A question about goproblems.com

[Sverre]

Reading all the way is the only rational way to improve. Sure you can learn vital points, and it will help, but there is no substitute for reading. (Refer to signature.)

What is rational is to study in the way that best combines fun and improvement. If someone finds that doing tsumego isn't making him stronger, why is it "rational" to keep doing it? Why shouldn't he instead focus on shape knowledge, and practice his reading during serious games instead? I read deeper during a tournament match than I bother doing when I'm solving tsumego.

[Kirby]

Reading all the way is the only rational way to improve. Sure you can learn vital points, and it will help, but there is no substitute for reading. (Refer to signature.)

What is rational is to study in the way that best combines fun and improvement. If someone finds that doing tsumego isn't making him stronger, why is it "rational" to keep doing it? Why shouldn't he instead focus on shape knowledge, and practice his reading during serious games instead? I read deeper during a tournament match than I bother doing when I'm solving tsumego.

I kind of agree, but there is something to be said for studying when you don't want to.

You can take exercising your body, for example. Some days, it might be easy and fun to go out and jog around the block. Other days, you might not want to get out of bed. But if you get a routine and do it every day, you can have effective results.

[nagano]

Reading all the way is the only rational way to improve.

People learn differently. Proclaiming that there is one single "rational" way to improve is ridiculous.

Perhaps you misunderstand what I mean. At the most fundamental level reason is the pattern of thinking that allows one to achieve a desired result. One cannot say whether anything is rational or not without first considering the underlying, ultimately emotionally based, goal. Is it rational to want to live? From a strictly rational perspective, one cannot answer this question. But one can use reason to determine how best to survive. So the underlying assumption of my statement is that the learner wants to become as strong as he/she possibly can. If that is the goal, then reading EVERYTHING one can is necessary. If you do not care about getting stronger, then the best study path is irrelevant.

[Kirby]

Reading all the way is the only rational way to improve.

People learn differently. Proclaiming that there is one single "rational" way to improve is ridiculous.

Perhaps you misunderstand what I mean. At the most fundamental level reason is the pattern of thinking that allows one to achieve a desired result. One cannot say whether anything is rational or not without first considering the underlying, ultimately emotionally based, goal. Is it rational to want to live? From a strictly rational perspective, one cannot answer this question. But one can use reason to determine how best to survive. So the underlying assumption of my statement is that the learner wants to become as strong as he/she possibly can. If that is the goal, then reading EVERYTHING one can is necessary. If you do not care about getting stronger, then the best study path is irrelevant.

I think that Monadology was suggesting that there may be ways to become strong without practicing reading everything. For example, if it were possible to become ultimately strong by just practicing memorizing shapes, his point would be valid.

However, I am personally inclined to agree with you - if you want to become strong, you must read as much as you can. While I trust in this axiom, though, it is not proven (eg. It may be theoretically possible to become 9d by simply memorizing shapes - but I doubt it).

[nagano]

I think that Monadology was suggesting that there may be ways to become strong without practicing reading everything. For example, if it were possible to become ultimately strong by just practicing memorizing shapes, his point would be valid.

However, I am personally inclined to agree with you - if you want to become strong, you must read as much as you can. While I trust in this axiom, though, it is not proven (eg. It may be theoretically possible to become 9d by simply memorizing shapes - but I doubt it).

I would be curious if someone could point out a pro who hasn't developed his reading ability...

[Kirby]

...

I would be curious if someone could point out a pro who hasn't developed his reading ability...

Like I said, I agree with you. Although, in that regard, while we might venture that all pros have great reading ability, I'm not sure if we have data on how they got there.

I would suspect that just about all pros have spent a lot of time doing go problems and enhancing their reading ability. But I suppose it's theoretically possible that a pro achieved their reading ability by an indirect means.

However, while this possibility exists (though I think it is unlikely), I still agree with you that focusing specifically on reading everything seems to be a universally great way to improve.

[Monadology]

Both of you are missing my point. I will try to clarify.

So the underlying assumption of my statement is that the learner wants to become as strong as he/she possibly can.

I share this assumption. I still do not think that there will be a methodology or technique that will be the most rational, given the premise, for every given individual.

I think that Monadology was suggesting that there may be ways to become strong without practicing reading everything.

Yes and no.

The confusion here is coming from the fact that many players, include both of you, are associating "reading" with "visualizing."

I disagree that it holds for everyone that the best way to improve by doing tsumego is to sit on one's hands and visualize the "reading." I think there are a number of people (CSamurai may or may not be an example) who will not learn best this way. Some people will best learn to read by approaching tsumego proactively e.g. playing out the actual variations on a board or a screen. Not because they are learning a different skill, they are still learning "reading." The way they learn is simply different.

You should understand this Kirby. You have said that you always have to see for yourself when learning. Some people may learn better when they do for themselves.

To summarize: Doing tsumego to learn reading is universally important. But how people do tsumego in order to best learn reading may differ. The best way to decide this is to see which results in actual progress.

[Kirby]

Let's back up. The part that you quoted is right here:

Reading all the way is the only rational way to improve.

Your current claim is this:

...they are still learning "reading." The way they learn is simply different.
...
Doing tsumego to learn reading is universally important.

So you seem to agree that to "learn reading" is a rational way to improve.

The only other part that there is to nagano's statement, which you quoted is the part about reading all the way.

So you seem to suggest that some people can learn reading by doing something other than reading "all the way".

This is what I was referring to in this part of my post:

But I suppose it's theoretically possible that a pro achieved their reading ability by an indirect means.

So I think that it may be possible for some people to improve their reading ability by clicking through sequences or memorizing shapes, but I kind of doubt that it will be more effective than visualization.

Yes, I haven't proven this, but if I had to wager money, I'd bet that the guy that's studied by practicing visualization will beat out the guy that hasn't.

[Kirby]

....

I disagree that it holds for everyone that the best way to improve by doing tsumego is to sit on one's hands and visualize the "reading." ...

I guess I disagree with this. I think that this is the best way for anybody. I could be wrong about it, but if I have to choose one way or the other, I'd have to go with visualization.

I think of visualization as exercise. It strains my mind when I try to do a hard problem. I think of clicking through a sequence as kind of fun, but it doesn't make me think at all.

Just from personal experience, I'm inclined to think that the exercise that strains my mind is more effective.

You should understand this Kirby. You have said that you always have to see for yourself when learning. Some people may learn better when they do for themselves.

I guess that, to me, if somebody is not actually reading the entire sequence out, they are not really "doing" much. I think of visualization as doing. I think of just clicking through a sequence as "guessing".

I'm sure that there may be a positive side effect to seeing a bunch of shapes, but it is hard for me to believe that it is as effective as visualization.

[Monadology]

I do not disagree with Nagano regarding that. I understood his used of "reading all the way" to be narrower than it should, based on the context. In disagreeing what what Chew Terr presented as the gist of CSamurai's post, there were two possibilties:

A) Reading all the way really means reading all the way. Every. Single. Possibility. I disagree that this is necessary, it seems silly to think that it would be, and I don't think anyone reads out every branch of the tsumego they do.

B) Reading all the way means visualizing (what people take to mean "reading" commonly) before checking the answer or playing anything out.

Maybe I misunderstood. I dismissed A because I don't think it would have been a charitable reading at all. Plus, B was context relevant. CSamurai never said that he just started skipping over variations based on his ability to spot vital points, he said:

I start identifying eyespace, and looking at a few likely variations for my first and second ideas.

Where "first" and "second" ideas do not seem to be the only ones which he plays out:

I click the first spot, and if that's wrong, I click the second spot, then the third, then the fourth, that comes to mind. Then I try to figure out why the first second third, etc were wrong. Then I try to spot what makes the fourth stand out in the configuration. Then I move on.

By any indication CSamurai is being relatively thoroughgoing with his approach. He simply is not visualizing it all the way. The patterns he's learned merely drive what moves he checks first, which unless I am horribly mistaken, is how even those who sit on their hands and visualize it all proceed.

In any case, you still seem to disagree with me.

but I kind of doubt that it will be more effective than visualization.

Why? Is it that difficult to imagine that different people learn by different associative methods? Mental representations are not uniform. Some people do arithmetic visually, others do it through an internal verbal representation, some count on their fingers. Some dream in black and white. Some people can play music by ear, others have to learn by kinesthetic practice.

I'd bet that the guy that's studied by practicing visualization will beat out the guy that hasn't.

Why? I realize you lack evidence, but what's the important difference between the two modes of computation (one relying on visual representations, the other on kinesthetic*)

*- The representation for the second type might still be visual, they may just be better able to process visual representations by associating images with actions in the learning process.

-----------------------------

You posted again before I could respond:

Your personal experience is not a good ground for generalizing about other people in this context.

That's about all I can say, except to try to open your mind enough to imagine that what you experience through visualization, someone else approximately experiences when they play something out. It shouldn't be too hard, try to think of a skill you've learned where you didn't primarily approach it by visualizing the activity.

It strikes me as odd, considering how you defended MW in another thread by cautioning others about making assumptions regarding where someone else is coming from, that you are being somewhat dismissive here.

[Kirby]

Monadology:

Yes, it is possible that my personal experience does not reflect that of others. But I am just reluctant to believe that the mind works that way. Nobody's really sure, of course. There are a lot of diet plans, for example, to get people to lose weight. I might think that some of them are bogus, even though some people say that they work for them.

The reason I think that just clicking through variations is not as effective is because the only way I see it working is if it were to work for the precise shape that you are clicking through.

I do think that you will start to get a "feel" for how tsumego works by doing it this way. But I think that you still get this feel by visualization.

I also think that just clicking through variations can lead to more negative effects than good ones. That's because, by definition, you are training yourself by not really thinking much. If you train yourself not to think ahead, it seems to me that it will be more difficult to think ahead in an actual game.

---

If you want to contrast this with the situation with MW, I am not condemning anybody for "studying by clicking", if they choose to do so. They are perfectly free to do that.

I just do not see how it is effective compared to actually thinking ahead (and in the same way, I do not necessarily share the same views as MW on every topic).

---

You can play go without thinking, and you may get some benefit from experience. But go is a thinking game, and I think it's important to train your thinking.

[Monadology]

Monadology:

Yes, it is possible that my personal experience does not reflect that of others. But I am just reluctant to believe that the mind works that way. Nobody's really sure, of course. There are a lot of diet plans, for example, to get people to lose weight. I might think that some of them are bogus, even though some people say that they work for them.

When nobody is really sure, the best bet is to let results speak for themselves. Advocating a hard-line methodology before the fact is just going to make it more difficult to get anywhere determining what's really effective.

The reason I think that just clicking through variations is not as effective is because the only way I see it working is if it were to work for the precise shape that you are clicking through.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Why wouldn't it work for any shape? And it's not "just" clicking through variations, as if it's a mindless activity. I can lazily start visualizing tsumego solutions just as easily.

I do think that you will start to get a "feel" for how tsumego works by doing it this way. But I think that you still get this feel by visualization.

Maybe not everyone can get this from visualization.

I also think that just clicking through variations can lead to more negative effects than good ones. That's because, by definition, you are training yourself by not really thinking much. If you train yourself not to think ahead, it seems to me that it will be more difficult to think ahead in an actual game.

Once again, it's not mindless. Mindless clicking is a straw man case.

[Kirby]

...

When nobody is really sure, the best bet is to let results speak for themselves. Advocating a hard-line methodology before the fact is just going to make it more difficult to get anywhere determining what's really effective.

Do you know a dan player that has not practiced reading via visualization?

...
I can lazily start visualizing tsumego solutions just as easily.

How? Are you sure that you are actually visualizing the solutions? Maybe the problems are not difficult enough.

Once again, it's not mindless. Mindless clicking is a straw man case.

Think about the difference between visualization and just clicking. With visualization, you put the shape in your mind, and imagine it. With clicking, you are not putting a shape in your mind - you are just observing.

Putting shapes in your head requires actively considering hypothetical possibilities.

Clicking doesn't require this. It is just watching what happens.

[Monadology]

Do you know a dan player that has not practiced reading via visualization?

It is not very difficult for a regime to be constructed around a methodology that passively eliminates and discourages those who are not adept at that methodology. This further makes it appear as if the methodology itself is the only possibility.

Not that you know any dan players who have not practiced reading by playing things out on the board. You know, in all those actual games they're playing. This case is not sufficient for isolating the variable.

How? Are you sure that you are actually visualizing the solutions? Maybe the problems are not difficult enough.

Difficulty has nothing to do with it. I just start picturing stones being put down. Mindlessly. Just like someone could click mindlessly.

Then there's the way it actually should be done. Which is THINKING about which stones you visualize or put down. The THINKING is not the same as the REPRESENTATION.

Think about the difference between visualization and just clicking. With visualization, you put the shape in your mind, and imagine it. With clicking, you are not putting a shape in your mind - you are just observing.

Putting shapes in your head requires actively considering hypothetical possibilities.

Clicking doesn't require this. It is just watching what happens.

People can also consider hypothetical possibilities without "putting shapes in your head". Also putting shapes in your head does not actively require considering hypothetical possibilities. It just requires me to put shapes in my head. I don't have to give it any thought at all.

Clicking is only "watching what happens" when you're watching someone else click. But the idea is that you click. Which means it's both "clicking" and "watching what happens", but ideally, it's "thinking" "clicking" and "watching what happens"

Just like visualizing. With visualization you still learn by watching what happens (in addition to the other necessary factors like thinking about it).

[Kirby]

Difficulty has nothing to do with it. I just start picturing stones being put down. Mindlessly. Just like someone could click mindlessly.

When you click mindlessly, you can see stones on the board. You can see a position.

If you do it in your head, you are required to keep this image in your head - this takes brain power.

I do not understand how you can visualize the problem without thinking.

Storing the "representation", which you reference, in your head takes mental work, because that storage is happening in your head. If you put the stones on the board, it does not take mental work to store the image of the stones in your head. You just look at it.

It just requires me to put shapes in my head. I don't have to give it any thought at all.

I do not see how storing the image in your head does not take brain power.

Clicking is only "watching what happens" when you're watching someone else click. But the idea is that you click. Which means it's both "clicking" and "watching what happens", but ideally, it's "thinking" "clicking" and "watching what happens"

Right here. The "thinking" part that you mention! That happens in your head. That's the important part of this process.

Visualization keeps the whole thing in your head. If you click WITHOUT first visualizing, you have missed the "thinking" step. This is the part that I think is problematic.