Anything else from you would have surprised me:) For me, of course, the opposite is true.



As long as Go is not solved. Afterwards one can define what will have been Go art today.



No, but on decision-making based on evaluating reading. (Unless of course, brute force is used.)



I would not say "converge" but "provide better ground for usage".

Learning principles during playing is inefficient. Principles become useful, after learning, when applying them during one's games.



All (good) principles make one stronger. Even efficiently so. (Although it could be that YOU don't become stronger from principles, I know I know:) )



The power of good principles is told by themselves.



Oh, uh, ah, we agree on something! What a rare occasion! ;)

There are many principles that do make the decisions!

Not their number is important but their quality. A powerful principle replaces several not powerful ones and is similar in contents and method to other powerful principles.



As Mr. Principle, I say: All good principles are worth learning and applying. Good means correct and as general as possible for the purpose according to current research insight and the purpose of application. At the same time, see my first reply message: besides knowledge (which includes principles), you need also the other fields for improving.



(Your) learning style is rather independent of the functioning of principles or strategic concepts. Principles for one strategic concept (like thickness) should not contradict those for another (like aji). Therefore you can choose learn both strategic concepts simultaneously or successively.

Usually principles are not at a standard of final truths in all cases though. Sometimes principle A can contradict principle B. In that case, methods or principles with mightier scope (typically: analysis methods or strategic planning) override the more specific principles. If even the higher level of abstraction does not provide answers, then reasonably complete reading cannot be avoided.

Mathematics can do different things: 1) Create an approximative model of a real world aspect. 2) Create a model of a real world aspect that is its identity. - Go mathematics has provided models of both kinds, depending on the studied object of go theory. I.e., type (2) models have already found the final, correct, complete solutions for some (specialized) aspects.

cdybeijing, therefore ez4u's statement is not the truth but a partial falsehood.



No. They are teaching tools at worst. If a principle is of type (2), then there is nothing better (on the same level of generalisation and in the same manner of expression).

E.g., "A 'strong eye' of size 4 without shape defects and with the surrounding string not being initially in atari has as many liberties as 5 minus the number of inside, nakade-filling stones." is the final truth (except for greater precision as to the used terms).

Because it is taught like that everywhere. It could also be taught in terms of ideas / methods used in proofs.

Uh, what is a good book? And surely a writer can improve the level of certain aspects of book quality beyond prior standards :) (Interesting topic, but off-topic.)

This quip points to the fact that carefully observing the competition is a common if not essential way of staying on the cutting edge of one's field. In order to improve beyond prior standards, one must be aware of what the current standards are.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Interesting contradiction:

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

I have nothing new to add, but a re-statement of what has been said through my own eyes may provide a different viewpoint for someone else.

I think all players make a decision (not always conscious) between being strong at go and understanding go. The two camps belong to the same species but are as different as men and women.

I infer that Tami is in the "want to understand" group (like me) whereas ez4u and Araban are in the "want to be strong" group.

If you want to be strong that means you really want to beat your opponents, like Fischer. You want to win, you care about your rank. You drill, you think hard, you avoid games against weaker players, you ignore go history and other distractions. Winning gives you joy; losing gives you pain. For you, go is like tennis.

If you merely want to understand, go is more like philosophy. You want to grasp the fundamental principles, for their own sake rather than to beat an opponent. You are at something of a disadvantage because go literature tends to be written for the "want to be strong" and those who want to be strong tend to ignore anything and anyone that doesn't help them in their quest. But for you, go can be fun all the time. To be sure, losing games can be disconcerting, but more because it produces a general angst that you are not yet understanding the principles. It is not a visceral pain.

Of course, the attributes of the two groups can overlap at times, but when the crunch comes, I think you know you are in one group or the other. The difference is rather like being a player or a fan. In baseball, some people want to play in the Big Leagues, and may often get there without knowing even (say) who Jackie Robinson was. Some people are content with being fans. They not only know who JR was but where he came from, where he served in the war, what his number was, etc. They can't make a triple play, but can tell you when the last one was made. The Major Leaguer has fun while he makes big bucks but his world is shattered if he is demoted to the Minor Leagues. The fan may never reach the highs of being paid millions a year, but has a source of fun all his life.

For a fan, reading out tsumego problems or facing a pitch is really part of the fan process, and not about becoming strong. You want a taste of the real thing simply in order to appreciate it better. I know that when I began to take baseball seriously, I was desperate to face a fastball. Just from watching on tv I couldn't really understand all the fuss about fastballs. They didn't look so fast to me. But when I got into a batting cage for the first time, and a slow ball plopped past me. I began to understand a little. After a few sessions I plucked up courage to go into the fast cage. When I saw nothing but heard a mighty crash behind me I began to understand even more. With perseverance I learned to smack almost every fast ball (we don't get curve balls or cutters unless it rains and the ball becomes a spitball), so I had become "stronger", yet I didn't feel I understood more. Then one day I got careless and got hit by a fastball. That day I understood a lot! Then I enjoyed watching games on tv even more.

My recommendation for Tami is to stand back from her list. Instead, look at a game through the eyes of Takagawa: view the flow of a game like water, which never fights what is in front but builds up the power to move boulders and always flows on. I think she'll understand go better then, in the sense of making it even more fun. And look at the commentaries by Shuei. I like him because I think that more than anyone else he has the ability to pinpoint the changes in flow of a game without getting bogged down in variations. He, of course, was both strong and he understood. But he was the Meijin of Meijins, after all.

You seem to suggest that books with principles are not written for those wishing to become stronger. The opposite is true: They are written to allow becoming stronger much faster. There are still many topics though where such books for (high) dans don't exist yet. Then even if one wants to improve by principles, one is forced to improve by examples.

Interesting analogy... I think that I am in the "want to be strong" camp. I care about winning. It's interesting to try to understand the "want to understand" camp, as I don't know if I completely understand them. ;-p

I feel that I "want to understand" go, but this desire is driven by the fact that I ultimately want to win the games that I play. It is hard for me to conceptualize the idea of "wanting to understand" without "wanting to win", probably because I want to win.

To me, the goal of the game is to win. If you think of the game from a game-theoretical standpoint, it's a zero-sum game: you profit from any win equally, and you lose that same amount when you lose. It is difficult for me to fathom playing the game without using the principle of trying to win as a guideline.

I don't think that this is limited to go in my life. Pretty much any game that I play, I play with the intention of winning. That is the goal to me, and it is how I understand that the game is defined.

If I try to think of games where winning is not important to me - say playing Monopoly - then it seems to be the case that they are games that I do not care about very much. I don't care about winning Monopoly, because I don't really care that much about Monopoly.

However, the "fan" perspective that John mentions in his post is an interesting one. Clearly he cares about baseball. Clearly it is something that he values and enjoys. But he is not driven by trying to get stronger as much as an appreciation of the game.

This is admirable to me, because it is a trait that I do not feel that I can relate to in any aspect of my life.

_________________
be immersed

"to understand the theory to increase my strength" and "to understand the theory for its own sake" are often not in direct conflict because it is the same theory. If the theory is not useful for improving (e.g., rules theory), then there is another sort of conflict though: that of time spent.

There is nothing that you admire but don't try and do well? Movies, photography, music, go historiography, statistical analysis, physics...

You must be very ambitious.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

There are things that I admire. I like movies, for example. I even like the game of Monopoly alright. But I would say that I do not care about those things as much as for things that I am more competitive with. Or rather, if I care about a particular thing a lot, then I become competitive with it, particularly if it is an area in which competition is possible.

To give an example, if I was extremely passionate about movies, I might try to become the best movie director that I could be, perhaps. I don't care about movies THAT much, so I am content with not being competitive with it.

_________________
be immersed

Not yet. I haven't considered it a real problem in my life, yet.

_________________
be immersed

I go to the Seattle Go Center on Wednesday nights where a majority of the time we spend going over pro games. I do learn a lot from it, but I know if I wanted to get stronger faster I would be either playing games or doing tsumego with that time. However, I enjoy that time with a group going over the pro games more than my own games.

So I think it's simply that improvement is less important than finding the aspects of the game that I enjoy. There is one member here, who will go nameless, who enjoys relaying live games to the internet more than playing. I find that odd, but we all like Go.

Does that help at all?

I suppose. Although, if I were really serious about relaying live games to the Internet, I might still be competitive about it. Still, I think I understand your point.

_________________
be immersed

As one who is securely in the understanding camp, I must say that I don't like this analogy much. Although a fan wants to increase his appreciation of the game as you say, he generally is an observer and not an active player. While I may be considered a fan of the game, it is far more important to me to be seen as someone who plays go.

The main reason that I want to know more about go - undertand it better - is to increase my arsenal of moves. For me, this is less about winning per se than it is about coolness and being able to put up a good fight. Today I played a game in which I found a move - cutting across a knights move and stealing a corner - that I wouldn't have found when I was a bit weaker. Seeing it and executing it gave me an inordinate amount of pleasure. Were I to have seen something similar in a game I was watching, I would not have thought "what an clever move," but rather: "I want to be able to do that."

When you were standing in the batting cage, you were interested in seeing what challenges a batter faces. This is indeed the interest of a fan - to be in awe of the skill of the professionals. Most of us in the understanding camp however would probably prefer to learn how to throw a curveball.



This on the other hand is marvellous. Where can one find Shuei's commentaries?

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Thank you again, everybody, for providing such thoughtful and interesting replies. I think I for one will need a day or three to digest all the recent remarks.

I think the one about the 1k reading and the 9p fuseki was a very pertinent point. For me, I feel like I am slowly building up experience and knowledge, and getting stronger that way (the concrete knowledge part); but I get the feeling that I am missing something fundamental in principle. Do you people know what I mean? The feeling of climbing a mountain step-by-step, with pain and pitons, while suspecting that there is a ski lift or mountain train just a short distance away, that would take you up the mountain much more pleasurably.

Of course, experts in any field have masses of knowledge. When I took lessons with Alex Dinerchtein, I was always in awe of the information he had at his fingertips; back in my student days, I was always impressed by how Prof Whenham always knew every article in all the journals. And, given the efforts I've been through to get to N3 on the JLPT (a medium level only), I'm astounded how John can be so fluent and well read in Japanese, Chinese, Korean and, I guess, several other languages.

But, it's not just knowledge, is it? I mean, my vocabulary and kanji ability are probably better than the average 10-year-old's; but I can't put the words together as fluently! They have a grasp of the principles behind it all.

So, yes, I want to understand. I don't want to be a walking tesuji or L&D database. But, I also want to be strong. I desire the understanding above all else; but I'm prepared to do the work to get the necessary knowledge. I do already work hard on tsumego and L&D, and I study games, and review my defeats critically.

There is one thing left to try, one fundamental change to make. I have read John's writings here and on SL, and they have inspired me to do this: see what happens if I make defence the foundation of my game.

There are two writers to recall: Ishikura and Sonoda. Ishikura says

"If the situation is settled:
1) If you have weak stones, defend
2) If your partner has weak stones, attack
3) Play a big point"

and Sonoda says "Don't attack, don't defend", which we at SL seem to think means "Don't just attack, don't just defend".

To sum it all up:

I've been trying to improve by focussing on the building of knowledge and reading ability but I get the strong impression that I'm missing the highway and crawling through the bushes on the verge. Therefore, I'm going to see what a drastic change in attitude produces. Maybe my rank will go down two or three stones, but I don't care. I want to understand!

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here: