daal wrote:how would you define it?
My teaching methods "work" for somebody if one or several of these points happen:
1) He follows my methods only lightly and improves slightly or enhances his knowledge to enable the ground for better improvement later.
2) He studies my methods seriously, applies them regularly and improves a lot.
3) He improves due to those methods suitable for his strength, later reads the book again for the advanced contents, then improves again.
4) He would need significantly more time to acquire a skill by alternative teaching methods.
Note that usually improvement requires acquiring knowledge and playing games and reviewing one's games also to see if the acquired knowledge is applied consistently.
What I sometimes wonder is if the reason you are so convinced of the validity of your approach is that it works for you.
There are several reasons why I am so convinced:
1) They work for me or would have worked for me if I had gotten such knowledge as a weaker player.
2) Similar contents in other books by other authors works for many others. The major difference in my books thus far is that I teach more contents. IMO, more knowledge helps more. I am aware that there are readers who do not cope well with the greater density because they read the books as if they had an only ordinary amount of knowledge. IMO, slower or repeated reading of my books can help also those readers. It is, however, every reader's choice how much of the contents presented in a book he actually bothers to understand. For those readers insisting on low density, I am actually not convinced that my methods work. I cannot force a reader to absorb all the knowledge needed for a topic to reach 5d level (or, in case of a beginner's book, to reach 9k level).
3) From my playing experience, I know which knowledge I need during playing. Very much of that knowledge is not available in other books (or sometimes other English books) but is available only verbally or apparently even never taught anywhere. AFA my books discuss a topic, they do convey also such knowledge. I am convinced that available explicit knowledge is better for improving than not explicitly available knowledge.
4) I compare knowledge presented elsewhere with knowledge presented in my books and find that much of the latter has a better or even much better quality. I research specifically for finding and creating greater quality (or, for (3), new things). I am convinced that higher quality is better than lower quality. (Tami: humility is wrong when it contradicts facts. Easy example: a joseki dictionary stating every joseki's stone difference is better than one not stating it.)
is it truly enough for someone else to get at least equally strong by being spoon-fed your well-thought-out principles.
No, because
- he must also apply the "spoon-fed" knowledge in his then (self-)reviewed games,
- my books so far do not cover all topics of go theory yet,
- some skills require (also) different things than learning principles, e.g., reading skill.
Have you considered the possibility that the reason that the use of such principles works for you is that you have spent such an extraordinary amount of time and energy thinking about them and figuring them out for yourself whilst preparing and writing your books?
I have considered and rejected the thought because very roughly 65% is desperate searching for good knowledge still hidden in the dust, 5% requires the kind of thinking you describe, 30% is dull typing / editing effort.
who knows whether there is anyone else capable of approaching the game in the same manner,
Everybody enjoys Attack & Defense, Strategic Concepts and Tesuji (Davies), i.e., books with a similar approach to knowledge, except that they do not state principles prominently in bold font and have less density.
whether this would indeed be a more efficient way to improve.
Everybody is welcome to report such. But... improving alone is not directly related to acquired knowledge. Some improving quickly by other methods then tend to have knowledge gaps. For further improving, they still need the knowledge they overlooked thus far. (I had the same experience: as 3d, I had to collect the knowledge I missed while improving "too" quickly.)
What would a reader really have to do in order to apply your ideas.
As my books tend to have knowledge for a range of levels, the reader must start with the knowledge he can already understand and postpone the advanced knowledge until later. (E.g., in Capturing Races 1, he can postpone semeai classes 3 to 6.)
To apply knowledge, first of all, the reader must play games and so give himself the chance to apply the knowledge. Very easy, but some go "players" seem to enjoy just reading and have almost stopped to play much regularly. Check if you have applied the knowledge by reviewing your own games.
Recall the ideas. Forgotton knowledge cannot be applied! If necessary, learn explicitly. Learn while understanding. If you don't understand a joseki (eh, some knowledge), then it is hard to remember. If you don't understand, then study the knowledge by going through examples, if necessary, look for more examples on your own.
Start with the most important knowledge. Leave the more specific, rarer principles for later if you cannot recall all at once.
Never forget the global context of verification by reading and embedding by positional judgement.
The fact that you don't include problems in your books supports this position -yet how much repetition did you need?
My books vary WRT to numbers of examples or problems. A reader needs as much repetition until he understands and recalls easily. If necessary, use other sources for more examples. If there are none, don't be shy but ask.
Recently you gave Tami the advice to put some stones on the board in order to better understand the concept of n-alive. Apparently just reading about the idea is not enough.
Tami does not appear to be a principle-only player and she does not (yet) want to read Joseki 2 Strategy with the relevant examples. Nevertheless, for those not understanding from reading only the definition, the very basic examples can be very enlightning.
Anyway, examples are not evil. What is evil is nothing but examples, or even unsorted random examples:)
