Life In 19x19

Inkwolf wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

Inkwolf wrote:Feels like I'm trying to put out a forest fire by throwing firewood at it....

From what you say about feeding the fire, it may be that you are attacking too closely. In particular, unless you can read out a gain, you should not attach to invading stones. For instance, if you attach, he hanes, and you cut, then he has many possibilities to threaten your stones which are cut. His stones are cut, too, but if you lose a stone to the invader it could be a disaster, while he may save one stone by sacrificing another.

I think you've hit right on my problem.

I took a style test ( http://style.baduk.org/style/index.php? ) that said I was way too passive, and I've been trying to play more aggressively since then, Maybe too much. Some general rethinking of my entire strategy concept is clearly in order.

Here is my SDK advice on this swarm of issues:

1) When someone invades, I first try to look at the stone (cause it is just one stone for now...) as a potential target. I then ask myself:
a) Can I attack this, or
b) Do I have a bigger/better/more urgent move elsewhere?

If attacking/countering this last move is the best thing for me to do right now I then try to remember my 3 priorities for reasons to attack (I think I got this from a Yulin Yang book) in descending order of importance:
1) To secure life for a group of mine
2) To increase my territory/influence
3) To kill the opponent's group

So if I can combine these then great! Double-point play! So frequently my responses won't be planned to kill off the invading stone, but instead kick the group around some and gain advantages for myself in the process while it is still weak and needs to defend or run. This helps keep me out of all-or-nothing sequences that can decide the game with one fouled up (mine, usually...) move. I'm usually happy to give my opponent 10-15 points if I can secure 25+ with my responses.

Now please note that these are not ironclad rules, just a train of thought I follow with some limited success. Sometimes (and this is what makes go fun) a wimpy defensive, passive move can be the right response and sometimes the invasion is ludicrous and deserves to be stomped into the ground. Only experience can let you see what is the best response for you, but I find this process helps keep me from making overly "reactive" moves as a near-reflex.

Good luck and have fun!

Bruce "Keel moose and squirrel" Young

Coming back to the jogging example, I suppose it's possible that one could relate learning knowledge from books to receiving a piece of technology from another person.

That is, maybe reading a book on go theory could be like getting a scooter from the author. It'll help you to be faster, even though you didn't work much for that speed yourself...

Hmmm...

@Kirby:

I think that's a horrible analogy XD A more apt one might be trying to reach the end of a path, and getting wheel-chaired there for the first half?

But I personally think a better analogy would be like climbing a mountain with a guide?

illluck wrote:...

But I personally think a better analogy would be like climbing a mountain with a guide?

Perhaps... I suppose in that case, given the choice of:

1.) Sitting in a classroom, having the guide teach me about mountain climbing technique.

2.) Practicing my mountain climbing skill by training on small hills behind my house every day.

I'd probably choose number 2 if I wanted to become a better mountain climber. I think that the hands-on experience is valuable.

I don't think that learning from others is totally useless, I guess. I would probably rank my personal experience in study technique in the following manner:

Personally acquired knowledge > book knowledge > knowledge acquired by somebody telling me

So, back to the example, if I had to learn how to be a good mountain climber, I'd put preference toward going out and trying to climb mountains over reading a book on mountain climbing, over hearing what the guide has to tell me... And I suppose that hearing what the guide has to tell me would rank higher than hearing what somebody else said that the guide told them.

Kirby wrote:I believe that taking a jog outside is more effective in strengthening my body than to have somebody push me around in a wheelchair.

That's a rather odd analogy, but what do you think of this one:

I know that I'll get stronger by jogging than by being pushed about in a wheelchair, because I wasn't sleeping the whole time during biology class.

or perhaps more to your liking:

I know that I'll get stronger by jogging than by being pushed about in a wheelchair, because I pay attention to how my body feels.

or this one:

I believe that having someone teach me how to fly an airplane is more effective that trying to figure it out myself.

If that makes you groan, what about this:

I'd rather try to figure out how to fly an airplane myself than have someone teach me.


I think this is more like your position. You prefer to learn go by doing over being taught. Maybe this is the best way, maybe it isn't. Who's to judge?

Edit: as to climbing a mountain or reading a book about it, nobody says that they're mutually exclusive...

daal wrote:...

I'd rather try to figure out how to fly an airplane myself than have someone teach me.

Yes. I think that, if I got to the level of being able to fly an airplane by myself, I would know more about flying than if I had had an instructor.

daal wrote:I think this is more like your position. You prefer to learn go by doing over being taught. Maybe this is the best way, maybe it isn't. Who's to judge?
...

Yes, this is what I feel. And you're right, "Who is to judge?".

I feel this way, because in my personal experience, I do not feel like I get much from being lectured on something. Other people's experiences could certainly vary.

Kirby, there's more than one way to learn something, and usually combining insight from different schools of thought is more effective than sticking dogmatically to one idea. Anyone with limited time (nearly everyone) is going to be more interested in finding study methods that produce good results - as opposed to methods that sort of work if you do them for long enough. There are thousands of ways to sort of improve at Go and other activities, provided enough time.

Go problems are one way of studying, and I agree with you that they'll make you stronger. So will lessons or games with stronger players - if you approach them in the right frame of mind. So will looking at model plays in books and listening to the ideas of other players. Most people will find it more effective to combine many of these ways of improving.

I know you're not going to like what I have to say next, though now that I've said that maybe you'll change your mind... Over the last few months I've read many of your comments on this forum. I've noticed that you like to play the devil's advocate or disagree with people on principle.

I believe this kind of critical thinking is a product of the western education system. We spent our time at school being asked to do things like criticize the writing of people who were much better writers than ourselves. What did that teach us? It has it's strengths and weaknesses of course, but I was also educated in that system and it took me years to unlearn some of what I learned there.

When you try to study with this kind of critical approach, it's like you have a goal keeper always ready to stop any new idea getting in. You have to analyze everything before deciding whether it's worthy of acceptance. Imagine how much that slows things down...

Have you ever wondered why children learn so quickly? It's because they accept knowledge first and question later. It's because the child brain perceives most new information as useful. Studies into neuro-plasticity have shown that adult brains are still capable of remarkable change and learning, but not when adults convince themselves that they're incapable of it.

You've probably already composed a reply in your head while reading this. By all means reply, but I have a better idea. Why not try it? Why not go a month trying to find the good advice in people's comments instead of the bad? Why not try accepting first and reflecting later. If you're able to change your focus, you may be surprised by what you discover.

David

gogameguru wrote:I believe this kind of critical thinking is a product of the western education system. We spent our time at school being asked to do things like criticize the writing of people who were much better writers than ourselves. What did that teach us? It has it's strengths and weaknesses of course, but I was also educated in that system and it took me years to unlearn some of what I learned there.

When you try to study with this kind of critical approach, it's like you have a goal keeper always ready to stop any new idea getting in. You have to analyze everything before deciding whether it's worthy of acceptance. Imagine how much that slows things down...

Is this relevant to how to handle invasions? I don't know, but it's certainly true; this is exactly what I was thinking when Kirby wrote that he didn't put too much weight on things his professors told him. Not that anyone should mistake his professor for a petty prophet, but it's extremely hard to educate students who take pride in believing in nothing.

Kirby wrote:And, who is to say what the best solution is? Somehow I doubt that it's getting advice from others.

Kirby wrote:Yes, this is what I feel. And you're right, "Who is to judge?".
(from a second post)

Just read the first quote--you're the one making the judgment that advice from others won't work. And that's ok! Judge away! Think about the best way to improve and when you have an idea, judge that it's the best. If later on you get a better idea, change your judgment.

hyperpape wrote:

Kirby wrote:And, who is to say what the best solution is? Somehow I doubt that it's getting advice from others.

Kirby wrote:Yes, this is what I feel. And you're right, "Who is to judge?".
(from a second post)

Just read the first quote--you're the one making the judgment that advice from others won't work. And that's ok! Judge away! Think about the best way to improve and when you have an idea, judge that it's the best. If later on you get a better idea, change your judgment.

Well, every belief that you have comes with some degree of confidence. From my experiences thus far, I have some degree of confidence that I don't get that much via advice from others.

"Who is to judge" is a phrase that confirms the uncertainty of the matter. But I don't think that this prevents anyone from having some degree of belief toward a particular point of view.

In other words, I cannot say with certainty that I cannot learn from a pro teacher as effectively as I would by doing go problems. But I have some degree of confidence that this is the case.

gogameguru wrote:...Over the last few months I've read many of your comments on this forum. I've noticed that you like to play the devil's advocate or disagree with people on principle.

gogameguru wrote:..
Why not try it? Why not go a month trying to find the good advice in people's comments instead of the bad? Why not try accepting first and reflecting later. If you're able to change your focus, you may be surprised by what you discover.
...

Maybe it'd do me good to follow this advice, but this is a big change, isn't it? How does one go about changing their philosophy on life?

(My emphases.)

Kirby wrote:I tried pro lessons for a short period of time, for example, and did not find it very effective.

gogameguru wrote:Why not go a month trying to find the good advice in people's comments...

Years of (bad) habits cannot be unlearned in a short time.
My time horizon is in years (5, 10, etc.) Of course, your mileage may vary.

jts wrote:...
...Not that anyone should mistake his professor for a petty prophet, but it's extremely hard to educate students who take pride in believing in nothing.

I'm not really sure how you interpret what I said as taking "pride in believing in nothing" (I was going more for believing in myself), but I guess I'm supposed to accept what you say now, so... OK!

gogameguru wrote:...adult brains are still capable of remarkable change and learning, but not when adults convince themselves that they're incapable of it.

Note to self: Write one hundred times "you are not stuck at 7k"

@Inkwolf:

Something that hasn't been mentioned yet is to try making some invasions of your own. If you are playing against other 18 kyus, a move you find tough to handle will be tough for them to handle too. It's useful to see invasions from the other side, and it's also important to remember that if your opponents erase some of your territory, it is only fair to return the favor.

Also, it should be said that in the position you posted, there is actually not a single point anywhere on the board which is Black's territory. All but one of black's stones is on the fourth line, and these stones are more oriented for influence and development than for making territory directly. In a sense, when you play all high stones like that, one thing you're hoping for is that white will invade to give you a target to attack.

One of the best ways to learn to attack is to play handicap games against stronger players, so don't be afraid to go to the KGS teaching room and ask for a teaching game.

Good luck!