Taking lessons - is it really helpful?

[Uberdude]

I don't think having a teacher is necessary for a talented beginner to go from 30k to 1d in a year (which I call quick improvement). I didn't have "a teacher" when I did that (or a bit slower) though I did benefit from teaching from the kind folks in the KGS Teaching Ladder, shygost's lectures, Charles Matthews at the Cambridge club etc. Where teachers can really help is when you on your own get stuck in a rut and need external help to improve.

[often]

Concrete numbers: the number of hours per week spent with the teacher,
versus the number of hours the student spends by himself on tsumego, game reviews, etc. -- it's possible to get the 15% estimate based on this.

that's if we're taking concrete numbers
if we're saying a holistic understanding of go, i would argue differently

either way, this guy needs to get in here and defend his assertion

[EdLee]

I don't think having a teacher is necessary for a talented beginner to go from 30k to 1d in a year

There seems to be a dichotomy: people who started Go by their teens and made 1d in their teens or 20's, and those who didn't.

The former group would make claims like the above.
The latter may remain quiet, or go, "What are you talking about."

It'd be interesting to see real-world data points that support the above claim for these age brackets:
30 - 40
40 - 50
50 - 60
60 - 70
70 - 80
80+

If I remember correctly, every single person on this forum or KGS who's made such a claim belongs to the former group.

[Kirby]

I am a member of the Yunguseng Dojang that oren mentioned (which is awesome, by the way), and it's my first significant experience in having a teacher.

There are a number of "yunguseng" in the program, but some have improved much faster than others. I came to wonder why might this be.

I happen to know a bit of Korean, and I read an interview conducted with In-seong Hwang, the teacher of the program. One interesting response he provided in the article was that he found a difference between teaching students in Europe and Korea. Namely, in Korea, if he taught a new joseki or technique, students took the information, tried it out in their games, and studied it offline on their own. When he taught students in Europe, there were many more questions. If he taught a joseki, students would ask "why" for every move. They'd ask about alternative responses. They'd ask many questions to gain understanding.

This response really made me think, not just only about the difference in learning styles among students, but also about what I had been wondering about earlier - why do some students improve faster than others?

I came up with a hypothesis, connecting these two ideas. Disregarding nationalities, some students have an expectation for the teacher to make them stronger. It would seem to make sense - you pay a teacher to help you get stronger - so why not? This would explain why some students are eager to ask many questions about what they are being taught - the teacher should explain to you fully, "spoon-feeding" the information, if you will, until you totally understand. Maybe this is the reason why some students (at times, myself included) ask questions even about the most trivial aspects of what's being taught.

A contrasting viewpoint is to throw away this expectation - it is not the teacher's job to make you stronger. The teacher's job is to provide you with new information. The person responsible for making you stronger - is you.

Currently, I am an advocate of the latter viewpoint. Why then, do I want to have a teacher? There are many reasons:
* Learning up-to-date information from an experienced player.
* Having a person to review my games objectively.
* Having an example player to aim for.
* Motivation.

But all of these reasons will do nothing to make me stronger - unless *I* make myself stronger. This is what I've learned from having a teacher.

[paK0]

@Kirby: I kinda disagree with that. Yes, you have to put in the work yourself, but providing general information is probably the "least" value you can get out of a teacher. I'm fairly certain that there is more than enough information in books out there to reach at least mid dan level, so there is no need to get a teacher for that. What you can get from a teacher is individual guidance, be it questions you have or reviews of your games.

@Ed: You may be right, but I wonder if there is some actual data on that. Specifically the age coupled with the time put in.

[RobertJasiek]

there is more than enough information in books out there to reach at least mid dan level

The information is still very incomplete because many topics are not or hardly covered. A reader might succeed nevertheless, but, if he does not despite reading all available books, a teacher can be helpful for him.

[RBerenguel]

@Kirby: I kinda disagree with that. Yes, you have to put in the work yourself, but providing general information is probably the "least" value you can get out of a teacher. I'm fairly certain that there is more than enough information in books out there to reach at least mid dan level, so there is no need to get a teacher for that. What you can get from a teacher is individual guidance, be it questions you have or reviews of your games.

@Ed: You may be right, but I wonder if there is some actual data on that. Specifically the age coupled with the time put in.

I agree more or lees. My experience so far (3 years already, with several many-month pauses) as a student in the Nordic Go Academy has shown me that to improve, I need to put in the hours. But I don't see the task of the teachers as 'information feeders' or at least not only that. They help me with my mistakes, tell me where my weaknesses lie, and give some moral support when I feel stuck. Go is a complex game, and getting reminded that you are actually playing better than a few months ago is really useful.

[Uberdude]

@Ed: I agree quick improvement of the type I mentioned will be much rarer in the older age groups. However, logan's claim was a teacher is necessary for quick improvement, so just one counterexample of any age disproves it. Of course a teacher can accelerate improvement and for some people is necessary.

[Charles Matthews]

I happen to know a bit of Korean, and I read an interview conducted with In-seong Hwang, the teacher of the program. One interesting response he provided in the article was that he found a difference between teaching students in Europe and Korea. Namely, in Korea, if he taught a new joseki or technique, students took the information, tried it out in their games, and studied it offline on their own. When he taught students in Europe, there were many more questions. If he taught a joseki, students would ask "why" for every move. They'd ask about alternative responses. They'd ask many questions to gain understanding.

Yes, this is what I'd expect to be the major contrast between Asian and European students. I once took to saying "don't ask why at every play". There is some basic stuff in there, about learning games.

Why then, do I want to have a teacher? There are many reasons:
* Learning up-to-date information from an experienced player.
* Having a person to review my games objectively.
* Having an example player to aim for.
* Motivation.

But all of these reasons will do nothing to make me stronger - unless *I* make myself stronger. This is what I've learned from having a teacher.

I think the "good student" is distinguished, perhaps, by the response "I still don't understand why ..." after due thought, rather than "I don't understand why ..." at first sight.

[logan]

@Ed: I agree quick improvement of the type I mentioned will be much rarer in the older age groups. However, logan's claim was a teacher is necessary for quick improvement, so just one counterexample of any age disproves it. Of course a teacher can accelerate improvement and for some people is necessary.

There are two senses of quick improvement here. The first is the kind we formulate when we compare the improvement of others to ourselves. Many shared, common experiences between players lead to the communal idea of what counts as quick improvement in the go world. But this is the wrong sense of quick improvement for teaching or tutoring. When engaging in private teaching/tutoring quick improvement is always relative to the student's aptitudes and skills. Lesson plans, goals and expectations must be designed around that student, not the imaginary, communal go player. For example, Jane is able to improve one month quicker with a teacher. Relative to Jane this counts as quick improvement.

[Uberdude]

Ok, to improve more quickly with a teacher than without a teacher, it is necessary to have a teacher.