Life In 19x19

Isn't it enough to train your reading through playing games?

John Fairbairn wrote:

I find the idea of pros reading 100 moves deep all the time quite simply incredulous.

I don't think anyone said they read deep all the time. Certainly Yi Ch'ang-ho just referred to doing that for one or two candidate moves.

Lee Changho wrote:Q: How many moves ahead you read before you play a move?
A: Usually professional players, including me, read around 100 moves ahead. But that's not the case for every move. First select 10 candidate moves and then read ahead for each of them. After reading ahead 20 to 30 moves for a candidate move, one could reach a tentative conclusion like "this is a bad shape" or simply "this is not it." At that point, I stop any further reading for that candidate move and look for another. This is a process of elimination that ususally leaves one or two candidate moves. For each of these final candidate moves, I read ahead about 100 moves.

Maybe I misunderstood it, but to me that is saying at board position X I consider 10 candidate moves and read most of them "only" 20-30 moves deep and only a few the full depth of 100 (that seems unambigious). My question is does the move in "But that's not the case for every move" refer to candidate move at this position X, or mean I only apply this 20-30 for most candidates and 100 for the mainline at only some of the positions X_n, X_n+2, X_n+4, etc that are the board positions at different moves (n,n+2,n+4) of the game? I understood him to mean the former. Of course you don't need to re-read all those 100 when things proceed along the route you planned (though you may want to re-read and re-evaluate) but the basic idea of a reading depth of 100 informing your play throughout the game seems to be the jist of it.

John Fairbairn wrote: I would imagine that even in the middle game it is possible to superimpose standard sequences once you reach certain positions, and when you reach your final position - which I assume is a quiescent position as in chess - it is often possible to assume a depth of significantly more moves once you reach a position you recognise. For example, if I calculate 5 moves ahead and reach an L-shape in the corner, I can fairly claim to see maybe 15 or 20 moves ahead because I know how it all goes from there. Pros will have many, many more such recognisable positions. In that sense, looking ahead 100 moves is not so implausible.

Agreed, though if I reach an L group I would stop counting the number of moves I read there as I don't go black-white-black-white in my head after that.

John Fairbairn wrote: However, if we look at only the number of moves shown in very long variations in commentaries, and assume the pro wasn't fibbing when he said he considered such lines, I'd say from memory that the longest sequences are of the order of 50-70 moves, and in many of them Kitani and Sakata feature. Other top pros only occasionally display such depth. You'll have to decide for yourself whether that's humility or lack of K & S's ability or a stylistic quirk.
But one important aspect to remember is that long variations appear most often in commentaries on games with long time limits, which were the norm even for Yi Ch'ang-ho. I don't think it's coincidence that his results nosedived when time limits were heavily pruned.

I doubt Kitani and Sakata read less deeply than today's pros (who I was thinking of regarding LCH's quote), in fact in the long games of old I expect they read significantly deeper than today's quick games.

John Fairbairn wrote: ... I'd expect the response from a Korean 1-dan as to how deep he can read in the endgame to be "What's the endgame?" ...

Pippen wrote:Isn't it enough to train your reading through playing games?

I also got to KGS 1d this way. Now my teacher and I are both confident that reading is my biggest weakness, and problems are the answer.

I find tsume-go incredibly boring. But I shall do them anyway.

wineandgolover wrote:Now my teacher and I are both confident that
reading is my biggest weakness, and problems are the answer.

To clarify the emphases:

EdLee wrote:

wineandgolover wrote:Now my teacher and I are both confident that
reading is my biggest weakness, and problems are the answer.

To clarify the emphases:Sorry to be nitpicky, did you mean:

(a) You knew it some time ago. Your teacher didn't.
Only recently has your teacher come to the same conclusion.

(b) Your teacher knew it some time ago. You didn't.
Only recently have you come to the same conclusion.

(c) Neither of you knew it for a long time.
Only recently have both of you figured it out.

(d) Both of you knew it some time ago,
and both of you have been in agreement ever since.

(e) Other ?

Hi Ed,

Your focus was on the word "now" rather than the rest, but okay. I've known for years that my reading is comparable to most 2-3 k's. It has gotten better through playing but still lags the rest of my game. My teacher also knows my reading failures all too well.

She used to believe my reading would improve through play, and it has, just not enough. Over the last year, she has concluded that problems are the key for me and she also believes it's true for most amateurs. So much so that she made a video out of one of my Congress games, which would have been an easy win by resign if I could read worth a damn, but instead I gave it away. That was only one lesson from the video, but definitely the most important to me.

As if that video wasn't enough to encourage me to do more problems, she has agreed to make a charitable donation for every problem I solve in the month of October as part of Go Sober October.*

Someday Ed, you will see that video, if you are lucky.

* MacMillan is still accepting donations if anybody else wants to help families fighting cancer. Even small donations help.

wineandgolover wrote:

Pippen wrote:Isn't it enough to train your reading through playing games?

I also got to KGS 1d this way. Now my teacher and I are both confident that reading is my biggest weakness, and problems are the answer.

I find tsume-go incredibly boring. But I shall do them anyway.

That's interesting since it indicates that reading through games isn't sufficient.

Pippen wrote:

wineandgolover wrote:

Pippen wrote:Isn't it enough to train your reading through playing games?

I also got to KGS 1d this way. Now my teacher and I are both confident that reading is my biggest weakness, and problems are the answer.

I find tsume-go incredibly boring. But I shall do them anyway.

That's interesting since it indicates that reading through games isn't sufficient.

Well, for me anyway. I wouldn't have the temerity to offer that conclusion for others.

Pippen wrote:

wineandgolover wrote:

Pippen wrote:Isn't it enough to train your reading through playing games?

I also got to KGS 1d this way. Now my teacher and I are both confident that reading is my biggest weakness, and problems are the answer.

I find tsume-go incredibly boring. But I shall do them anyway.

That's interesting since it indicates that reading through games isn't sufficient.

On a recent game review thread of yours:

Pippen wrote:

Uberdude wrote:What was your reading when you played k12 cut? My guess is perhaps you missed black h14 defending while taking the liberty?

Yes, I just didn't see h14. My thought process was what it alawys is: 1) I want to play at x. 2) Is there one or two sequences following x that jump to my mind and how do they end? 3) If 2) is positively then it follows: Let's play x and trust the Lord that there are no hidden bad sequences.

That doesn't seem a good way to train reading . Also one of the advantages of training reading by problems is you know there is an answer and you should keep reading until you reach the goal (kill, live, connect etc). And problem sets have been designed with varying levels of difficulty that enable you to progressively stretch yourself as you improve.

P.S. I don't do problems much and my reading is also comparatively weak.

Uberdude wrote: P.S. I don't do problems much and my reading is also comparatively weak.

You, too? Let's form a club. Weak Readers Anonymous.

My name is Bill, and I am a weak reader.

Hi, Bill.

Grant me the strength to read the positions that I can read,
The serenity to accept the positions that I cannot read (which is most of them),
And the courage to make a play, anyway.

I am in this club too. I rather stagnate and don't improve than to even touch tsume go. Either it comes while playing or it can go to hell^^.

The 34th Honinbo Game Two (Rin vs. Kato) in 1979 has a striking example showing that professionals don't (always) re-read.

Kato gets caught napping early on by making a dodgy response in a surprisingly common corner shape. His response allows a sente move against his corner group, and the way Rin makes use of this 20 moves later is quite ingenious.

Kato could have rechecked his group's status if he'd sensed danger. Presumably Rin kept a very good poker face during the game.

wineandgolover wrote:Your focus was on the word "now" rather than the rest, but okay.

Hi w&g, I knew the original focus:

• reading is the biggest weakness;
• solving problems is the solution.

I was also curious about the relative stresses of the rest.

Bill Spight wrote:

Uberdude wrote: P.S. I don't do problems much and my reading is also comparatively weak.

You, too? Let's form a club. Weak Readers Anonymous.

My name is Bill, and I am a weak reader.

I wonder if most posters to L19 would be members of this club, one or two stronger than our rating when it comes to theory, and one or two stones weaker when it comes to reading. Perhaps the good readers don't care about theory as much, so they play more go, while reading and posting less, and the poor readers like to talk about stuff.

(Note I said "most" not "all".)

One exception, who has sadly stopped posting, is Kirby. That dude may be a Jon Snow, but he can sure read well and fast.

wineandgolover wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

Uberdude wrote: P.S. I don't do problems much and my reading is also comparatively weak.

You, too? Let's form a club. Weak Readers Anonymous.

My name is Bill, and I am a weak reader.

I wonder if most posters to L19 would be members of this club, one or two stronger than our rating when it comes to theory, and one or two stones weaker when it comes to reading. Perhaps the good readers don't care about theory as much, so they play more go, while reading and posting less, and the poor readers like to talk about stuff.

(Note I said "most" not "all".)

One exception, who has sadly stopped posting, is Kirby. That dude may be a Jon Snow, but he can sure read well and fast.

Maybe. There could also be some false modesty. To give some details for me, when I was in Korea the teachers were rather amused and surprised at how bad at tsuemgo I was given my playing strength: I had fairly even game results against Richard and Thomas but they were doing far harder problems than me (Richard was working his way through the fiendish Kwon Kapyong tsumego series).