Life In 19x19

oren wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:You make a wrong generalisation from my teaching skill to other teachers' skill, overlooking e.g. that I need a teacher that a) points out my major playing weaknesses quickly (I do not know such a teacher) and b) teaches general ideas instead of examples only (I know only a few such teachers).

No, I'm making an obervation that you choose not to be in a position to have your skills criticized. I just think it's interesting. You certainly could use some lessons just like everyone else trying to get stronger.

It is certainly up to RJ to authoritatively answer that, but here are my thoughts and my theory:

• RJ is one of the few people I met online who is truly open to criticism, and even seeks it. Examples abound.
• To criticize RJ one often must to 'speak his language' to get through, otherwise it might be very fruitless and frustrating.
• His 'language' is the often very narrow framework that he defined himself and his arguments are strictly confined to that framework. Most 'teachers' or 'criticizers' do not understand that, and if they do - they can't be bothered learning RJ's framework to the point of being able to comfortably move inside. But once they do, once they meet him in his world, I find him more open to criticism than pretty much anybody else here.
• If you attempt to reach RJ outside of his framework, you will most often get arguments and fights, which will fizzle out fruitlessly - because you will both be talking different 'languages' with no understanding possible (been there, done that, have a t-shirt to prove it.)

The above is usually the reason for all the RJ 'discussions' when you look closely at the threads, as well as for his frequent rejection of traditional teaching and methods.

RJ: If I am totally off with all this, please correct me.

Bantari wrote: The above is usually the reason for all the RJ 'discussions' when you look closely at the threads, as well as for his frequent rejection of traditional teaching and methods.

I agree on every point you make. Since RJ started the thread, I didn't think it was off topic to continue down.

gowan wrote:When watching pro matches on the internet I'm always astounded by the inept or arrogant criticisms of pro play by mid kyu level players.

It's the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Bantari wrote: The above is usually the reason for all the RJ 'discussions' when you look closely at the threads, as well as for his frequent rejection of traditional teaching and methods.

You make Robert sound like Rain Man. "I'm an excellent driver."

wineandgolover wrote:

Bantari wrote: The above is usually the reason for all the RJ 'discussions' when you look closely at the threads, as well as for his frequent rejection of traditional teaching and methods.

You make Robert sound like Rain Man. "I'm an excellent driver."

Not at all.... well, maybe a little.

Point is - RJ has a very unique and personal outlook on things within the context of Go, and very little motivation to compromise. Imagine talking to a mathematician about his favorite theory. To successfully argue in such situation you need to meet the problem within the mathematical frame of reference. If you approach it, for example, from a philosophical or religious perspective, the discussion will probably be rather pointless unless one of you gets out of his box. Experience teaches that people in here have very little willingness to get out of their boxes, and tend to get frustrated or angry instead.

And that has nothing to do with any rainmanism.

So, this is how I see this situation. Not sure I am right, but this is what I think.

Bill Spight wrote:Do dan players hate criticism?

How do you think they got to be dan players?

Beautifully ambiguous...

Bantari wrote:Most 'teachers' [...] do not understand that, and if they do - they can't be bothered learning RJ's framework

It is NOT a problem of potential teachers not using my framework. What teachers should be able to teach me is so fundamental that no special framework is needed for description. All that is needed is the teachers' understanding of what are my major playing weaknesses.

as well as for his frequent rejection of traditional teaching

Traditional teaching does not suffer from not using a particular framework, but it suffers from too little generally applicable knowledge.

If I am totally off with all this, please correct me.

The above two points are the farthest off. I do not correct your softer caricature of the other details.

oren wrote:you choose not to be in a position to have your skills criticized.

Wrong.

You certainly could use some lessons just like everyone else trying to get stronger.

I did. Result: all trying to teach me overlooked most of my major playing weaknesses: those that a) I had not already quickly discovered by myself long ago, b) are mostly missing in the literature, c) are mostly missing in verbal teaching and so d) cannot be expressed easily by (even professional) teachers missing clear ideas of related concepts.

Within 15 years, I found out by myself (maybe only part of) those weaknesses and related concepts. Inseis with non-stop access to random comments by professionals and other inseis have a chance to hear about such concepts accidentally and probably implicitly. This explains why there can be many new strong players in Asia, why the insei business works and why the inseis themselves can hardly explain why they become stronger. But for me, just taking "some lessons" does not work, because it requires many lessons to get a sufficiently high probability of accidentally hearing all the "missing links".

Bantari wrote:very little motivation to compromise.

I do not compromise on correct go theory, and do not change strong, imperfect theory for weak, imperfect theory. Somebody seeking compromise on strong, imperfect theory must fill its gaps, point out its flaws or propose an equally strong or stronger theory.

snorri wrote:

gowan wrote:When watching pro matches on the internet I'm always astounded by the inept or arrogant criticisms of pro play by mid kyu level players.

It's the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Maybe it's the Dan-and-Kyu-er Effect.

SoDesuNe wrote:

gowan wrote:Speaking as an amateur dan player, I'm hesitant to make many comments because, even though I'm around 5d in strength I don't feel confident in making statements to the effect that such and such is the best move. Personally I'm happy to have "criticism" of my own games provided I think the critic knows what he/she is talking about. When watching pro matches on the internet I'm always astounded by the inept or arrogant criticisms of pro play by mid kyu level players.

Arrogant criticism can only be judged from a higher level, I think. So even when you as a 5-dan don't feel confident in "making statements to the effect that such and such is the best move", you will be likely much closer (or maybe even on point) to the right move than the majority of players below your strength.
In the end there are (as of now) just 112 EGF-rated players 5-dan or stronger (according to their GoR-points) out of 6485 players with a EGF-rank. When even this strong elite feels inapt to comment on games, fearing some 6-dan (33 in total), 7-dan (6), 8-dan (4) or professional player (who also disagree wholeheartly at times) might come along and call them out, then from whom should we weaker players learn?

I prefer playing according to a 5-dan's misconceptions than to my own 1-dan ones ; )

I'm not worrying about being "called out" by a stronger player, I'm worrying about giving wrong advice that is taken by the weaker player resulting in a bad habit that has to be unlearned at some effort. From having my own games reviewed by pros I am only too aware of my own failures of judgment regarding what the best move is.

As for needing to be stronger to see that criticism is arrogant, I think it is a safe bet that when a 7k player declares that a move made by a 7p is bad, most likely there is something the 7k player doesn't see or understand. Maybe it would be more humble for the 7k player just to say that the move isn't understood? Of course sometimes (rarely) pros make mistakes a kyu player can see, e.g. when Nakano 9p put his own stones in atari, but such incidents are rare and have no meaning regarding the level of go knowledge of the kyu player.

I can understand your point but since we can't all have professional reviews the amateur Go scene needs - in my opinion - players who pass on some tipps and knowledge even when this might nurture bad habits. In the end your bad habits let you be a 5-dan player, a rank which the vast majority of the Go population will never reach.

I think, when you want to review and all what's holding you back is the fear of teaching bad habits then it's safe to say that the gain of your insight outweighs the danger of passing on some bad habits.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Bantari wrote:very little motivation to compromise.

I do not compromise on correct go theory, and do not change strong, imperfect theory for weak, imperfect theory. Somebody seeking compromise on strong, imperfect theory must fill its gaps, point out its flaws or propose an equally strong or stronger theory.

True. Sometimes you might be right not to try to compromise.

But sometimes it is a not so good and shows undue rigidity in your thinking. I am not *only* talking about your stand about 'go theory', but about discussions with you in general. For example - remember the 'sportsmaship' debate? I have seen very few signs on your part of a willingness to compromise even if the topics discussed were having strong subjective undertones. In short, while firm stand when discussing your particular field of study (go theory) might be mostly a virtue, in other cases the same approach is in - my eyes - a failing.

RobertJasiek wrote: It is NOT a problem of potential teachers not using my framework. What teachers should be able to teach me is so fundamental that no special framework is needed for description. All that is needed is the teachers' understanding of what are my major playing weaknesses.

I think we are having a misunderstanding of the term 'framework' here. Possibly my fault, since I *do* use it very loosely.
I certainly do not mean your go-theoretical framework here, just your mindset and approach to life as I see it.

What I mean is that you expect the teacher's explanation to be in a very specific form - as an explanation, for example, rather than a set of examples. You need them to give you a short and to-the-point *reason* rather than guiding you along the path by a series of questions, for example. At least - this is how I understand what you have said on that subject in the past.

In short - you need them to answer you in the form which is the most acceptable to you rather than in form which they prefer (or which they think is the best for you.) I considered it slightly arrogant on your part in the past, but I the rejected this opinion. Now I think it is based on your strong preference to move within what I call your 'framework', or maybe even inability to move outside of it. Again - using the word 'framework' loosely.

RobertJasiek wrote:Traditional teaching does not suffer from not using a particular framework, but it suffers from too little generally applicable knowledge.

We have had this discussion before, and I think we might agree to disagree on this. As a matter of fact, I don't even think we disagree, since I really do not know what traditional teachers of pro strength know or don't know. The best we can say, from where I stand, is that traditional teaching does not package and convey the knowledge in the precise way you prefer it to be packaged and presented. So back to - your 'framework', as I call it.

RobertJasiek wrote:The above two points are the farthest off. I do not correct your softer caricature of the other details.

Caricature implies something negative and possible ridicule - which I certainly did not intend. Gross over-simplification? Certainly! But that cannot be helped when describing a person in a short post.

I recently sent a game for review to the Go Teaching Ladder, the request was almost rejected because there is a lack of suitable strong reviewers. The Go Teaching Ladder needs more love, but the problem of suitable reviewers / teachers for casual teaching is huge in general. When you study in a more formal way there are enough (paid) teachers available, but the intensity is far too high for casual players - you need to have practice outside the lessons, if the lessons are to do you any good.

Challenging criticism and hating criticism shouldn't be confused. I certainly do challenge some criticism by fellow dan players (even if they are admittedly stronger) - the aim isn't a display antagonism but to change anything for the future I often need more than "right, wrong" but a demonstration of my flawed reasoning. As amateur games often include whole series of mistakes, which are retrospectively blamed on a completely innocent move, this looks like a legitimate approach to me.

Bantari wrote:you expect the teacher's explanation to be in a very specific form - as an explanation, for example, rather than a set of examples.

I do not expect a very specific form, but SOME form that is a) clear to the teacher, b) clear to me when the teacher teaches it and c) much more generally applicable than just to one very specific example.

You need them to give you a short and to-the-point *reason* rather than guiding you along the path by a series of questions,

Either (or something else) is ok.

In short - you need them to answer you in the form which is the most acceptable to you rather than in form which they prefer (or which they think is the best for you.)

Teaching is always a compromise between the teacher's expression and the pupil's perception of it. "The most acceptable" is your caricature of my request for teaching being at least reasonably useful instead of almost totally useless.

Now I think it is based on your strong preference to move within what I call your 'framework', or maybe even inability to move outside of it.

I lack the ability to learn much from a few unrelated examples and to guess my playing weaknesses from teaching, when the teacher is not teaching to avoid them, because he has not identified them.

Yes, I do have a strong preference for good teaching, and I am not willing to abandon it. Teachers overlooking most of my major weaknesses and instead teaching unrelated very specific examples are bad teachers. It is not my, the pupil's, fault to learn only very little from such very bad teaching.

traditional teaching does not package and convey the knowledge in the precise way you prefer it to be packaged and presented.

Exactly. Traditional teachers are so unspecific in their teaching that pupils need to listen for many months or years to get a sufficient amount of unspecific examples.