I've gone from 3d to 4d in the 4 years since joining! (I improved from beginner to 2d in my first 2 years, and from 2d to 3d in the next 4). Regarding my limit, I think I could get to EGF 6d if I worked harder and did more tsumego than I am prepared/able to do. In reality perhaps I will continue going up a dan grade every 4 years or so but even that could be over-optimistic as each step gets harder as you get stronger and my brain is probably getting dumber. I think I mentioned on that unfulfilled goals thread that I had a vague aim to be British Champion in the next 5 years which I think is still possible (particularly if the opposition is only Andrew Kay, a strong 4d, rather than someone stronger like Matthew Macfadyen, Vanessa Wong or Chong Han), but not this year as I am out of practice and am only the challenger because no one strong turned up.

I strongly suspect that go ability is pretty specific to go, and that it mostly consists of the abilities to visualize sequences of stones, to remember patterns of stones and to execute go concepts well. Additional factors such as one's level of interest, determination and thoroughness as well as one's self-discipline, patience and composure also play a role. Whether these abilities coincide with other mental abilities (being good at math or languages or IQ tests for example) is guesswork unless someone has some statistics, but I have heard that whereas it is common in the West for go players to also have a talent for software engineering and other hard sciences, this is not necessarily the case in Asia. My point is, one can be quite intelligent as measured in other abilities, and nonetheless lack a talent for go.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

I just think all the computer scientists try to learn Go because they have an interest in wanting to solve it or have machines beat stronger players.

Certainly not all: I started playing Go whilst doing a Computer Science degree (though was introduced to it by a friend reading Theology) and that wasn't an interest of mine, I just found it a really fascinating game.

There once was a famous intuitive mathematician called Ramanujan who was obviously extremely gifted for number theory, to the extent that he predicted certain results that could only be rigorously proven by the most ardent and talented (!) mathematicians after great effort. He was a savant.

I believe that it is impossible for me, even if I study number theory for the rest of my life, to achieve the level of intuition with which he was apparently born. And I'm a good mathematician, with a few nerdy traits that set me apart in my childhood.

I have acquintances who have a hard time remembering numbers beyond 5 digits. I've serious doubts they could ever reach the mathematical intuition of Ramanujan.

We all have intrinsic limits. The fact that we don't know what they are, doesn't detract from the fact they exist.

I took the liberty to err on the younger side and
assume the age of 16 when starting the university degree:

Age & level

16: Start Go
18: 2d
22: 4d

All very reasonable for the young ages.
Even if the starting age was 17, 18, or even 19,
still very reasonable:

19: Start Go
21: 2d
25: 4d

When people talk about the growth curve in Go, the age is very important.

A vital point:For example, later, at age 35, try starting to learn a 100% foreign language.
Let's compare the progress then to this age-16 curve.

Ed, to clarify, I started* Go at 19 (almost 20) a year into my degree, 2d at 22, 3d at 25 and 4d at 27. It's probably not a coincidence I got to 4d around the time I quit my job and had more free time, though I do feel I was getting stronger before that but things hadn't quite come together and made lots of blunders which is something I've got a bit better at more recently.

*I actually learnt the rules at 17/18 but played <10 games and still found ataris difficult to spot).

I looked at that thread. It started out promising with an attempt to derive a statistic from the progress reports here and then people started speculating about all sorts of things. The original poster never came back to elaborate on his motives or any of the questions asked.

Any statistician would investigate the following questions:
- how reliable is the data (e.g. the fact that the player's original account no longer exists, doesn't mean that they stopped playing)
- what's the control group (how do similar people who don't report, actually progress in similar time frames)
- would there be a correlation between reporting zeal and study zeal
- would there be an inverse correlation between (the fulfillment of) reporting and success
- ...

It looked as if the OP wanted to expose the fact that most people who reported on their progress don't reach their goals. Or that most people don't reach their goals altogether. We'll never know what the OP's intention was because he left the crowd with his initial piece of selected data - a good effort in itself - and no further discussion.

I started playing go when I was 30 years old, and took me slightly over a year to get to 1 dan.

The moment I believe or even suspect I have reached my limit, I will undoubtedly progress no more.

I started playing Go when I was 16 and I'm still 5k.

No.

Honestly I feel dumb even mentioning it.


The same at any rank. Knowledge of shape, knowledge of life and death, tesuji, joseki, etc.


There is no quantifiable difference. It's just whether they're actually working on it or not.


Honestly, just go play Go. I don't see why some people think their rank "means" something or that they "have" to be a certain rank. There are no secret trophies for getting stronger.

I have a better time hanging out and talking Go with long time kyu level players. Dan players either take it too seriously or just have some strange mental block that they won't listen to other people's advice at all.

and



So, does being a dan player "mean" something or not?

Are you saying that kyu players have some strange desire to give dan players advice?

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

It doesn't, but i'm not sure what argument you're making here.


No, I'm saying that if you debate a board position, typically Dan players are less receptive to advice than kyu players.

Being a dan player means you're stronger than kyus.

You also get a secret decoder ring, and a pdf copy of the rules of go, in case you forget. This is in addition to the loyal adoration of 2d10 KGS-based admirers to pump up your ego and provide drink service during your tournament matches, of course.


Assuming this is demonstrably the case, it stands to reason that someone with a better understanding of go would be less open to something contradictory than someone weaker, since their knowledge is closer to correct. It's also possible that they're more likely to have an informed opinion (correct or not) on something than a stab in the dark.

I'm somewhat skeptical that this is actually the case, however. Certainly, the day you stop reevaluating your judgement is the day you stop improving.

In my experience, stronger players are more flexible in their opinions than weaker players. Pros will often say things like, "Move A is a good strategy. B might work, too. C is also a possibility."

_________________
be immersed

Not really sure if savants are a good argument here. I originally meant the average human. And the fact that we don't know what intrinsic limits are, could very well mean, they don't exist.

Depends on whether you do, want to try or say you can't do something ; )



Nice! Exception to the rule? : D

_________________
My "guide" to become stronger in Go

I don't think there's a relationship. It's simply difficult to advance through the dan ranks, so the number of people doing that is small, anyway.

That being said, time spent arguing on the forum is generally not time spent studying Go

_________________
be immersed

And time spent arguing on the forum wouldn't necessarily be used for Go in the first place.