nice).

I'll try my best to eventually answer all your questions, but I cannot guarantee
that I can do it in a very short time -- with a few sentences, with a few posts,
very concisely, etc. -- I may need help with some Q&A (like my "shared experiences"
questions for Bantari earlier) -- this discussion may take some time. I'm OK with it --
taking the time, going back and forth -- if that's OK with you.

First, when I review games on KGS and in real life, when I suggest
a different move/variation than in the real game,
I think in most cases, I give an explanation (which could be
very brief, or longer, depending on the situation).
This may come as a surprise to you.

(In some cases, I will try to explain why I think another
move is better. And they would have no idea what I'm talking about.
In those cases, after some trials, I may give up and say
"Hmm, this is difficult to explain more. Maybe you'll understand this
later, with more experience.") -- (More on this, later.)

Also, when I think of good pro (Go) teachers that I've seen,
when they suggest a move, they also almost always have
an explanation. I also don't know if this experience of mine
comes as a surprise to you.

There are some differences among in-person reviews,
KGS reviews, and forum reviews -- one difference is real-time vs. forum-time.

For in-person reviews, 99.99% of the time I'm referring
to people in our local club. (I very seldom travel to other
tourneys, like the US Open, where there may be in-person
reviews with my opponents.) For our local club members,
we all know each other, our levels, our personalities,
years of history. So I have a good idea what is appropriate
in a review.

For KGS reviews, there are 2 main groups: KGS friends who
I review regularly with, and "strangers". For the regulars,
it is similar to our local club people: we already know
each others' levels, so I know what is appropriate in
a review. For a KGS "stranger", in a review, I have the
luxury of real-time interaction: I can ask questions.
They can ask questions. If I give an explanation, and it is
not clear, I can find out quickly.

On a forum, things can be different. In the past, I've had
some experience where I put in some time in a review,
with some explanation, variations, etc. And afterwards,
there was absolutely no response. In some cases, the user
never even came back to visit the forum. In some other cases,
the user was still active, but there was no feedback on the review.
In some cases, there was a nice "Thanks for the review,"
but no more feedback.

Yes, Bantari noted, most of us here are amateurs. This is all just
"for fun." We volunteer our time and efforts here because we are
passionate about Go. (Otherwise if we don't give a damn, then we
wouldn't even be having these long heated discussions to begin with.)
So requesting a review (on KGS or here or elsewhere) is "free" --
this cuts both ways. If the poster is serious about their game
and about improving, and the reviewer gives some nice comments,
and the poster benefits as a result, this is a very good scenario.
But it's not always so good. Some posters are serious, and
the reviewer is serious, but alas, as Bantari noted, most of our
"low-level" amateur moves and understanding have lots of problems,
and even when we try our best, sometimes (often?) we still give out
bad advice (more on this later.) Sometimes, the reviewer is serious
but the poster is not. "You get what you pay for," -- this is true sometimes.

Quite true. We usually view this is a problem with computer go, in the sense that the explanation of a computer's move is not particularly useful to a student: "well I read a bazillion senseless variations and this move leads to more wins..." Since the student can't do the same thing, the advise can be no better than received wisdom that comes without digestible explanation.

Human experience is slightly better than that, but sometimes not much. Some josekis are just josekis because they have survived lots of trial and error. Attempts to explain them from first principles can sometimes be misguided. Many moves be excused by attaching a proverb or principle to them, but it is not always possible to derive the move that way. It is these ex post facto excuses that pose as derivations that are confusing.

I agree with the above, sort of.

But, in my opinion, it might also be beneficial, in such cases, to give that as 'explanation'. Say: this move is played because it survived tons of trial and error, and I don't know any other reason, but its good enough for me. This 'explanation' by itself conveys a lot of useful information, and certainly gets the mental juices flowing. It certainly has a different flavor than just saying 'this is best move, learn it' with the implied 'i might know the reasons, but not gonna tell you, nyah nyah nyah.' Part of it is about respect, but part is about getting maximum effect from the small amount of time we spend teaching or learning.

If all you have about a move is that 'I saw a pro play like that once, but I don't understand why' - then say so. Presenting instead that 'this is the best move, period!' and walking away is not good teaching, I think, and nothing more than ego boosting at the expense of the student.

But, of course, my main concern here is moves which *can* be explained, for better or worse, with human-friendly reasoning. My position is that I consider not giving such explanation, if you have it, a sub-par teaching.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Hi Ed, good post.

The issue here is why I/we think you advocated for the no-reasoning method, and I hope you see why I/we think you do/did.

Regardless of what you do on KGS or in p2p interaction or in other settings - your arguments here as well as your behavior (the comments you give on games and the answers you give to questions - which are very often of the form of 'just because I say so') - lead me/us to think that. Then, when you start arguing that the 'no-reasoning' method also works (even though nobody ever said otherwise) - this only enforced my/our belief.

I am glad that you understand the value of good explanation, and I am also glad that you try to explain stuff more in other circumstances. This whole part of a discussion could have been avoided if you just said to begin with 'I am so curt on L19 because experience taught me it might not be worth my time or effort to explain more.' I don't think anybody, me included, would have had any problem with that.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

I agree with this. Ed, you perform an great service to the online go community with the number of reviews you write. More than just the benefit to the reviewed player, you are reassuring other players who have not yet posted games that one of us will eventually get around to reviewing their games, and that they will not be ignored because they are too new to the forum, too new to the game, or too anything else. We are go players after all - make the efficient play, and then tenuki!

Bantari, as I mentioned earlier, there is a huge amount of misunderstanding.
It's going to take me some time to discuss all these interesting points.

Jumping around a bit:Yes, to both.What if both points are debatable. What if bad habits can actually form because of
bad understanding and faulty reasoning, and that not only do we not become better teachers,
but we could become worse, who in turn "teach" others to be the same, from faulty reasoning?From another (unrelated) thread -- viewtopic.php?f=11&t=9038&start=120What if the opposite is true: that in fact 90% of bad habits are formed because of faulty reasoning?
(I don't have the stats, and I bet neither do you.)

But wait, there's more -- one more question after this...
Here's a quote from one of our PM chats, I hope you don't mind that I quote it here:My last what if question for this post. What if, to better appreciate what I wrote above,
it takes personal experience studying with a good pro teacher for at least one year ?

You don't have to reply to any of these what if's. Just food for thought.
Keep them in mind for now; I'll come back to them later.
To start to clear up so much misunderstanding, I'll start from first principles. Next post.

Well, then we have the same applied to *both* methods.
The question remains - where is the danger of misfire greater.

Lacking any solid numbers, one way or the other, we have to rely on logic and reasoning. I feel my posts are spilling over with logic and reasoning (even in this post I go into it all over again), while all you give are examples, if even that.

So - I challenge you - give me good logical reasons why no-explanation my be better in teaching than yes-explanation? And don't give me outliers and examples like: there can be a case where... Using both methods there can be bad cases, we already know that. Tell me simply and logically - what do you think is the advantage of withholding simple explanations from your students?

I am interested what you say, especially after you already admitted than when you teach outside of L19 you pretty much do give some explanations.



I would say you need to explain it some more.

I agree that bad habits can be formed anyways, so the fact that they can is not an issue here.

My claim is that:
Knowing the reasoning, even when its faulty, makes it easier to avoid bad habits. Not to mention - faster progress, less problems with barriers, and so on.

And my reason for this claim is:
Reasoning can be dealt with at conscious level, and fault reasoning can be logically proven to be faulty when you think about it enough. On the other hand, when you just blindly follow a 'better move' - the chance of you finding out the move is actually no good at all takes much longer - you need to gather experience with this move failing before you even have a chance to reject it. Faulty reasoning you have a chance to reject much sooner. Which does not mean you always do - there is just a better chance.

And another very important point:
Also, knowing the reasoning allows you to do two very important things right off the bat:

• generalize - apply the same reasoning to other problems without having to be explicitly shown the moves, and
• reject other moves based on similar reasoning when you realize the reasoning is bad

When you deal with single moves rather than ideas or reasons - the above is impossible. At least until you internalize it enough to come up with the ideas and reasons by yourself. And what do you think the chance is that this ideas and reasons will be as good as the ones of a stronger player?

The one thing I am uncertain about:
If you are aiming at the absolute to of the world, to become the best pro, and you have conditions nobody here has (many hours a day study, strong competition, strong discussion partners, and top-pro teachers) - maybe then the no-explanation and blindly-follow-and-no-questions might ultimately produce better results, even if the way is slower.

This would be, for example, in an insei school, or some other such place - or at least this is how I imagine it, having red some descriptions. But - even in such environment, when a teacher just shows a move without explanation, I bet he is counting on the students then discussing it in study-groups and coming with explanations themselves. So explanations and understanding and reasoning are still necessary, its just that they do not come from a teacher but from discussions with peers.

In most everyday cases when we learn or teach - such possibilities are not open to us, all we have is the teacher and very seldom any kind of appropriate study group which would substitute for the teacher explaining stuff. Maybe some pro teachers do not realize it? In any case, when teaching western low-level amateurs, or even beginners, I still think that the onus to provide explanation lies on a teacher. Especially if you pay for the lesson.



No problem, I reply.

And I grant you - I might not have the experience with a pro being paid for a lesson. And if I had more experience in this regard, maybe I would change my opinion. But I seriously doubt it. You would have to give me some good reasons why you think that in the long run giving no explanation is better than explaining. I have not really seen such claim made in any other discipline I can think of, so some very good reasons are needed to think so.

Anyways - I thought we have already agreed that some explanation is a good thing to have, and even you admitted that in non-L19 settings you do provide explanation. So I really do not understand what we are arguing about here.

Further thoughts:

I have a *lot* of experience with ama teaching, on both ends, and I know quite a lot of people who did take pro lessons. And from what I hear - not very often did the pros just point out the moves with absolutely no explanation - which would indicate to me that they too understand the meaning of some more insight. I also watched some pro lessons on videos, youtube, and stuff, as well as read many many books written by pros. Same goes - very seldom there was no attempt at explanation.

In my 40 or so years of teaching and learning, I have had overall *much* better results when I explained things then when I didn't. The trick remains to be really honest in the explanations, and if you play a move without being sure - you say so openly. The damage, when its done, is not done because of explanation - but because of crappy explanation.

When you don't have a clue why a move is good, you just know it is, but you still try to come up with some bogus reasons which make no sense - this is what's bad, and this is what creates bad habits! Because you teach bad reasoning, one that does not make sense even to you, and is most likely contradictory. So you only give reasons you yourself believe in - and those are most likely good, or at least - honest.

You still cannot prevent bad habits from forming (not even the pros can do that, to be sure) - but you offer a fighting chance.
Speaking et cathedra and expecting the student to blindly follow - this offers no chance at all, imho.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Bantari, I just had a nice chat on KGS with Daal and another L19 person.
It was pointed out to me that perhaps you and I "are talking past each other."
To the point where they don't even know what we are arguing about.

So, here are two points from me (there are more, but I put them aside for this post).

- The idea or thinking that everything we do (in this particular case, we're
referring to Go moves) must have a rational, conscious, intellectual reason
or explanation -- is flawed.

- I gave 2 scenarios (the two cases with X, Y and P). I didn't say
anything about whether I think they are good or bad. But suddenly,
you (and topazg) made me an "advocate." This is very strange to me.

It's like I showed 2 moves (just to use a Go analogy): one makes an empty triangle,
and the other is a nobi. I didn't say anything about whether the
empty triangle is good or bad; or whether the nobi is good or bad.
All I said is, from my experience, I've seen these 2 moves.
I showed 2 examples. That's it.

And suddenly, you, "getting all huffy and puffy," said:
"Oh my! He is advocating all empty triangles are bad! We must always nobi!"

That's how I felt. I felt the above is a fair analogy of your first reaction:That's why I thought it was very unfair, over-simplied, and over-generalized from two examples.

I find this to be the most interesting aspect of this thread. At what ranks is this true? 30k? 10k? 1d? 7d? 2p?

If a stronger player coaches each of the above, does he need to explain why a move is better? Will the pupil be able to understand why if the teacher tries to take the time to explain? Are there concepts that are too complicated for each of the above ranks?

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

He Ed,

Great idea, lets bring some focus here. I will deal with your two points separately, if you don't mind.



I think that when we play a move, there better be *some* idea behind it, or we just swimming without a clue. In other words - if you do not know why you play a move, why do you play it? I think even the pros agree that each move you play should have a clear purpose and a good reason, or you better play a different move. With each move, you should be trying to accomplish something specific, or you are wasting moves. And this should happen on the conscious level - you devise plans and have ideas, and then pick moves which fit within these plans and ideas. Or don't you agree with that?

True - you might not always be sure why, for example, you choose this extension over that one, or this pincer over that one, but you definitely should have good reason for playing a pincer instead of an extension, or vice versa. Or you are just playing random moves because what?... they look cute on the board? I don't accept that.

So, we might have two levels of 'understanding' here:

• The overall, big picture, plan idea behind a move, and so on - this all simply *has* to happen on a conscious level, or your whole game is pointless.
• The nitty-gritty of the exact point might be guided by subconscious a little, but even here I doubt the value of that - its just that we do not know any better, so this is the best we can do at times - but its certainly not a good thing. I would argue that even there you have to understand why, for example, in this position a far pincer is better than a narrow one. Or, if not better - at least better fitting with your plan.

Consider the pros. Do you think they think so much about almost each and every move they make because they make decisions subconsciously? I think not... they calculate variations, as many as they need and as deep as they can... to have more and better reasons to make conscious decisions where to play next. And chances are, who can calculate better and deeper and more precisely - wins.

Where I believe our subconscious (and experience) plays a large role is in three areas:

1. positional evaluation - the end-points of our calculations, we are not always able to consciously assess the position, so we have to 'guess' if this sequence will end up in more favorable position or that one... will the thickness outweight the profit, or will the aji be game-deciding, stuff like that
2. pruning - limiting the number of branches we decide to look ahead and calculate before we make a move. As said before, depth and precision of our calculation can easily decide the game - and so it stands to reason that if we can focus on calculating 2 branches rather than 5 we gain great advantage.
3. reading depth - deciding where we can stop reading - evaluating a position along the branch to decide - this is deep enough, this branch is good or bad, no need to read deeper.

The subconscious decisions we make when we do the above are based on accumulated database of shapes, whole games, and experience - often stored and organized subconsciously. And I believe it is very hard, and possibly much less efficient to try to make those decisions consciously. And I also believe that these decisions are of crucial importance to the game.

But yes, I think when it comes to making a specific move - we should have a reason for making it.
Even if the reason is only: this move allows me to reach this position which my subconscious tells me is good for me, or which fits into my plan, or whatever. Usually you should have more than that.

But I think you should definitely have a conscious reason for making a move, and you should know what you are trying to accomplish with that move.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Both scenarios you gave looked to me like the teacher thought explanation were not important, or maybe the teacher did not know himself. The difference between the scenarios, as I have seen it, was that in case #1 the student asked around a little before not getting any answer, in case #2 the student didn't even bother to ask.

My reading of that was that you presented both scenarios to emphasize how more efficient case #2 (don't even ask) is. If this understanding is wrong, you need to explain what you meant by giving those two scenarios.

And you are right - you gave the two scenarios without saying if you think they are good or bad. The implication being - you left it to the reader to guess and make their own mind. So I did. And now you have an issue with that.

Maybe it should be a lesson to you that when you want to say something, when you mean something - it is best to explain it clearly. Or there are problems, misunderstanding, accusations, and offended people.

See - here we have the value of explanation at work illustrated perfectly, great example!
Same goes for Go moves.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Or not. Maybe there's a lesson for you.

Bantari and EdLee:

You both seem to believe the existence and ill effect of bad habits. You're not the only ones. Is the list of bad habits very long? Are they hard to get rid of? If so, why?

I can think of some:

• Optimistic reading (not thinking from opponent's point of view)
• Strengthening opponent's group inappropriately (aji keshi and the like)
• Greed (expecting too much)
• Not reading critical situations
• Territorial jealousy (counting opponent's position without realizing what you have)
• Not counting or not playing consistently when you know you are ahead or behind
• Following opponent around / trusting opponent's moves
• Unwillingness to sacrifice stones
• Defending too much / too little
• Attacking too much / too little
• Playing to trick opponent (relying too much on trick moves / wishful thinking)
• Invading too early
• Invading too late
• Not weighing option of reduction vs. invading
• Starting unfavorable fights
• Not considering whole board
• Knee-jerk moves (e.g. automatically connecting ataris or peeps)

I'm trying to include things that are more about bad mindset than lack of knowledge. I think of a bad habit as something you know is wrong, but you have a hard time stopping. Otherwise it's just ignorance and much ignorance could fall into the category of being easily fixed, in which case I think habit is the wrong term.