Life In 19x19

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:54 am**

Bantari wrote:And I remember people learning and progressing, some lightning fast - before the internet and when there were very few, if any, proper definitions available.

It is possible to do so until 3 dan. Afterwards, you say, they (or maybe you?) continued lightning fast without knowing terms (and concepts driven by terms) well? Don't hold your breath and tell us HOW!

What you said took you a long time, I have seen others doing in a flash - me included, at least when you talk about the period from 14.5k to 5k.

My 10 years delay to 14.5 was caused by the rules, a not replying federation and playing venues inaccessible for children. My ca. 1 year delay to 10k was caused by not having the idea of learning from mistakes. From 10k to 3d was "lightning fast" (17 or 18 months), but could have been faster with better references to terms. My 4.5 years delay to 5d was caused also greatly by weak terms; this is the long time I mean.

only by hard work and more involvement

Was this the cause of your lightning fast improvement since 3d?

I strongly doubt this will influence my play in any way.

But, IIRC, you believe strongly in subconscious learning. So any information about terms helps you subconsciously.

I understood the difference between these terms since I was somewhere between 15.23k and 13.97k.

Did you have the luck of a club teacher knowing the difference?

for 99.35% of us here vague definitions are more than sufficient.

50%.

I think the vagueness of Go terminology is very good, it strikes a balance between defining what things are and leaving room for thinking and growth and personal ideas about what is what.

With exact terms, there is the same scope for thinking and ideas, because strategy and tactics need to apply the rules and terms. The difference is that, with exact terms, planning can be deeper more easily.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:15 am**

RobertJasiek wrote:
for 99.35% of us here vague definitions are more than sufficient.
50%.

99.35% is correct.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:27 pm**

I belong to the minority of Western go players indeed. Needless to say, East Asians could compensate for weakly described terms by frequent access to many strong players.

I see this whine trotted out quite often, and I don't really accept it. Yes Asia has many strong players but "frequent access" - hardly.

I posted a game recently where a country doctor in Japan had to play by post with Segoe yet was still strong enough to play him on 3 stones. There has been nothing to stop western players playing by post, and with the internet access is now immediate.

I have been in many oriental clubs. My experience is that most strong players there are just like most dan players over here - mainly interested in their own progress (and often hubris). They don't teach weakies.

You can of course pay for lessons, but you can over here, too. Over there you could, in theory get access to a Meijin, but in reality it's like a football fan here wanting access to David Beckham. You'll get it, but just once, if you own a major company that is willing to sponsor a go tournament.

Access to "lesson pros" is possible, but for rather more money than westerners want to pay usually, and with more commitment than westerners usually want (e.g. you may be expected to attend for years and join in the pro's club events such as spa holidays).

The only real advantages I see that Orientals have are social or cultural: notably having parents who are aware that being a go pro is an acceptable profession and having teachers who are part of a network, so that they can feed you up the chain to higher level pros if you have talent. In theory even these avenues are open to westerners, but westerners seem to think these opportunities should be presented free or cheap or as scholarships. In reality parents have to pay the pros for years, and the budding pro may have to be prepared to give his teacher his first few years' income as a pro. Exceptions have happened, but exceptions are exceptions by definition. I can't see that a western 5-dan in his late 20s, say, is ever going to be made an exception of.

The solutions are (a) to stop whining and work, and (b) stop whining and not work.

My 10 years delay to 14.5 was caused by the rules, a not replying federation and playing venues inaccessible for children.

Orientals usually don't belong to a federation and children aren't normally allowed to go to clubs in town. A school often has a go club, of course, but usually with no strong players. They accept the rules instantly and don't fritter away ten years on trivia or whining.

My ca. 1 year delay to 10k was caused by not having the idea of learning from mistakes.

Are you sure you have now embraced this idea? I don't see much evidence of it here. Every time anyone points something out you just say "Wrong" and dig an even bigger hole than the one you're in (e.g. telling native English speakers about their own language).

I always like to be constructive so here's a third solution: stop whining and stop digging.

Oh, BTW = not sorry for derailing this thread.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:41 pm**

John Fairbairn wrote:Oh, BTW = not sorry for derailing this thread.

I'd hug you if I could for this line. I'll buy Unfinished Symphony as a minor substitute.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:42 pm**

Hehe... lets do some verbal sparring before I address the only worthwhile point you make.

RobertJasiek wrote:
Bantari wrote:And I remember people learning and progressing, some lightning fast - before the internet and when there were very few, if any, proper definitions available.
It is possible to do so until 3 dan. Afterwards, you say, they (or maybe you?) continued lightning fast without knowing terms (and concepts driven by terms) well? Don't hold your breath and tell us HOW!

Study, think, play... you know, no shortcuts, the hard way.
Of course, as you grow stronger, the progression speed slows down, with any method you apply, so not sure if 'lightning fast' applies. We would have to formally define this term first.

But, IIRC, you believe strongly in subconscious learning. So any information about terms helps you subconsciously.

I strongly doubt that my subconscious (or anybody's) works with mathematical precision. But to be sure, I don't know, so you might have a point there. Although, from experience, my subconscious is usually of much bigger help in the more 'fuzzy' kinds of fields. In math, for example, its influence was much smaller, and most of my work was done consciously. While composing, it plays a much larger role. As it does in Go, especially with regard to ideas and planning.

Did you have the luck of a club teacher knowing the difference?

Nope. Just read the usual books, and there were not so many of them at that time.
With rare exceptions, my 'teachers' were more of 'rivals' - friends a stone or two stronger who were clobbering me until I started clobbering them.

All in all, throughout my Go development, from 30.17k to around 5.12d - I felt very little need to formally define each term or move or situation the way you do. And I really doubt it affected my development very much, since I think I developed pretty nicely, thank you.

for 99.35% of us here vague definitions are more than sufficient.
50%.

99.35%

I think the vagueness of Go terminology is very good, it strikes a balance between defining what things are and leaving room for thinking and growth and personal ideas about what is what.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:51 pm**

Now to the more interesting point.

RobertJasiek wrote: With exact terms, there is the same scope for thinking and ideas, because strategy and tactics need to apply the rules and terms. The difference is that, with exact terms, planning can be deeper more easily.

I disagree. What do you base your conclusion on?

From experience - I can plan every bit as deeply when having an exact mathematical definition of 'nakade' (for example) as when I only had my old, imprecise and vague definition. Same for 'ko' and same for all of the other taxonomy you come up with.

What is important is the understanding of the term, not the exact wording or the precision of written definition. And while I grant you - that wording and precision can help in understanding, the same understanding can also be reached in other ways, possibly even faster. It is highly personal, I think, but many people seem to be doing well without the precision you advocate for. And some become tremendously strong - and some of them in amazingly short time.

I can understand that your precise definitions might be used as a stepping stone for further research, and some day this might lead to something useful for most of us - and thus I think it has value and support you - but personally, right here and now, with what we have - there is very little difference for me in knowing your stuff and not knowing your stuff.

Same goes for 'honte' - maybe especially for 'honte'. Precise definition is fine, but I fail to see what it has to do with deeper planning. I either consider a move to be good or not, and if people decide to call it 'honte' later on according to some definition (yours or other, or whatever) - this has absolutely no impact on the move I have made. I would probably not have changed my mind and played differently if I knew ahead of time that according to some specific definition this move was called this or that.

So, on this point, I disagree with you strongly.
Although I admit that for you (we are back to the minority you are part of) this precision does make a difference. But this shows not necessarily that it is inherently better than the traditional vagueness, but that in this respect there is something special about you which makes it harder for you to deal with concepts which are not precise.

In this sense - we are talking about the same thing but from two different positions, each as valid as the other.
For you (and a few others) - it all makes sense and is very useful, and without it you struggle.
For me (and many others) - it has a much less meaning and even less impact on our game. We are perfectly happy to leave some things vague and work around it, possibly even see a value in this vagueness.

I can understand your point, even if I don't share it. I am not sure you can understand mine. But I try to explain the best I can... year after year after year...

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:57 pm**

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$B hane at the head of 0 stones $$ ------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . X . . . . . $$ | . . . , 1 . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:14 pm**

snorri wrote:
$$B hane at the head of 0 stones
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . . . .
$$ | . . . , 1 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B hane at the head of 0 stones $$ ------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . X . . . . . $$ | . . . , 1 . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

Not to toot my own horn, but this is my own seminal contribution to go theory---defining moves based on their effect on opponent's moves that are not yet played. It took several years to develop.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:19 pm**

snorri wrote:Not to toot my own horn, but this is my own seminal contribution to go theory---defining moves based on their effect on opponent's moves that are not yet played. It took several years to develop.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:33 pm**

RobertJasiek wrote: With exact terms, there is the same scope for thinking and ideas, *snip*

The game of Go is no exact science, so the more exact terms are defined, the more they act as limitations -- but not as support -- for development.

In order to get the full benefit of an "exact" term, there is the precondition that you share 100 per cent the construct of ideas of the person that provided you with the "exact" definition. But then you are not longer you mentally, but someone else. How could this help your own development ?

If you leave no free room, there is no space for learning, neither for development.

"Exact" wording might be useful for communication purposes, if you wanted to tell someone else about your ideas. But do you assume that 100 per cent "exact" wording will cause the someone else to really grasp 100 per cent of what you really had in mind ? And please remember that the knowledge to be shared is not of the type "1 + 1 = 10".

I suppose that nearly everyone will have a mostly "correct" understanding of what "Play HANE at the head of two stones." (you may add "without thinking") will say to us. Even if in most of the saying's application cases "Play OSAE at the head of two stones" would be the correct wording.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:21 pm**

snorri wrote:
$$B hane at the head of 0 stones
$$ ------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . . . .
$$ | . . . , 1 . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B hane at the head of 0 stones $$ ------------------ $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . X . . . . . $$ | . . . , 1 . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]

I am indebted to you, snorri. Surely this terminology will allow me to overcome my greatest hurdle in becoming stronger.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:37 pm**

John Fairbairn wrote: Orientals [...] accept the rules instantly and don't fritter away ten years on trivia

Having other players available at all makes accepting rules possible at all. I had no players and no scoring rules at all, pretty much except for a thing showing a string without liberties.

the idea of learning from mistakes.
Are you sure you have now embraced this idea?

It was the reason that suddenly turned me from 14.5k to 10k within 3 months.

I don't see much evidence of it here. Every time anyone points something out you just say "Wrong" and dig an even bigger hole than the one you're in (e.g. telling native English speakers about their own language).

Meta-discussion unrelated to possibly improving playing strength.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:45 pm**

Meta-discussion unrelated to possibly improving playing strength.

Wrong. Very related. I've just watched an episode in which even Sheldon Cooper (IQ 183 and Texan) admits to a mistake (and also a "Oh, I hadn't considered that").

Humility is a form of going back to basics.

Altogether now: Soft kitty, furry kitty...

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:57 pm**

Bantari wrote:Just read the usual books

From them, around 5k I got about this far: walls are strong. This is also called thickness, which is somehow related to influence and expects an extension n+1 afar. When I became 3d, my knowledge amounted to: an extension must be shorter if the wall has defects (my theory being that 1 defect reduces the gap 1 line); influence is something (unknown, not understood, similar to light radiated from a wall) in front of a wall or in a moyo; thickness and influence allow to attack; it is better not to run towards an opposing wall. IOW, I still had no clear idea what thickness and influence are.

Did you get more out of the then usual books?

from 30.17k to around 5.12d

Why so much fun with fractions? Because I wrote 14.5k? There is a reason for that.

Posted: **Thu Oct 10, 2013 4:03 pm**

John Fairbairn wrote:Sheldon Cooper

Since you mention this term creator every other day, soap operas can be fun at times, but ad financed TV channels are not worth it, so I think I have not watched any episode.

Life In 19x19

Terms

Re: Terms

Re: Terms

Re: Terms

Re: Terms

Re: Terms

Re: Terms

Re: Terms

Re: Terms

Re: Terms

Re: Terms

Re: Terms

Re: Terms

Re: Terms

Re: Terms

Re: Terms