Quote:
But actually my point was that I don't see any benefit on the learning effect when solutions to problems are presented as coordinates. As someone not used to dividing up the board in letters and numbers (or numbers and numbers) it just takes more time checking moves. I also don't see the time/space-difference between writing coordinates by referencing letters and numbers and showing a board position with the correct moves labelled by numbers. In both examples moves precede one another, are sequential so both have your "time"-attribute? But a board position shown is much easier to understand.
Several points emerge from this.
1. You don't need to divide up the board into coordinates. The book editor can do that for you - see below.
2. When you are seeing a board position with all the moves on it together - the typical variation diagram - there is an implied sequence (1, 2, 4, 5...) but you are seeing it, at a single moment in space. You are also seeing the garbage left my captured stones. You are not seeing the move order in any meaningful sense. You only see it as a sequence if you play it out on a board so that each move (not just a single diagram) gets its own moment in time.
A typical situation is that you are reading a tsumego book on a train. You probably do not have a board and stones, but let's assume you do. You plonk down a dozen stones. Purely mechanical, but better than nothing. So far so good. You then have to remove them, but probably end up picking up too few or too many stones and have to waste time reconstructing the original position. This builds up resentment or other negative feelings which chip away at your motivation to do tsumego in the first place.
You may instead be using a smart phone. You could click through the moves on an app, but experience shows we all get click happy and the procedure ends up as a speed exercise for the thumb. Again, you also have to go through the negative and time-consuming process of unwinding the sequence.
You could watch a video and let somebody else do the work for you. That's filling in time, not using. In any case, while the demonstrator is picking up played stones and reconstructing the position, you will be switching off and thinking about what you'll have for lunch or "did I really turn the tap off?"
Or you could put in a bit of "effortful practice". Since this is a euphemism for "hard work" it's not a pleasant topic on the face of it. But if you try it and stick with it, various benefits accrue that either do not occur with the above methods, or which may occur but much more slowly and patchily. Effortful practice in his case means visualising the moves by following a prompt. The prompt may be via coordinates on the side of the diagram, or letters on the diagram, and/or by the use of words. The use of words is especially useful when you a reviewing a problem (e.g. atari, connects, hane underneath, nobi to extend liberties....). With any of these methods you are not just solving the problem but you are also training your mind, and there is no need for equipment and no need to unwind back to the original position - so, no negative feedback.
3. "But a board position shown is much easier to understand." Only sometimes, and more importantly understanding is not the aim of the exercise. The aim is internalising the solution so that it becomes a tool in your tool chest, and one that you actually know how to use.
Examples:
- Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc Black to play
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . O X X . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O O X O . O X . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O X X . O . O X . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X . . X O O O X . , . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X . X X X X . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]
A problem by Hashimoto Utaro. You may care to note that it is called Soma 相馬 by Hashimoto and is one of a trio of problems called Iwaki, Soma and Miharu, these being three villages mentioned by Basho on his journey on the Narrow Road to the Far North. There he saw Shadow Pond, so called because it was reputed to reflect an exact image. But when Basho was there it was cloudy day and there was no reflection of anything but grey skies. His disappointment matched the scene. Does the tsumego problem represent the pond. Will I end up looking at grey skies? All waffle of a kind, but making such associations is a useful and
enjoyable part of effortful practice. You are both more likely to pursue the problem and to remember it later.
The solution in the book (though actually without coordinates there buy I don't know how to turn them off here):
- Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc Black to play
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . 4 1 5 O X X . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O O X O 3 O X . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O X X 2 O . O X . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X . . X O O O X . , . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X . X X X X . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]
Grey skies or sharp image? Do you understand? Do you see? Like Basho, you are ona journey to the far north - you have jo go board and cell reception is awful.
The solution if you use coordinates and visualisation:
- Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$Bc Black to play
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . O X X . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O O O X O . O X . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | O X X . O . O X . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | X . . X O O O X . , . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . X . X X X X . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |[/go]
Black D19, White D17, Black F18, White C19, Black E19.
Better, if you use words as well: Black placement D19, White cuts D17, Black throws in at F18, White prevents Rooster on One Leg with C19, Black captures with E19 and makes a false eye. (Hashimoto doesn't go this far but he does add a touch of associational humour which helps the memory; he ends his answer with the haiku-style phrase: Kanashii kana, kakeme desu - Oh woe is me, the eye is false!)
To reinforce my claim that seeing a single picture is deceptive, or even useless, consider the following. (I'm using a discipline that most go players won't be familiar with, to ensure assumed knowledge does not get in the way of the point.)
Attachment:
BalletPortdeBras.jpg [ 16.18 KiB | Viewed 10303 times ]
The typical presentation in a go book would actually be only pictures 1 (Figure 1 in go) and 4 (Variation 1). But as a concession, if you really do believe variation diagrams show sequences clearly, I present a sequence here. What is going on?
it's actually very simple - a standard port de bras exercise usually done at the end of a lesson, and any dancer would recognise it instantly. It has been internalised and she can do it easily. In fact you can do it easily, once shown - but from the diagram? There is also no need to understand it. You just need to do it. Go's not much different. It just feels different because those pesky numbers create an illusion of meaning. Conjurers call it misdirection.
There is one other point that needs addressing. People often say: that's OK for simple positions, but it doesn't work when there's more than one variation. If you are one of these nay sayers, your everyday experience proves you wrong, I'll bet.
Think of a variation diagram as a picture of the destination. Now a destination doesn't have much relevance without a journey. What I am proposing is that you choose a destination - you don't need a picture of it - then you plan the journey. If you make the journey many times you will probably want to work out an efficient way to get there.
Let's say I want to drive from London to Edinburgh. A very long trip - over 400 miles. I have chosen my destination. I don't need a picture postcard. I've been there before. I therefore also don't need a map. Still, because it's a very long trip there are many variables. In go terms, I look at the the surrounding position and the stage of the game - what time of day (or night) will I be travelling, what time do I need to be there, what's the weather forecast, is my car in good nick and so on. Once I've got that kind of stuff sorted, I can think about the actual journey/ Do I need a tesuji - e.g. start off at 3 in the morning to beat the traffic. Do I take the straight M1 with all its traffic or the much quieter A1 with all its twisty roads and fewer service stations. Do I take the quicker route across the mountains - or will there be snow and ice there - or do I take the coastal route. Or shall I go west first then whizz up to Glasgow and approach Edinburgh from a different angle. Maybe depends on where the hotel is. And so on and so forth.
My point is that we all do this sort of thing all the time without hard thinking for familiar journeys. We make choices, we look at many variations (routes), we take account of strategy (weather) and tactics (location of petrol stations). We solve the tsumetravel problem easily, quickly, efficiently.
Now if I wanted to go to Pontyprydd instead, for me that would be a different kettle of fish. Not only do I not know how to get there, I don't even know where it is - except that it's (I assume) in Wales somewhere. In that case I will need a map. I might well find pictures useful - is it in mountains, for example? I can't really make any assessment about which route is best, and will have to do a fair bit of analysis (reading), and I may even decide I want to avoid the worst route rather than find the best one.
Again this is an experience we are all familiar with.
And I'll bet again that everybody does what I do if I have to go to Pontyprydd again. I'll try to skip the map and the pictures, maybe experiment with a possibly faster or safer route, and so on, all with the explicit goal of eventually reducing
that journey to the same kind of travel experience as the trip to Edinburgh.
It doesn't take much digging to realise that go problems can be reduced to the same sort of journey + destination process. But how may people do that? Those who sit on a train with a standard tsumego book may feel they are travelling, but that's just because they are being pulled by a locomotive. They are not driving, even in the book. They are getting barely anything out of the book. In the book they are just turning from picture to picture. If they sat with a map and followed their train journey on that, would they feel they were getting anything out of it? If no, then why should they expect to get anything out of the picture-postcard kind of tsumego book?
It's very easy to scoff at this in some solipsistic way and say, "Well, I don't do that sort of thing!" Really? Next time you are on a plane, notice how many passengers (yourself, too, maybe?) sit gazing catatonically at the route map on your seat tv screen. (I own up to doing it. I fool myself by pretending I'm improving my geography.)
Another problem is a kind of being wise
before the event. Telling your self that every journey begins with the first step can make you feel wise, which can make you feel you've understood the problem, therefore you've solved the problem, therefore you can go and do something else. You skate over the real problem - that fact that you haven't made any steps after the first one and so never reach your destination.
In short, the journey (the work, the effortful practice) is that matters most in making progress. And the fact that that is bleeding obvious never seems to make a blind bit of difference. Look at the constant drip, drip, drip of people asking on forums (not just go) for the best way to do this or the best way to study that. What they are really saying is, "I know you are supposed to work hard at this, but what's the best way to avoid actual work?" And they only listen to advice that comes without that rude four-letter word.
My advice is to substitute the rude word for a nice one: a journey. Going to the Far North, well away from normal temptations and distractions, might be the ideal, but even short journeys can show you new things you never suspected were there.