Life In 19x19

John Fairbairn wrote: Again, I'm not saying don't do dumb-bells or read tsumego books - a change of pace can be good, and nothing is ever truly wasted. Just don't pretend it's the most efficient way to become stronger for the skill you have chosen - playing a complete game of baseball, not acquiring six-pack abs for prom night; playing a complete game of go, not doing puzzles.

Not the most efficient but maybe very necessary. Like marathon runners very rarely run a marathon.

Not the most efficient but maybe very necessary. Like marathon runners very rarely run a marathon.

But they do very long runs. They don't work on their abs.

I think we are going round in circles now, so I think I'll go to the gym instead and let Kirby have his usual potshots at me in peace.

John Fairbairn wrote:

So maybe that's why some people here are closing their ears.

That's a rather unfair argument. We could likewise argue that you think reading a go book is a very efficient way to improve because you've written some, or replaying a pro game is because you compiled GoGoD. We need arguments why L&D is or isn't efficient, not arguments why people cling to tsumego despite proven poor return on investment (or conversely, don't think highly of it because they never invested in it).

I love the above analogy with marathon precisely because it is flawed and thus points out the problem with other analogies, like baseball.

When trying to make a point about tsumego as a tool to improve go, I wouldn't search in other domains. Analogies are like a baby in a cradle: it's hard to fight the imagery but how exactly did that prove my point?

John Fairbairn wrote:

Not the most efficient but maybe very necessary. Like marathon runners very rarely run a marathon.

But they do very long runs. They don't work on their abs.

I think we are going round in circles now, so I think I'll go to the gym instead and let Kirby have his usual potshots at me in peace.

I think Kirby deserves much better than being depicted as a troll for merely disagreeing with you (and only at some points) in the most civilized manner.

John Fairbairn wrote:As a silly little example, when young at school I learnt the French name for what seemed like every flower under the sun. I thus learnt and have never forgotten that glycine is French for wisteria.

Thanks! I never new what a wisteria was, though I have often heard the word, but since my German landlord is always complaining about how the neighbor's glyzine is ruining the facade of the house, I now know what a wisteria looks like.

As to tsumego, I think it gives people the opportunity to practice reading, killing and living, and like you say, that can't hurt.

Maybe some different aspect with respect to the thread topic: On http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/EG ... system.php a full list of ranked players in the EGF can be obtained. From that it can be seen that there are currently a bit more than 6600 ranked players, and 1d rankings start at above rank 900.

This means that being 1d is equivalent to belonging to the upper ~ 13.5% of the active players population.

My current rank is rather within the upper 35% (around 4k), which is a factor of 2.6 more compared to the upper 13.5%. Is it reasonable to assume that - if I manage to reduce my rate of blunders and mistakes per game by more than factor 2.5 - I would make it to 1d?

It seems that the word tesuji can mean a variety of things.

I've looked at the sample pages of the Dictionary of Basic Tesuji, and it seems to me that it could have been called the Dictionary of Basic Haengma !
In the other hand, I have the book 200 Tesuji Problems, and all of them are tsumego.

Both books pretend to be about the same "Tesuji" subject, but in fact, they are completely different.

John Fairbairn wrote: There is a point being missed, but that's not it.
...
So maybe that's why some people here are closing their ears.

I'm not convinced that I am the one closing his ears

Earlier in the thread, I noted that I was skeptical that tsumego was not efficient, but that I am willing to expand my pallete and try studying pro games. That's partially because I feel, "Why not? Maybe there is something to it. My games are somewhat out of balance, anyway". Yes, I still feel there is more value to tsumego than you are describing, but maybe I'll change my mind. I am willing to give your method a shot.

Frankly, I am surprised at your position. It is almost inarguable to me that actively solving problems is efficient. Pros say you should do it often when asked "how do players become stronger?" So it must be somewhat efficient. I am sure you know that. The fact that this is even being argued is baffling to me.

I understand that we have argued about things in the past, and sometimes, I've been extreme in my viewpoints. But I don't think this is one of those times.

And frankly, for this particular topic, I don't care as much about convincing someone else, because it's related to personal strategy for study. So someone else studies a different way than I do. So what? We'll see who has the higher rank down the road.

Anyway, I plan on studying pro games in addition to tsumego. I'll be happy to admit that pro games are a more efficient way, if I find that to be the case.

I am willing to try it, though, and I don't think I have my ears closed on this issue.

I'm not convinced that I am the one closing his ears

And I didn't have you in mind when I said it.

I intimated I would stop so I shouldn't be posting this, but let me (re)make two final points:

1. I don't deny it can be useful to do tsumego problems; I just don't think it is efficient, but I am aware that some people use efficient loosely to mean useful (i.e. mixing it up with effective).

2. Most important, the context kept getting lost. The thread started about the problems someone faced getting to shodan, so we are talking about someone on the cusp, in other words a high kyu player. My observations centred (I hope) on that group. But others pitched in to say, basically, "I am a low kyu and I don't believe that" or, more stridently, "I am a dan player and I don't believe that." So it became a case of if the cap doesn't fit, shoot the messenger. This messenger shoots back, is all.

To Pio2001: Yes, our observation that tesuji means various things (even in Japanese) is correct. One common sense you didn't mention is simply 'way of playing'. The western sense of brilliant move is not quite accurate, but not too wide of the mark. Your observation about its similarity to haengma is also correct, but it's really closer to suji = haengma, and maybe suji + katachi = haengma is better still. Either way, well observed.

John Fairbairn wrote:And I didn't have you in mind when I said it.

I see. Perhaps I was led to that impression from your comment.

I think we are going round in circles now, so I think I'll go to the gym instead and let Kirby have his usual potshots at me in peace.

My ears are open, but I'm just making "potshots". Thanks for clarifying.

John Fairbairn wrote: 1. I don't deny it can be useful to do tsumego problems; I just don't think it is efficient, but I am aware that some people use efficient loosely to mean useful (i.e. mixing it up with effective).

My fastest period of improvement in my go career (after getting "stuck" at a rank) was from 4k to about 1k, and I attribute that to a time when I focused consistently on go problems for hours each day. I've said this several times on the forum. So to me, it's the most efficient method that I've found. I say this from my personal experience.

I haven't had as much success with pro games in the past - it's very difficult to think as actively as I do when trying to solve go problems. But anyway, I'll give it another shot. I don't accept your claim that studying pro games is efficient just because you say so - the strongest argument you've provided is not from your personal experience even, and is from what you observed of T Mark.

Nonetheless, I think the idea is worth trying.

John Fairbairn wrote: 2. Most important, the context kept getting lost. The thread started about the problems someone faced getting to shodan, so we are talking about someone on the cusp, in other words a high kyu player. My observations centred (I hope) on that group. But others pitched in to say, basically, "I am a low kyu and I don't believe that" or, more stridently, "I am a dan player and I don't believe that." So it became a case of if the cap doesn't fit, shoot the messenger. This messenger shoots back, is all.

I believe daal is around 4k on KGS. This is the same rank I was when I started the first volume of "Train Like a Pro". I don't know if what worked for me will work for him, but I definitely attribute doing problems to my jump to KGS 1k. Even in your example, you said that T Mark did go problems as a kyu player. I don't know if he was KGS 4k at that time, but T Mark was already above 1-dan level. If anything, this argument would suggest that T Mark's case cannot be used as a good example for daal, since he was already stronger than daal when he started studying pro games.

Anyway, this conversation is too hypothetical. There are many ways up the mountain, and I believe both go problems and pro games can help you get there. It's not really that productive to get into this side-discussion/argument about what may or may not be most efficient when there is no real way to prove what is optimal. At best, we have stories from our personal experiences (and those of our friends).

The important thing is to know that there are multiple ways to study - go problems and pro games being a couple of them. I think we can both agree on that point, and that's all that really matters.

John Fairbairn wrote:

Not the most efficient but maybe very necessary. Like marathon runners very rarely run a marathon.

But they do very long runs. They don't work on their abs.

I don't run marathons myself, but I think it has been proven going to the gym is a must. I think they also do some cycling or swimming or whatever.

Kirby wrote: I don't accept your claim that studying pro games is efficient just because you say so - the strongest argument you've provided is not from your personal experience even, and is from what you observed of T Mark.

But I had a few extra arguments. Two top chess players plus the go4go guy.

Tumtumtum wrote:

Kirby wrote: I don't accept your {John Fairbairn's} claim that studying pro games is efficient just because you say so - the strongest argument you've provided is not from your personal experience even, and is from what you observed of T Mark.

But I had a few extra arguments. Two top chess players plus the go4go guy.

And don't forget Shusai.

Agree that there are people who have improved by studying pro games. Like I said, I plan on trying it more myself. To claim something is "most efficient" requires more data for me to believe it - that's all.

I've personally experienced results from go problems that I found to be "efficient", which has largely influenced my opinion on the matter. I hope to find the same in studying pro games, too. But I will probably stick to studying both, unless I end up finding one to be of less merit.

Actually, I hope that John is right in some ways. Going over a pro game is less taxing than a hard go problem, so if that's an efficient way to improve, great! I pessimistically suspect, however, that real results come from greater effort.

Anyway, that's just my plan. Others should define their own.

Bill Spight wrote:

Tumtumtum wrote:

Kirby wrote: I don't accept your {John Fairbairn's} claim that studying pro games is efficient just because you say so - the strongest argument you've provided is not from your personal experience even, and is from what you observed of T Mark.

But I had a few extra arguments. Two top chess players plus the go4go guy.

And don't forget Shusai.

I don't know Shusai, but I guess he studied his own games or none at all. It is known in chess the early champions couldn't match up to modern top players. Though of course most of it has to be just opening knowledge. But gathering that knowledge takes a fracking long time.

I thought of another analogy. I just heard on a youtube video 100 English words are used about 50% of the time. And many books have many rare words used only once. Without those special words the books would be nothing. You just gotta pump up through all the garbage to become a true champion.

On artificial problems and efficiency of learning

Here is a position that may never have occurred in a game (outside of beginner's games, OC).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Black to play
$$ --------------
$$ | O . . . O X .
$$ | . . . . O X .
$$ | O O O O O X .
$$ | X X X X X X .
$$ | . . . . . . .[/go]

What is the result with best play? Death? Ko? Seki? Independent life?

As it turns out, there are a couple of nice lessons to the play. Dan players already know them, so they only have to read 4 moves deep, at most. But what about, say, 9 kyus. Some of them might not know those lessons. Is this problem the most efficient way to teach those lessons to them? I think not. (But if they discover them themselves, that's wonderful! ) I think that telling them that if they cannot solve the problem, they should not look at the answer, but should come back later, is bad advice. After working on the problem, their brains are primed to incorporate the right answers. The lessons are, after all, basic. Why leave the 9 kyus in ignorance? Why ask them to reinvent the wheel?