Life In 19x19

i agree thoroughly with amnal and MagicMagor.

BobC:
your analogies with driving tests or medicine don't really work. in my opinion it would be just fine to rate one's ability in these fields only according to practical performance. obviously it is not possible, because it is too dangerous / inhuman to do so, but besides it i don't really care what my doctor knows if he can successfully cure me. and many things you have to learn to obtain a driving license are actually needless for driving

martial arts are the example hardest to beat, i am not 100% sure what to say about them. i guess that techniques are there more important, i can imagine that with sufficient skill in one style you could beat people training different style in spite of having little knowledge about the other style. no one wants to promote some guy in aikido just because he know judo good enough to beat the aikido guys. 'theoretical' exams are good to avoid this. (i know many techniques trained in one style are not legal in other, but i think the overlap is wide enough for this hypothetical situation)

in go every move can be clearly recognized as (i)legal and you can play any legal move you want, however ugly or annoying for your opponent, final score will judge you

when ranks are used for determining handicaps and MacMahon points, then your ability to win is the best and simplest skill to make games even and enjoyable for both players

on the other hand, while i don't like your proposal as a ranking tool, it could be useful for training purposes. if you determined skill levels of 'average' or 'balanced' n-th kyu, one could try the tests and see 'hmm, my reading is already good enough, i lack in opening, maybe i should read some book'. (or just as relevant 'yeah, i know my opening sucks, but books are boring, i will just do more tsumego and crush them in middle game')

BobC wrote:

amnal wrote:This idea does not make sense to me. In principle, someone of rank n should be able to beat someone of rank n-1 about 2/3 of the time. This is expected to (and of course does) have massive error margins, such as pairs where one always beats the other but loses more to everyone else, but it's the only thing that rank is really for.

I don't see why any kind of test system would be worthwhile. I'm not 2 dan because I can solve certain tsumego or perform certain arbitrary tasks that other 2 dans happened to be able to do. I'm 2 dan because, in equivalent ranking systems, it gives a meaningful value for the handicap I should give others.

It isn't clear to me what a test system would gain, or even expect to gain.

Beating other players should be one measure of rank. I don't disagree.

At my point there is a wide variation of advice on how to improve. In a subject as wide as go there must be priority areas to grasp. This makes learning more efficient. eg There seems little point is a 20 kyu learning 3P games..

This is well known and well distributed advice. If you look through all the 'how do I get stronger quickly' threads, few people advocate much other than 'tsumego tsumego tsumego'. However, this doesn't mean much in terms of an absolute scale. If you can solve a certain book of tsumego, it does not mean you are qualified for a certain rank - rank is only measured as relative ability in beating others. It simply doesn't make sense to try to impose other criteria without fundamentally changing what we mean by 'rank'.

We can (and do) say things like 'you've clearly been practicing since we last played, I think you have gained a stone in strength'. This is kind of what you're talking about in terms of absolute grade scales, but it comes with the implicit caveat of 'assuming you perform at this level in games', that's what we're really talking about.

If you were teaching someone to be a medical doctor you wouldn't rank a doctors progress by his success/failiure to cure people. It is usual to give advice and guidance for minimum standards of knowledge. It would be a very inefficient way of teaching a doctor to rely on trial and error. Imagine medical students looking at the end of year results..."oh geeze I killed 51% of my patients this year..looks like I'll have to redo the year"

Lets not venture into analogy-land. I can easily counter with 'I wouldn't rank a doctor's progress by his knowledge about doctoring, but by his success/failure to cure people'. Nothing is well defined enough in either analogy to be meaningful with respect to go, nor have you shown that doctoring is sufficiently analogous to be meaningful in the first place.

From your point of view you may have insight.. You may be very clear what your priorities areas are for improvement to get to 3rd Dan and lay foundations for 4th Dan.. I would suggest that simply playing stronger players might be an inefficient way of progressing on its own.

You are welcome to suggest this, but in what way do you present it as meaningful in the context of your ideas about rank?

Tell me, what additional insight do you need to reach 3rd Dan?

I have (and am further developing) insight into my personal weaknesses. I have a good sense of how to work with the direction of play, but I am too cautious and sometimes do not fight/attack/invade where it is the strongest way to play. My reading is passable, but I am not that good at tsumego, which is a part of my cautiousness, so improving this is important to my gaining strength. Finally, I tend to lose points in the oyose through not having a good instinctual understanding of how large some points are. I have ideas on how to rectify all of these things, through a mixture of playing games, doing tsumego, and looking at professional games.

All of this seems to support my belief that a test based system is not useful. That paragraph of weaknesses to fix is extremely specific to me - I know players whose reading and fighting is excellent, but who can be confounded by a careful game where I give up points to avoid fights and eventually construct the larger territory quietly. I don't think there is a test (other than 'beating a range of players of strength X 50% of the time') that could possibly show that we have both gained knowledge.

Tell me, what additional insight do you need to reach 3rd Dan?

Anmal:
I have (and am further developing) insight into my personal weaknesses. I have a good sense of how to work with the direction of play, but I am too cautious and sometimes do not fight/attack/invade where it is the strongest way to play. My reading is passable, but I am not that good at tsumego, which is a part of my cautiousness, so improving this is important to my gaining strength. Finally, I tend to lose points in the oyose through not having a good instinctual understanding of how large some points are. I have ideas on how to rectify all of these things, through a mixture of playing games, doing tsumego, and looking at professional games.

All of this seems to support my belief that a test based system is not useful. That paragraph of weaknesses to fix is extremely specific to me - I know players whose reading and fighting is excellent, but who can be confounded by a careful game where I give up points to avoid fights and eventually construct the larger territory quietly. I don't think there is a test (other than 'beating a range of players of strength X 50% of the time') that could possibly show that we have both gained knowledge.[/quote]

@Anmal.

"Test" can conjure up images of multiple choice questions - these test very low order learning and testing. As I suggested above, portfolios of games, submitted reflection, peer review are all more appropriate at higher levels. As such, it seems that your comments demonstrate considerable self reflection, analysis and forthought.. as such.. you have passed one aspect of the test

BobC wrote:@Anmal.

"Test" can conjure up images of multiple choice questions - these test very low order learning and testing. As I suggested above, portfolios of games, submitted reflection, peer review are all more appropriate at higher levels. As such, it seems that your comments demonstrate considerable self reflection, analysis and forthought.. as such.. you have passed one aspect of the test

Great, so I passed part of a 14ks idea of a test to see whether I am approaching 3d.

I don't mean to be insulting, I just don't see why I, or anyone, should care...even disregarding the problems with finding someone who wants to look through all these portfolios of games.

Before all the algorithms were invented ranking used to be done by a committee of players saying "OK, you are now x dan." based on various criteria. You seem to be largely advocating a return to this Bob. I think the big point is that winning is simply the best determinant of rank. If you are a good teacher then that's lovely, you are good at teaching (and that reputation will get around the scene), but rank is about playing go.

Stable wrote:Before all the algorithms were invented ranking used to be done by a committee of players saying "OK, you are now x dan." based on various criteria. You seem to be largely advocating a return to this Bob. I think the big point is that winning is simply the best determinant of rank. If you are a good teacher then that's lovely, you are good at teaching (and that reputation will get around the scene), but rank is about playing go.

Actually Dan levels I'm not overly concentrating on. Ignorance is my best defense here..
I thought Dan grades were awarded by National bodies anyway? as per:

http://www.britgo.org/ratings/danpromotion.html

The point is the Kyu grades.. where it strikes me that much of DDK can be formalised - and now automated. BUT, its only a part to do with awarding a rank.. its as much to do with having a priority structure for learning the game. In the same way that in judo you need demonstrate at high kyus that you know how to fall, and you can recognise certain throws and conduct certan kata. Dan grade in judo is about teaching. It is easy to beat most dan grades in judo if you are big and strong enough (and they are little enough). Beating someone at a game doesn't always mean you're good at the game..

If you are 20 kyu.. then actually being able to knock out 20 problems in half an hour (and training for that test) might have merit. At 15kyu - there might be merit in being guided/tested on common joseki... There are are quite a few Joseki.. how is a beginner really going to be able to prioritise her/his learning. Wild guesses?... Perhaps play someone who on the off chance knows them and is prepared to hand on the knowledge. Play enough games so he hits on the joseki by accident?- all very inefficient.

I'd still suggest that a rank can have added value over (possibly) equalizing a game.I also realise that it is very attractive to be able to say that "I am better than you because my rank is higher" and for some.. that simplicity of thought may be enough.

One day...I'll might even try to get a rank... .. on Tygem I'm 18 kyu.... any Dan players fancy giving me 19 stones??

BobC wrote:...its as much to do with having a priority structure for learning the game....

That's just the thing; there isn't one.

daal wrote:

BobC wrote:...its as much to do with having a priority structure for learning the game....

That's just the thing; there isn't one.

Yes there is.. its crude but unless you know the rules you cant play..

Unless you know the difference in counting regimes then although you can play... you don't know who's won.

unless you know about eyes.. you've got problems.

I can believe that no one has formulated the structure - I don't believe a salvo attack on learning anything complicated is the best approach...

BobC wrote:

daal wrote:

BobC wrote:...its as much to do with having a priority structure for learning the game....

That's just the thing; there isn't one.

Yes there is.. its crude but unless you know the rules you cant play..

Unless you know the difference in counting regimes then although you can play... you don't know who's won.

unless you know about eyes.. you've got problems.

I can believe that no one has formulated the structure - I don't believe a salvo attack on learning anything complicated is the best approach...

"priority structure for learning the game", not "priority structure for learning how to play the game".

I can see what you're trying to get at. But I think you err when you want this system to replace the actual ranks attained through playing. Your idea of "structured learning" has some use as a guide for players of around that strength to study, (see, for example, the way goproblems.com assings a rank to each of the problems on the site), and could be expanded beyond tsumego to all parts of the game (and already is, to some extent. For example, the lectures on wbaduk.org). But to replace actual ranks with these sorts of "tests" doesn't make any sense if rank is to be used as a measure of a player's strength.

(Excuse my messy writing style above, I'm in a hurry).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't amateur dan ranks in Japan awarded exactly as BobC suggests? You're examined by a pro. Your performance record is not considered. This seems to be pretty much how it's done in martial arts, minus the kata.

I'm with BobC here. I've always found the lack of formal structure in learning the game absurd and unnecessary. It boggles my mind that there isn't a set of standard lessons available, from beginner to high dan. One could imagine subtle differences in the structure of the lessons, e.g. some schools of thought may favour influence over territory, or unorthodoxy over orthodoxy, or whatever, but regardless, a reasonably similar set of instructions that guide from weak to strong.

I acknowledge that the handicapping system go is one of its charms (few other games can handicap so smoothly), but the fact that the rank/strength system combines with the handicap system has its limitations, particularly at the high dan and especially pro level.

quantumf wrote:I'm with BobC here. I've always found the lack of formal structure in learning the game absurd and unnecessary. It boggles my mind that there isn't a set of standard lessons available, from beginner to high dan.

Have you put effort into creating such a set of lessons? If not, I think that explains why there aren't any

If it's just a set of lessons that is important, Guo Juan's massive set of one euro lectures seems like the right sort of thing. She even advertises a 'Complete training program from 30 kyu to 7 dan'. I haven't tried any of her lectures, but I suspect they are excellent.

One could imagine subtle differences in the structure of the lessons, e.g. some schools of thought may favour influence over territory, or unorthodoxy over orthodoxy, or whatever, but regardless, a reasonably similar set of instructions that guide from weak to strong.

My main objection to the idea is that I don't really think there is a better lesson plan than 'do lots of tsumego and play lots of games'. For other things, which may interest you, there is a great deal of information available already.

Other than that, what do you really want? What would these lessons consist of? How would they help above and beyond what is already available.

amnal wrote:

quantumf wrote:I'm with BobC here. I've always found the lack of formal structure in learning the game absurd and unnecessary. It boggles my mind that there isn't a set of standard lessons available, from beginner to high dan.

Have you put effort into creating such a set of lessons? If not, I think that explains why there aren't any

I'm not qualified. I'm a marginal 1d, with little teaching experience. I also don't represent or belong to any suitable organisation with appropriate credibility. I realize you're saying why don't I do it instead of waiting for somebody else to do it, and you're right, perhaps there is an opportunity for someone or some group.

amnal wrote:If it's just a set of lessons that is important, Guo Juan's massive set of one euro lectures seems like the right sort of thing. She even advertises a 'Complete training program from 30 kyu to 7 dan'. I haven't tried any of her lectures, but I suspect they are excellent.

Sure, she has an impressive set of lessons, which are not bad, in fact, I've been a student of hers. I guess I'm talking about a bigger body, with authorized/accredited teachers.

amnal wrote:

quantumf wrote:One could imagine subtle differences in the structure of the lessons, e.g. some schools of thought may favour influence over territory, or unorthodoxy over orthodoxy, or whatever, but regardless, a reasonably similar set of instructions that guide from weak to strong.

My main objection to the idea is that I don't really think there is a better lesson plan than 'do lots of tsumego and play lots of games'. For other things, which may interest you, there is a great deal of information available already.

Other than that, what do you really want? What would these lessons consist of? How would they help above and beyond what is already available.

I would have appreciated a formalized structure. My path to my current level has been a meandering journey that's taken a lot longer than I would have liked, and I know (in retrospect) that I spent too much time on unhelpful stuff.

I acknowledge that is a personal preference. No doubt some prefer the totally random, figure out as go along approach, but I believe there are a lot of people who give up the game as DDK or SDK because they get frustrated with their limited progress and the lack of knowledge of how to get better. I absolutely believe that a formalized teaching infrastructure would make a huge difference.

amnal wrote:Have you put effort into creating such a set of lessons? If not, I think that explains why there aren't any

I knew there was a reason I was having trouble finding airplanes, programming languages and cancer treatments!