What are the fundamentals?

[sparky314]

There's a lot of discussion about getting stronger, one needs to learn the fundamentals. Dan players have a good understanding of the fundamentals. But not much discussion on what are the fundamentals. I know Kageyama touches various topics in his book, but I'd like to further the discussion here.

What are the fundamentals? What scope do they cover? Which topics are considered fundamental and which aren't?

[Kirby]

Stuff that you don't play perfectly, yet, I guess.

[sparky314]

Stuff that you don't play perfectly, yet, I guess.

So, everything?

[skydyr]

To be honest, I'm starting to think that 'fundamentals' is a bit of a red herring. I think that to some degree, strong players are limited in their ability to explain them because the fundamentals are the normal move that follows their unconscious pruning process. In addition a lot of people conflate basic with fundamental, while fundamentals are nuanced and not necessarily simple.

In essence, the fundamentals are those things that a strong player takes for granted as 'of course you play this way'. You can give lots of examples, like extending from atari, hane or extend after contact, and so forth, but there are also lots of counterexamples. Empty triangles are bad, except when they're good.

I think that they are really a set of principles underlying moves than moves themselves. Not backing down from your opponent, making sure exchanges end up even at least, playing efficient moves, not playing extraneous moves, coordinating your stones, timing particular moves, counting liberties, attacking for profit, not giving their opponent an easy game, reading moves out before you play, and so forth. Things that are relatively easy to say (who aims to play inefficiently, or to lose in exchanges?) but not always so easy to put into practice, where the correct answer can require deep reading and/or good positional judgement to apply.

These aren't things that you can just learn and be done with, but concepts that require continuous refinement and rejection of the current assumed knowledge in the pursuit of something more refined and nuanced as one gets better. They are also things that are easy to ignore in favour of shortcuts or because you don't feel like bothering one day.

[Solomon]

Only things I consider to be fundamental is understanding shapes. Not just "good" and "bad" shapes, but efficient shapes. What are efficient shapes, why are they efficient, and efficient towards what exactly? Being able to answer those questions and integrate them into your games.

[Bill Spight]

To be honest, I'm starting to think that 'fundamentals' is a bit of a red herring. I think that to some degree, strong players are limited in their ability to explain them because the fundamentals are the normal move that follows their unconscious pruning process. In addition a lot of people conflate basic with fundamental, while fundamentals are nuanced and not necessarily simple.

I agree that fundamental and basic, while synonyms, are not the same. Fundamental is more general. But I disagree about the ability of strong players to explain something that is fundamental. If they can't do it, it ain't fundamental.

I make an analogy with grades in school. When I advise someone to study the basics, I mean things that, by analogy, they would learn in grammar school.

[Knotwilg]

To be honest, I'm starting to think that 'fundamentals' is a bit of a red herring. (...)

I think that they are really a set of principles underlying moves than moves themselves.

After reading "Lessons in the fundamentals", I took an antagonistic view to the praise it got. I found that Kageyama repeatedly urged us to follow the fundamentals, without really explaining what they were. What Kageyama listed were basic principles and heuristics but they were not convincingly deduced from a set of fundamentals. (the discussion can be found at Sensei's Library)

For a long time I thought the fundamentals were a bit of a red herring too, until Kang Min U (aka Minue), a Korean 6d with a convincing track record on KGS started using Sensei's Library to mark up the foundations of his teachings to online students. His writings survive as http://senseis.xmp.net/?HaengmaTutorialForBeginners. As far as I'm concerned, they are the true "Lessons in the fundamentals of Go" and I recommend its reading whenever someone asks about them.

His work remains unfinished as he prematurely left the go scene, but there is enough to saviour.

Other than that I believe Robert Jasiek has made major attempts to be more rigorous about go theory than what has reached us through translations of eastern go literature but I've never got round to reading any of his books front to cover.

[Bill Spight]

To be honest, I'm starting to think that 'fundamentals' is a bit of a red herring. (...)

I think that they are really a set of principles underlying moves than moves themselves.

After reading "Lessons in the fundamentals", I took an antagonistic view to the praise it got. I found that Kageyama repeatedly urged us to follow the fundamentals, without really explaining what they were. What Kageyama listed were basic principles and heuristics but they were not convincingly deduced from a set of fundamentals. (the discussion can be found at Sensei's Library)

For a long time I thought the fundamentals were a bit of a red herring too, until Kang Min U (aka Minue), a Korean 6d with a convincing track record on KGS started using Sensei's Library to mark up the foundations of his teachings to online students. His writings survive as http://senseis.xmp.net/?HaengmaTutorialForBeginners. As far as I'm concerned, they are the true "Lessons in the fundamentals of Go" and I recommend its reading whenever someone asks about them.

His work remains unfinished as he prematurely left the go scene, but there is enough to saviour.

Other than that I believe Robert Jasiek has made major attempts to be more rigorous about go theory than what has reached us through translations of eastern go literature but I've never got round to reading any of his books front to cover.

Lessons in the Fundamentals is a translation of Ama to Puro, which has a straightforward translation as Amateurs and Pros. While Kageyama may talk about fundamentals, I suspect that he means things more on the level of high school than grammar school. After all, the difference between amateurs and pros is not at an elementary level. But I do think that the pros have the fundamentals at their fingertips, while most amateurs have gaping holes in their skills and knowledge.

[Fedya]

While Kageyama may talk about fundamentals, I suspect that he means things more on the level of high school than grammar school.

Having gone through the book recently, I'd agree. I found the "easy" life and death problems difficult.

[DrStraw]

I suspect that he means things more on the level of high school than grammar school.

I'm not sure I understand that reference.

High School, to me, is an American phenomenon which refers to ages 15-18 (approx.) regardless of level.

Grammar school, again to me, is a British phenomenon. I went to grammar school from age 11-18 and it was what was required for all university prospects (plus others who did not go to university). Lesser schoolkids (who never had a chance of university) failed to get into grammar school. Of course, the British system changed a long, long time ago and grammar schools no longer exist in the state education system, but that is still the standard I think of.

[Bill Spight]

I suspect that he means things more on the level of high school than grammar school.

I'm not sure I understand that reference.

High School, to me, is an American phenomenon which refers to ages 15-18 (approx.) regardless of level.

Grammar school, again to me, is a British phenomenon. I went to grammar school from age 11-18 and it was what was required for all university prospects (plus others who did not go to university). Lesser schoolkids (who never had a chance of university) failed to get into grammar school. Of course, the British system changed a long, long time ago and grammar schools no longer exist in the state education system, but that is still the standard I think of.

How about elementary school?

[Uberdude]

Of course, the British system changed a long, long time ago and grammar schools no longer exist in the state education system

FYI Grammar schools do still exist: e.g. a friend of mine went to Aylesbury Grammar School. There are 164 state grammar schools in England. What I believe is true is that there have been no new state grammar schools since the move to comprehensive education in the 60s, though the new Prime Minster, Theresa May, is a fan of them so change is on the cards.

[DrStraw]

Of course, the British system changed a long, long time ago and grammar schools no longer exist in the state education system

FYI Grammar schools do still exist: e.g. a friend of mine went to Aylesbury Grammar School. There are 164 state grammar schools in England. What I believe is true is that there have been no new state grammar schools since the move to comprehensive education in the 60s, though the new Prime Minster, Theresa May, is a fan of them so change is on the cards.

Ah, thanks for that information. I did not realize they still existed. I was in the last year one to enter the grammar school I attended, in 1963. The year after was the start of the comprehensive system.

[John Fairbairn]

High School, to me, is an American phenomenon which refers to ages 15-18 (approx.) regardless of level.

Grammar school, again to me, is a British phenomenon. I went to grammar school from age 11-18 and it was what was required for all university prospects

Possibly misremembering slightly? When I was at grammar school it was always for boys and the girls' equivalent was a high school (the full title was usually XXX High School for Girls - a bit tautological, though I do have a vague memory that outside England high school was used for boys in Scotland, and possibly Ulster). One of my daughters went to such a high school, and it still exists. Indeed, it and similar institutions seem to be thriving because their exclusion of boys makes them highly desirable for muslim families.

To this day I can't ever understand what Americans are talking about when it comes to schools, especially grade schools, all compounded by the fact they use school for university. Of course we now use university for polytechnics, and I recently had an argument with my daughter about the difference between a nursery and a kindergarten (not to mention "child-minding services"), so educational terminology is obviously an area to tread with caution.

[Uberdude]

Possibly misremembering slightly? When I was at grammar school it was always for boys and the girls' equivalent was a high school.

It seems to vary around the country: in Buckinghamshire Aylesbury Grammar is boys-only, and has links (orchestra, drama etc) with girls-only Aylesbury High School (though a long time ago Aylsebury Grammar was co-ed and independent). But my mother went to girls-only Clarendon House Grammar School in Kent, which was twinned with boys-only Chatham House Grammar School.