Antti Törmänen's Bachelor's Thesis: Building a Human Master

[SoDesuNe]

Antti Törmänen, the author of gooften.net and known as Tien on KGS started to translate his Finnish bachelor's thesis "Building a Human Master" into English. What makes this intersting is this:

[...] I took it upon myself, then, to endeavour to find out how it would be possible to most effectively “build” a new master of Go.

The reader may be interested in this study for two different reasons. If the reader is a player or researcher of skill-based games, this study may well give them new points of view. For players, the study may even give concrete advice on how one could develop their skills further, and on how one could conduct their training more effectively. For non-players, too, the study may have some merit, as it will describe through examples on a general level how one should strive for expertise.

Right now he translated the first three of six chapters.

http://gooften.net/essays/bachelors-the ... an-master/

If you can read Finnish, Tien linked his original thesis in this post: http://gooften.net/2013/10/28/bachelors-thesis/

[Splatted]

Just read up to 3.2 so far but this looks like it will be very interesting and well worth reading. Thanks a lot for posting.

[TheBigH]

This is nice. Thanks for posting it.

[Codexus]

Interesting! I can't wait for the rest to be translated!

[leichtloeslich]

When reading the title, I immediately thought of this:
"My Brilliant Brain"
(Documentary on Susan Polgar, the first female chess grandmaster.)

Warning: this is strictly pop-sci, but kind of interesting nonetheless.

[hyperpape]

What sort of approach towards the research is he taking (case studies, analysis of traditional training techniques, formal research on learning, something else...)?

[Ten]

What sort of approach towards the research is he taking (case studies, analysis of traditional training techniques, formal research on learning, something else...)?

First post on l19 for me!

The thesis is a mere literary research on expertise, with emphasis on those approaches to expertise research that have more to do with chess and Go. Wherever possible, I use my own knowledge on Go to give examples.

As the thesis was limited to about 30 pages by my university, there was no way to provide for a very comprehensive overall picture of the research, so the thesis remains more or less of a surface scratch. Still, for the readers who are new to the science, it should provide for a fairly interesting read!

[daal]

First post on l19 for me!

Welcome!

[EdLee]

First post on l19 for me!

Welcome.

[John Fairbairn]

Just one small and arguable (i.e. Discuss here) point. The dissertation refers to Fujisawa Rina becoming an expert by qualifying as a pro after six years and so disproving the ten-year rule.

I think it is reasonable to question whether qualifying as a pro makes you an expert. Getting a degree, even first class with honours, does not make you an expert in your field. Pro 1-dan is really just getting a degree, an acknowledgement that you are fit to make a career in this field.

Traditionally 4-dan has always been seen as more of a level where you can be seen as someone to listen to, no longer a junior doctor but a registrar and not yet a consultant. Getting to 4-dan was the sign that you were actually going to have a career in go and so could get married.

Obviously comparing pro qualification to getting a degree is swampy ground, as the level of competition is such that we need to limit the comparison to elite universities. But it still remains a fact that a degree from an elite university is more of a sign of future promise than of expertise.

[TheBigH]

First post on l19 for me!

Welcome!

[SoDesuNe]

Just one small and arguable (i.e. Discuss here) point. The dissertation refers to Fujisawa Rina becoming an expert by qualifying as a pro after six years and so disproving the ten-year rule.

I think it is reasonable to question whether qualifying as a pro makes you an expert. Getting a degree, even first class with honours, does not make you an expert in your field. Pro 1-dan is really just getting a degree, an acknowledgement that you are fit to make a career in this field.

I think this in generally a problem of where to draw a line. In the eyes of us common amateurs, every professional game player can count as an expert. But of course this view might change when you ask fellow professional Go players; maybe then only the best of the best (right now) will count as such experts or you will hear sentences like Yi Ch'ang-Ho is an expert in the endgame and counting but Gu Li at the opening.
The same might be true for academic professions: Do you need a nobel prize to become an expert? Might it suffice when you are the expert at your university? Or does you have to be known across the country? Across the international community?

[tchan001]

Just one small and arguable (i.e. Discuss here) point. The dissertation refers to Fujisawa Rina becoming an expert by qualifying as a pro after six years and so disproving the ten-year rule.

I think it is reasonable to question whether qualifying as a pro makes you an expert. Getting a degree, even first class with honours, does not make you an expert in your field. Pro 1-dan is really just getting a degree, an acknowledgement that you are fit to make a career in this field.

Traditionally 4-dan has always been seen as more of a level where you can be seen as someone to listen to, no longer a junior doctor but a registrar and not yet a consultant. Getting to 4-dan was the sign that you were actually going to have a career in go and so could get married.

Obviously comparing pro qualification to getting a degree is swampy ground, as the level of competition is such that we need to limit the comparison to elite universities. But it still remains a fact that a degree from an elite university is more of a sign of future promise than of expertise.

I wonder what our member breakfast has to say about this point of view.

[logan]

So far the paper is only a summary of outside research and commentary on personal anecdotes, and not a philosophy or science paper. So I wouldn't expect it to address or refer to the kind of analysis that John has brought up.

However, for what it's worth I do fall more on John's side of the issue. (In academia, possessing a degree frequently plays little to the competency and expertise of the individual.)

[tj86430]

First post on l19 for me!

Welcome!

I look forward to reading your paper when I get back from my vacation.