How do you do Life & Death problem?

[palapiku]

By the way, you should not do complicated problems. If you need more than one or two minutes to completely analyze a problem, it is not your training level yet. You can of course do it, and if you cannot solve it, you may even look up the analysis, but this should not be your main curriculum. The kind of problems that are suited for your level are those that you can solve in a short time, and you should keep solving them until you can see all variations at a glance.

But there're only 3 of those, and I already memorized the solutions!

[tj86430]

There may be a terminology issue here.

"Chess problem" has unfortunately come to mean problems of the "Here's a random scattering of pieces on the board that looks nothing like a real game position, find the mate in 2" variety.

The more useful "Here's a position that could happen in an actual game, find the best move" problem is usually referred to as a "puzzle", which name I don't really like. But those "puzzles" are basically exactly as useful to chess improvement as tsumego is to Go improvement.

My chess career was so short and happened so long (almost 30 years) ago that I don't actually remember much of it, but I'm pretty sure I never came across those puzzles, which, as you describe them, sound useful indeed. I only remember the other kind, which I was never good at, and which I thought had not much to do with chess.

[Suji]

Just out of curiosity, are there chess problems that are graded in a similar manner to the way go problems are graded? "mate in 3 moves or you have broccoli for brains" turned me off as a kid.

For some reason I've always thought that most chess problems have surprisingly little to do with actually playing chess. I may be completely wrong, of course.

Being a Chess player myself, you are, in my view, half right and half wrong. Most tactical and positional problems have a lot to do with actual chess playing. Sometimes they teach an essential concept, show a nice little tactical gem, or show how to win or draw from a problem. Doing tactical problems is indeed a way to improve one's chess elo rating.

Now, for the part of this in which you are correct. Some people "compose" problems for fun and they have artificial board positions or the type of puzzle isn't supposed to be best play, i.e. helpmates or selfmates. These type of puzzles really don't help improve one's rating in the chess world as they're supposed to be for fun.

[Suji]

Playing out the variations on a board or on a computer with stones to try and figure out an L&D problem is silly. Do you get to pause a game and ask your opponent if you could play out some variations in a corner before making your move? Course not, so it makes no sense to do so for tsumego.

The best way is to simply read everything out in your head. If you can't solve it, don't look at the solution - just go to the next problem and move on. Only look at the solution if you're 100%, and I truly mean 100%, sure you've got it. But even here there is some debate: after all, if you're truly 100% sure, why is there a need to look at the solution in the first place? Regardless, I think most people can agree that you shouldn't even consider looking at the solution unless you are, without a doubt, certain you are correct. Note I said "most" and not "all"; I have seen some high-leveled players make the suggestion of just looking at the answer when you can't figure it out, but I just can't agree with this and feel that, in the long run, it'll cripple you.

Also, by solving I don't mean just figuring out the first move to the solution sequence. You should not only be able to understand the solution line, but also why other lines fail and understand the intricacies in there as well. You'd be surprised how elegant some of the failed sequences are in problems, the traps that the tsumego composer put in there can at times be dazzling.

Hmmm...This may explain why I've stopped improving at chess. Actually, in all seriousness it's about half the reason. The other half the reason is that I've gotten lazy in doing tactical puzzles. I still enjoy the game, don't get me wrong, but my improvement has been very slow, if at all.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that looking at the answer is not always bad, and does not always cripple you in the long run. Why? Simple...Let's say that you're doing a training regimen for several weeks with 1200, or so, problems in order to improve. As you start out you do all the problems in 12 days, then you repeat the process in 8 days, then 6, then 4, then 3, then 2, then finally you're going to do all the problems in a single day. After 10 minutes or so, you should look at the answer study it, then move on. The first few times you hit the "problem" problems you're training your reading ability, and the last few times you're training your pattern recognition ability. Does looking at the answer hurt in this case? Probably not, and in all actuality it probably helps.

Though, I think I know the situation in which Araban is talking about. The situation is giving up on the problem, and saying you are "not good enough" to solve the problem. In this situation, one does indeed cripple one's ability.

In essence, just because you can't solve a problem right now, it DOES NOT mean you will never solve the problem. It just means that you might have to stretch a little before you CAN solve it. All, I think, Araban is saying is just that. You might have to stretch, sometimes a little and sometimes a lot more, before you can solve a problem. There is nothing wrong with this fact. In fact, I have found that the more I struggle to learn something and the more frustrated I get, the more I learn and grow in whatever I've struggled in.

Personally, as I embark on my journey in improvement in Go, I'm going to try to follow this little piece of advice. Looking at solutions, at this stage would only hurt me as I'm only 18-19 kyu.

I'm with the folks who say it's okay to look at the answer if you don't get it. How long before throwing in the towel? I'm not sure, but I actually think that going too long is bad. For me, I go maybe 5-10 minutes or so before I look at the answer.

Here's why I do that: When I spend, say, a half-hour or more on a problem I can't solve, what's happening in my head is that I keep running through all the wrong sequences more than I should. So, rather than training my brain to pop out the right answer, I'm actually training it to pop out the wrong one! Once I've looked at the answer, I go back to the problem page and visualize the correct sequence a couple times to help reset my neuro-pattern-reading brain.

So, in general, when I'm doing problems, I pick a book where I'm hitting maybe 50-80% correct within my 10 minute time allotment. I might break it into section; say 10 problems. When I'm through a sections, if I've missed more than a handful, I'll repeat the section (much faster, now). I try to do that the same day, so I'm actually remembering the solution, not having to reread it. (I try to read the sequence where applicable, not just the first move.) If I can come bay the next day, and then several days later, and quickly see the right sequences, then I know it's sinking in.

As you can possibly tell, I think there's a lot of knowledge being stored subconsciously, here. And I think the way to get that knowledge into the subconscious is to keep repeating the pattern mentally. (Think of musicians -- their ability to sight read comes about this way.) Does that help my game? No -- I've been 5K for too many years! So, what I say is just my own style -- may not work for others, needless to say.

btw: I didn't answer the poll. Don't know about everyone else, but just looking at the list of choices made my brain go foggy! Couldn't bring myself to read through it!

Hmmm...To look or not to look at the solutions? That is the question. In practice, I agree, with GoCat that going too long on a problem is a bad idea. Also, repetition is the key to learning, and when you look at the solution to something, you should repeat that problem several times in the following days to make sure you are learning, and not just skating by. I think that looking at the solution, too early, has harmed my chess ability as well as the non-repetition once I looked at the solution.

How long is too long to spend on a problem? I don't know, but all I can say is that it's different for each person.

All in all, I think that both Araban and GoCat have good ideas. When I actually do tsumego, I'm going to somewhat blend their ideas. Though I think that Araban is right, with the idea that we all need to stretch our abilities. I'm going to start by never looking at the answers, because to improve I need to stretch, and later when pattern recognition becomes key, I'll start doing problems repetitively, maybe 3 out of 10 max, I'll look at the answer and focus on those.

Also, the point of Tsumego, IMO, is to learn something. As with all puzzles, if you're not learning anything you're not stretching enough since they're too easy or you're giving up too easily, again IMHO.

[fwiffo]

Lately I've been doing problems out of Making Good Shape (in what little time I've had for problems). Most are "How should black play to make good shape for his stones?" Well, I don't know what shape looks like, so I can imagine all sorts of different lines of play, but even on the easier ones, I won't be certain that I'm right. I know what life or death is, but shape is such a nebulous concept...

I don't think it's really possible to never look at the answers. Sure, you should do your best to be sure of the answer to a point, but certain tricks are just too hard to learn without having actually seen them at least once. It's almost like never letting stronger players point out better moves when you review your games. The Socratic method only goes so far.

[Rafa]

When i´m solving problems i usually try to visualize the moves, if i dont make it i pass over to the next one and later i go back and try again.

[Phelan]

Lately I've been doing problems out of Making Good Shape (in what little time I've had for problems). Most are "How should black play to make good shape for his stones?" Well, I don't know what shape looks like, so I can imagine all sorts of different lines of play, but even on the easier ones, I won't be certain that I'm right. I know what life or death is, but shape is such a nebulous concept...

I don't think it's really possible to never look at the answers. Sure, you should do your best to be sure of the answer to a point, but certain tricks are just too hard to learn without having actually seen them at least once. It's almost like never letting stronger players point out better moves when you review your games. The Socratic method only goes so far.

I've been going through the problems as well, and from what I see, most of the answers are tesujis for shape, except for a few where it should be a common shape that usually occurs. I've often got the wrong order of moves, and see why it makes a lot of difference.
I agree with you, though, this book is mostly an intuition book, not a reading training book.

[k43r]

I usually read everything the first time, because on 2nd time i always remember answers and it's boring to look through :< It's sad, because i've finished all my problems book already :<

[Magicwand]

I usually read everything the first time, because on 2nd time i always remember answers and it's boring to look through :< It's sad, because i've finished all my problems book already :<

that is why you are a Dan level player.
even if you forget the answer after many month you still can solve them by analizing.

if you search www there are tons of problems you never seen.
why buy books when you have www.

[Solomon]

if you search www there are tons of problems you never seen.
why buy books when you have www.

The same reason why some people prefer reading a paperback book rather than an e-book.

[HKA]

I think that doing problems is mostly underrated.

Well, I agree with Harleqin's post, but I disagree with this initial premise.

I think we all know how important doing problems is, however, most of us do not enjoy the work, we would rather play, so this part of our go journey is underUSED.

Having seen young players progress in this game over my years of play, I can say without doubt, the ones that have improved the fastest are the ones who were always studying problems.

And of course, you must train yourself to do them in your head. Personally, I think a nice mix of rapid problems you can solve fairly easily, and challenging problems that may stump you is best.

I can see the point of "never" looking at the answers as building discipline, but I think strides can be made by simply not giving up too soon.

[Bill Spight]

All in all, I think that both Araban and GoCat have good ideas. When I actually do tsumego, I'm going to somewhat blend their ideas. Though I think that Araban is right, with the idea that we all need to stretch our abilities. I'm going to start by never looking at the answers, because to improve I need to stretch, and later when pattern recognition becomes key, I'll start doing problems repetitively, maybe 3 out of 10 max, I'll look at the answer and focus on those.

Also, the point of Tsumego, IMO, is to learn something. As with all puzzles, if you're not learning anything you're not stretching enough since they're too easy or you're giving up too easily, again IMHO.

IMO, for DDKs pattern recognition is the most important thing. You need to build a go vocabulary. Reading is important, but you need to know the words.

OC, not everybody learns best the same way. However, I expect that there are ways of study that are generally effective. I think that the questions are empirical, and I do not know of any research directly applicable to tsumego.

But I would venture a guess. Let two groups of DDKs (not complete novices) study the same set of level appropriate tsumego problems for the same length of time (like one hour), without playing through them, except mentally. One group gets the problems without solutions, the other gets the problems with solutions on the same page. Wait one week to let memory fade. Then test them on a different set of problems. My guess is that the group that gets the solutions scores better on the test. At the dan level you might get the reverse.

[judicata]

Most of the time:

I try to solve the problem in my head. Once I've found a solution, I make sure I'm write by looking at the solution or playing it out. If I cannot find a solution after a few minutes, I will usually look at the solution or play it out on the board.

Here is what I find helpful to me: After looking at the solution for a difficult problem, I go back and play it out in my head a few times, with variations. I think this really helps with reading, and I learn to spot different positions.

I don't always do this, though. Sometimes, I will just skip problems that are too hard and come back to them later.

[k43r]

f you search www there are tons of problems you never seen.
why buy books when you have www.

Actually i have never found good set of entertaining problems in internet. EAch of them was simply boring >_>

[Bill Spight]

f you search www there are tons of problems you never seen.
why buy books when you have www.

Actually i have never found good set of entertaining problems in internet. EAch of them was simply boring >_>

How about these?

http://www.hitachi.co.jp/Sp/tsumego/

http://igoigo21.hp.infoseek.co.jp/gentop.html

http://www.ishida-yoshio.jp/monthly/

http://homepage3.nifty.com/tenseki/gokyou1.html