Difference between "reading" and "visualizing"?

Jika · Post by **Jika** » Thu Aug 01, 2019 11:56 am

Hi,

I'm stalking Needo's study journal a bit.

While he is a much better player, I like the questions there.

I've read the discussion on tsumego, and how (that) one is expected to think them through first (makes sense for a real game, but - hey, that's how I play games, make a move that looks good and see what happens (disaster)).

Bill mentioned a difference between "reading" and "visualizing" the moves/tree.

I don't get that, how can you think moves ahead (I thought that was "reading") without visualizing where the stones go??
(I also talk to myself "Now white goes here, then black goes there..." which would be unwise and unnerving in an offline game situation...)

I was able to see what was the vital point in Bill's exercise diagram, but was not able to see without a board how things would go further if black takes the 2-2 (embarrassing, yes).

I have taken the wrong approach to tsumego obviously (using the same app as Needo, I'm revisiting the same 50 basic tsumego over and over, in the hope I'll be able to solve more of them, not because I have learnt them by heart or think ahead, but by starting at the right point intuitively).

So, I'll try more of tsumego hero.
And I have a book

But help with the reading-visualizing distinction would be great!

dfan · Post by **dfan** » Thu Aug 01, 2019 12:16 pm

You may be interested in this previous thread. I can't visualize, which is now known as aphantasia (I first noticed that this made me unusual in 1999, before there was a name for it) and manage to play chess and go okay. (I used to blame this as the reason that I wasn't better at chess than I am, but the fact that I'm not a significantly higher percentile in correspondence chess than in over-the-board chess pretty much disproves that.)

I said a few things in that thread already that you can look up, but in short:

"Reading" (reasoning about possible future board states) is different from "visualizing" (seeing possible future board state in your mind's eye).
I read partially by logic (for example, I think back on the sequence leading to the position I am considering, and remember that certain stones were put in certain places) and partially by chunking together sequences of moves that have a straightforward semantic meaning (e.g., squeezes).
However, if you are able to visualize, I recommend doing that!

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Thu Aug 01, 2019 1:18 pm

Jika wrote:Hi,

I'm stalking Needo's study journal a bit.

While he is a much better player, I like the questions there.

I've read the discussion on tsumego, and how (that) one is expected to think them through first (makes sense for a real game, but - hey, that's how I play games, make a move that looks good and see what happens (disaster)).

Bill mentioned a difference between "reading" and "visualizing" the moves/tree.

I don't get that, how can you think moves ahead (I thought that was "reading")

That's calculation of variations. Reading is a more advanced skill, or group of skills. You have to be able to identify good candidate moves and to evaluate the results.

without visualizing where the stones go??

Not to worry about. It sounds like you are good at visualization. dfan and I are not. That does not prevent us from reading go positions.

(I also talk to myself "Now white goes here, then black goes there..." which would be unwise and unnerving in an offline game situation...)

Self talk can aid learning.

As for verbalizing, I used to play against a 2 dan who, when reading, would nod his head and say, "Koh, koh, koh," etc. (I.e. Here, here, here). It was not at all annoying for him to do that, at least, on his own turn.

I was able to see what was the vital point in Bill's exercise diagram, but was not able to see without a board how things would go further if black takes the 2-2 (embarrassing, yes).

You are talking about the 2x3 corner position I posted? If so, are you sure that you saw the vital point? And at your level it is not at all embarrassing not to see further. Later you will see much further.

I have taken the wrong approach to tsumego obviously (using the same app as Needo, I'm revisiting the same 50 basic tsumego over and over, in the hope I'll be able to solve more of them, not because I have learnt them by heart or think ahead, but by starting at the right point intuitively).

It takes time and experience to develop your intuition.

Poco a poco.

jlt · Post by **jlt** » Thu Aug 01, 2019 5:34 pm

Verbal reasoning can help thinking.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +------------ $$ | a b c O X . $$ | d e f O X . $$ | O O O O X . $$ | X X X X X . $$ | . . . . . .[/go]

Suppose White plays first. If White plays "b" then "d" and "e" are miai to make two eyes.
Similarly, if White plays "e" then "b" and "c" are miai.

Suppose Black wants to kill. If Black plays "a", "c" ~~or "f"~~ then White plays "b" and then "d" and "e" are miai. If Black plays "f" then White at "b" still works. ~~If Black plays "d" then White plays "e" and then "b" and "c" are miai.~~ wrong, "d" creates a ko

Suppose

is at "b". It makes no sense to respond at "d" or "f" since it creates a bulky five in which the vital point has already been taken. "a" and "c" don't work because Black will take "e". So White responds with "e". To prevent White from making two eyes,

is played at "c" and then

at "a" creates a ko (and if

tenukis then

at "a" kills with bent four in the corner).

Suppose

is at "e". Using the same reasoning,

is at "b". To prevent White from making two eyes,

is at "d" and then White only has two liberties left and can't atari Black without making a self-atari so is dead.

Conclusion: for

, only "e" kills, while "b" and "d"create a ko and other moves fail.

Of course (?), visualizing combined with a good visual memory is more efficient than going through all of this.

Jika · Post by **Jika** » Thu Aug 01, 2019 10:13 pm

@ dfan, Bill: I can't even understand what you are talking about, how you deduct the possible moves.
So this supports the idea that I'm a visualizer.

@ Bill, jlt: I thought the vital point is 1-2 (so, correct)
I also saw the miai resulting from it.

However, I did not even consider thinking about black playing first!

Much to learn.

What I like about the Tsumego hero app is that it lets one play on after finding the solution.
So even if I take the app's hints to solve the problem, I can later play out the position to at least see why this is correct.
(Very good feature on the commute when I have no board).

But I also got a book (solutions in the back) so I'm not that tempted to use trial-and-error.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Fri Aug 02, 2019 2:08 am

Jika wrote:I thought the vital point is 1-2 (so, correct)
I also saw the miai resulting from it.

However, I did not even consider thinking about black playing first!

To quote myself, from Needo's thread:

Bill Spight wrote:Black to play and kill.

The main line has 5 moves, and the main failure sequence has 6 moves. But there are other relevant variations that have over 10 moves, not all alternating. For instance, in the main failure sequence, what if White passes or tenukies at move 4? OC, in a real game that is unlikely to happen, but visualizing those sequences is good visualization practice.

That is not to say that you need to develop or improve your visualization.

But you could use such a small problem for visualization practice if you wanted to do so.

Much to learn.

Join the club.

What I like about the Tsumego hero app is that it lets one play on after finding the solution.
So even if I take the app's hints to solve the problem, I can later play out the position to at least see why this is correct.
(Very good feature on the commute when I have no board).

But I also got a book (solutions in the back) so I'm not that tempted to use trial-and-error.

At this stage in your development trial and error is your friend.

Not that, for the 3x2 eye in the corner, you need to calculate 100s of variations.

If you know or see the plays or variations, fine. If not, you can learn something by trying everything out,

For instance:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc Black to play $$ +------------ $$ | 2 . 1 O X . $$ | . . . O X . $$ | O O O O X . $$ | X X X X X . $$ | . . . . . .[/go]

Now,

and

may look silly. They are.

But the result is a valid problem. Can Black still kill? If so, how?

But let's back up one move.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc White to play and live $$ +------------ $$ | . . 1 O X . $$ | . . . O X . $$ | O O O O X . $$ | X X X X X . $$ | . . . . . .[/go]

White has only one play that lives. I suppose that you can see it. If so, you don't really need to read any more deeply in this variation.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc White to play $$ +------------ $$ | . . . O X . $$ | 1 . . O X . $$ | O O O O X . $$ | X X X X X . $$ | . . . . . .[/go]

also looks silly. But can White to play live? If so, how? If not, what is White's best play?

This is actually a nice, little problem, with a good lesson. But without trial and error, how do you find it?

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Fri Aug 02, 2019 4:09 am

Mike Novack · Post by **Mike Novack** » Fri Aug 02, 2019 5:20 am

And something else to consider. In the diagrams the surrounding black stones go down to the edge of the board. But suppose they did not? White could still not get out that way BUT the white group would have outside liberties.

How does that change the results? (does it?)

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Fri Aug 02, 2019 5:46 am

Hi, Ed.

He could do worse.

jlt · Post by **jlt** » Fri Aug 02, 2019 8:31 am

Hm, I was found guilty of not counting liberties after 2 moves.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Fri Aug 02, 2019 6:32 pm

About that ko:

Jika · Post by **Jika** » Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:06 pm

For instance:

$$Bc Black to play
$$ +------------
$$ | 2 . 1 O X .
$$ | . . . O X .
$$ | O O O O X .
$$ | X X X X X .
$$ | . . . . . .
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc Black to play $$ +------------ $$ | 2 . 1 O X . $$ | . . . O X . $$ | O O O O X . $$ | X X X X X . $$ | . . . . . .[/go]
Black to play
Now, and may look silly. They are. But the result is a valid problem. Can Black still kill? If so, how?

I thought (reading) like this

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc Black to play $$ +------------ $$ | 2 3 1 O X . $$ | . . . O X . $$ | O O O O X . $$ | X X X X X . $$ | . . . . . .[/go]

But on my board this at it's best creates seki.

But let's back up one move.

$$Bc White to play and live
$$ +------------
$$ | . . 1 O X .
$$ | . . . O X .
$$ | O O O O X .
$$ | X X X X X .
$$ | . . . . . .
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc White to play and live $$ +------------ $$ | . . 1 O X . $$ | . . . O X . $$ | O O O O X . $$ | X X X X X . $$ | . . . . . .[/go]

White to play and live

White has only one play that lives. I suppose that you can see it. If so, you don't really need to read any more deeply in this variation.

Like this (just at first glance - playing this out took me long, and maybe I'm wrong!)?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc White to play and live $$ +------------ $$ | . O 1 O X . $$ | . . . O X . $$ | O O O O X . $$ | X X X X X . $$ | . . . . . .[/go]

$$Bc White to play
$$ +------------
$$ | . . . O X .
$$ | 1 . . O X .
$$ | O O O O X .
$$ | X X X X X .
$$ | . . . . . .
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc White to play $$ +------------ $$ | . . . O X . $$ | 1 . . O X . $$ | O O O O X . $$ | X X X X X . $$ | . . . . . .[/go]
White to play

[/quote]

Maybe this?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc White to play $$ +------------ $$ | . O . O X . $$ | 1 . . O X . $$ | O O O O X . $$ | X X X X X . $$ | . . . . . .[/go]

I'm going to look at other people's answer now and feel a bit more stupid

@Mike: Without playing through the variants, I'd assume that outside liberties will make white harder to kill, so it would take black more moves to kill white than he has before being captured, like a capturing race that is in white's favour?

Jika · Post by **Jika** » Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:33 pm

@Ed, Bill:

I don't see the ko. I see the start, but since black can't beat back immediately, why doesn't white take C19?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B $$ +------------ $$ | 4 3 . O X . $$ | 1 2 . O X . $$ | O O O O X . $$ | X X X X X . $$ | . . . . . .[/go]

Like this (5 meaning, black has to play elsewhere)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc $$ +------------ $$ | 4 . 6 O X . $$ | . 2 . O X . $$ | O O O O X . $$ | X X X X X . $$ | . . . . . 5[/go]

jlt · Post by **jlt** » Sat Aug 03, 2019 12:06 am

Black plays a ko threat

elsewhere but if that threat is large enough then White must respond to the threat for

so that

can take back the ko.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Sat Aug 03, 2019 12:19 am

Jika wrote:@Ed, Bill:

I don't see the ko. I see the start, but since black can't beat back immediately, why doesn't white take C19?

$$B
$$ +------------
$$ | 4 3 . O X .
$$ | 1 2 . O X .
$$ | O O O O X .
$$ | X X X X X .
$$ | . . . . . .
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B $$ +------------ $$ | 4 3 . O X . $$ | 1 2 . O X . $$ | O O O O X . $$ | X X X X X . $$ | . . . . . .[/go]
Like this (5 meaning, black has to play elsewhere)

$$Bc
$$ +------------
$$ | 4 . 6 O X .
$$ | . 2 . O X .
$$ | O O O O X .
$$ | X X X X X .
$$ | . . . . . 5
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc $$ +------------ $$ | 4 . 6 O X . $$ | . 2 . O X . $$ | O O O O X . $$ | X X X X X . $$ | . . . . . 5[/go]

Sorry for being obscure.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Bc Approach ko $$ +------------ $$ | . 3 9 O X . $$ | 1 2 . O X . $$ | O O O O X . $$ | X X X X X . $$ | . . . . . .[/go]

takes ko,

plays ko threat,

answers ko threat,

takes ko back,

plays elsewhere (perhaps a ko threat that Black ignores)

makes a direct ko.

----

I hope that is clearer.

Life In 19x19

Difference between "reading" and "visualizing"?

Difference between "reading" and "visualizing"?

Re: Difference between "reading" and "visualizing"?

Re: Difference between "reading" and "visualizing"?

Re: Difference between "reading" and "visualizing"?

Re: Difference between "reading" and "visualizing"?

Re: Difference between "reading" and "visualizing"?

Re: Difference between "reading" and "visualizing"?

Re: Difference between "reading" and "visualizing"?

Re: Difference between "reading" and "visualizing"?

Re: Difference between "reading" and "visualizing"?

Re: Difference between "reading" and "visualizing"?

Re: Difference between "reading" and "visualizing"?

Re: Difference between "reading" and "visualizing"?

Re: Difference between "reading" and "visualizing"?