Life In 19x19

badukJr wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:

Tami wrote:if I learn a joseki, I like to play it until experience makes it clear when it is called for and when it is not useful.

You have said so before, but... It does not require experience; good literature can already tell you. Do you read only such joseki literature that does not tell you about positional context and strategic choices of each joseki you learn? Experience can still be useful, but only as an addition, not as a first necessity.

Where can I find such good literature for joseki?

148 posts. You must just be pretending to be new here.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Tami wrote:if I learn a joseki, I like to play it until experience makes it clear when it is called for and when it is not useful.

You have said so before, but... It does not require experience; good literature can already tell you. Do you read only such joseki literature that does not tell you about positional context and strategic choices of each joseki you learn? Experience can still be useful, but only as an addition, not as a first necessity.

That I cannot agree with, Robert. There is a definite and indisputable difference between knowing something theoretically and knowing something practically. If you were correct, then you could simply read a book very carefully and become stronger overnight. You know, and I know, and everybody else knows, that it does not work like that. We all need experience to make sense of what we learn. To use an example: you could read a book that explained every single aspect of riding a motorcycle, and you could have memorised it so thoroughly as to be able to answer any question on the subject, but I would surely refuse any offer of a pillion ride until you had consolidated that knowledge with a lot of actual riding time.

Maybe I`ll buy one of your books one of these days. Even so, I`m pretty sure the benefit of reading it won`t come until I`ve had time to play with your ideas and see for myself what they`re all about. My guess is that for every hour spent reading it, I`ll need four hours of playing time to notice any tangible increase in strength.

badukJr, hyperpape: Indeed. Look for literature that teaches positional context and strategic choices for josekis, or better: for all discussed josekis (or in general for opening and middle game, but be aware that some strategic choices in josekis can lead to nothing but follow-up strategic choices, so that iterative decision making becomes necessary). (Even the Ishida is not without such advice, at least occasionally. I recall the days when I learnt from 38 Basic Joseki and the Ishida: mostly I was alone with the problem of trying to understand what every joseki was good for. It is the nature of tactical books that they do not emphasise strategy that much.)

RobertJasiek wrote:badukJr, hyperpape: Indeed. Look for literature that teaches positional context and strategic choices for josekis, or better: for all discussed josekis (or in general for opening and middle game, but be aware that some strategic choices in josekis can lead to nothing but follow-up strategic choices, so that iterative decision making becomes necessary). (Even the Ishida is not without such advice, at least occasionally. I recall the days when I learnt from 38 Basic Joseki and the Ishida: mostly I was alone with the problem of trying to understand what every joseki was good for. It is the nature of tactical books that they do not emphasise strategy that much.)

Can we talk about the Pareto Efficiency please? I was trying to argue that it indicated 80:20 would be a good balance of play to study, but we seem to have drifted into an indirect advertisement for Robert`s books, excellent as they are reputed to be.

Spend 80% of your thinking time on 20% of your moves.

Tami wrote: but we seem to have drifted into an indirect advertisement for Robert`s books, excellent as they are reputed to be.

I think we need a new version of Godwin's Law for L19.

Tami wrote:If you were correct, then you could simply read a book very carefully and become stronger overnight.

Examples on request.

We all need experience to make sense of what we learn.

Counter-example on request.

What hurts is the ABSENCE of strategic advice for or applicable to josekis.

motorcycle

Go is not a physical exercise.

My guess is that for every hour spent reading it, I`ll need four hours of playing time to notice any tangible increase in strength.

I would be happy if you could reach this ratio.

Details on request.

Can we talk about the Pareto Efficiency please?

Sure, from my POV, the side track is discussed now. (Less than 20% of the books provide more than 80% of the contents.)

Uberdude wrote:

Tami wrote: but we seem to have drifted into an indirect advertisement for Robert`s books, excellent as they are reputed to be.

I think we need a new version of Godwin's Law for L19.

Joseki, joseki
In every corner you greet me
Black and white, clean and bright
You let the other guy beat me
Dumpling of stones, may you squeeze and grow
Squeeze and grow forever!
Joseki, joseki
Bless my corners forever!

All I wanted to do was offer my idea that the Pareto ratio could offer a good scheme for using our go time, i.e., spend about 1/5 of it acquiring new ideas and techniques, and the other 4/5 of it actually playing the game and trying to make sense of what we`ve been studying.

I did not expect to be greeted with mild ridicule ("Joseki, joseki, In every corner you greet me").

I gave joseki as one example of something you might study. Robert jumps on that and blows it out of proportion. In answer to his original question, of course I read literature that explains follow-up plays and strategic concepts, but I still need experience to grasp that kind of book knowledge properly. He`s always having a dig at the Japanese books, but they do say a lot about context and meaning. If you want a good example, consider Hane Naoki`s book on honte. He gives a precise definition of what it means and backs it up with examples. I even translated, albeit unstylishly, that definition and posted it here last year. Again, Takao`s books on the fuseki provide both examples and the principles behind them.

Returning to study/play balance, I would like to quote a former insei`s advice:
and I would also like to quote a Japan-based professional`s advice:
The first quotation comes from David Mechner`s homepage and the second from http://www.361points.com/teimeiko/

It seems pretty clear that the way forward is to balance study with experience. You really cannot get better just by reading books or just by playing.

What I am really interested in is whether you agree that 20:80 is a good balance of study to play. After all, time is the most precious thing, and it would be wonderful to if there was a demonstrably good way to portion it.

Also, I think Robert`s remark about <20% of the books providing 80% of the useful material is insightful. I agree with this because I have bought quite a few lemons over the years, but the ones I keep returning to are Segoe`s Tesuji Dictionary and the Yamashita Tesuji Dictionary (revamp of the Fujisawa work) and a number of books in the MyCom range.

Are there any other ways in which this ratio manifests itself in go, or could be used in a practical way?

Tami wrote:of course I read literature that explains follow-up plays and strategic concepts,

Nice! Which books?

the Japanese books, but they do say a lot about context and meaning.

How to find such books? It is not the kind of books I saw in (a few big) Japanese stores or that would be retailed in Europe. (With a very few translated exceptions such as Strategic Concepts and Attack and Defense.)

the way forward is to balance study with experience.

Usually, yes.

You really cannot get better just by reading books or just by playing.

There are also examples for either.

What I am really interested in is whether you agree that 20:80 is a good balance of study to play.

When I improved the fastest (from 9k to 3d in 17 months), I used 50:50.

I think Robert`s remark about <20% of the books providing 80% of the useful material is insightful.

Actually, it was an understatement.

20% of time and effort training to beat 80% of the players, 80% of the time training to beat the other 20%. If you look at the number of players that open and star points vs. other fuseki, I think this is a fair statement to make.

Though in general the Pareto principle is nonsense.

SmoothOper wrote:20% of time and effort training to beat 80% of the players, 80% of the time training to beat the other 20%. If you look at the number of players that open and star points vs. other fuseki, I think this is a fair statement to make.

Though in general the Pareto principle is nonsense.

I doubt the numbers are 80% and 20% in this case. Consider a 9 dan professional: they have probably invested 20000 hours in the game. Do you think that it took them 4000 hours, to be able to beat 80% of all players? Most professionals can make it into the amateur dan ranks after less than a year's practice as children.

So perhaps there's a 90-10 or 85-15 or 95-5 principle, and who's going to call you on such a small difference?

This is typical of how the Pareto principle is invoked: fudge the numbers and squint hard enough, and it's fits any distribution that's not linear.