Tami's Way

[John Fairbairn]

Tom: I agree with Robert's assessment above. The problems of producing a go book cannot be appreciated properly until you have tried it. This is not a case of starting with a negative attitude. Anything can be achieved if you put enough time and mental effort into it, but you have to be sensible and start with some idea of how much time and effort it is worth investing for such a small market - a market that is going backwards, too.

Diagrams are by far the biggest problem in the production process for various reasons. Among them, there is no go software that works reliably to produce good diagrams (e.g. missing captured stones in variation diagrams, inability to use long labels, add arrows, awful fonts, etc.) I have found MultiGo to be the best for me, but I still have to Photoshop every diagram as well as create it. Even then, you often find that a small change in text pushes a diagram to the next page and so it has to be done all over again. It's a burden only the idiots among us take on.

[topazg]

... i.e., you tend to see what you think you`ll see. In other words, I`m beginning to think that the "do L&D school" were right all along - it`s reading that makes you strong...

My only observation is to be careful to separate reading from L+D. L+D is an important aspect of reading for sure, but often stronger fundamentals and superior understanding of shape can give you a completely commanding lead against a weaker player without having had a single L+D issue arise.

Good fundamentals is a quintessential part of good reading - it gives you a much better collection of moves to assess in your reading lines and weeds out some of the chaff before you get started, so it's an integral part of reading skill.

It's one of my big frustrations that so many problems are either L+D, tesuji to split/separate/kill, or find the big point (border of two moyos) type moves. That sort of skill is important, but the "squeeze / sacrifice for thickness" type reading is at least equally important and, IMO, rather neglected in problem sites and problem books (maybe I'm reading the wrong ones).

[Bonobo]

Robert,

it must be terrible to live with an attitude where one constantly asks oneself: “What am I doing right that everybody else is doing wrong?”

I don’t intend to go any further into this, my life’s remaining time is too precious to waste it and thank [ghod] there are enough who appreciate—and pay for—my expertise.

Only this:

[..]

You could even just use "" (inch marks) instead of typographic quote marks; the typesetter would either know

You can't. A go book author does not have the time for inserting such marks.

Uhm, WOT?

Maybe I should’ve written "word" instead of just "" …

Inch marks are these: " … used on every typewriter as quotation marks. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark.

That’s what we all use as quotation marks if we don’t have easy access to correct typographic (“curly”) quote marks which, in English, are these: “word”.

The inch marks are what you get in every text editor not set or settable to use typographic quote marks. No extra work needed. And these also are what you use in your posts here, and, sadly, also in your books. Almost everybody uses these without even thinking about them, as you proved. But every properly set book, magazine, or newspaper uses typographic quote marks, of course.
________________

And lest you all believe I’m obsessed with form over function, I will end this comment now since anybody who has a little understanding of reading psychology and/or typography and typesetting already knows what I’m talking about. I won’t be able to convince those who prefer to ignore facts, and any further attempts would be the above-mentioned waste of time.


Greetings, Tom

[RobertJasiek]

without even thinking about them, as you proved.

I thought about that and rejected it; it is not worth the extra time for the books in question.

[EdLee]

LaTeX plus the igo package; see its documentation at http://ctan.open-source-solution.org/fonts/igo/igo.pdf

LaTeX is amazing (as always). Thanks, hanekomu.

[Tami]

Yes, please move to a different thread if you`re going to start talking in-depth and technically about typesetting. I don`t mind some discursions, but I`d appreciate if discussion here were mainly about "Tami`s Way". Cheers!

[Tami]

Indeed, I think the "6 orders" stuff from a few days ago was a bit of an abberration.

I`m getting the sense that playing go well is exactly that - knowing how to play well. Knowledge is useful, even indispensible, but nevertheless definitely second, a distant second even, to knowing how to use it. Some people know tens of thousands of advanced words, but say less than a child with a sense of what is important.

A long time ago, I heard that the way to become strong at chess was to study the endgame. It`s only now that I`m starting to realise why. It`s because the endgame teaches a player how to use each piece and combination of pieces. It teaches the player how the pieces work. With enough of that kind of understanding, then they should be able to prevail over a more knowledgeable but less knowing opponent. And I am going to advance my go on a similar principle: I`ll endeavour to learn how the stones work together. That`s what tsumego and pro games and the other methods of training really teach you.

So, my latest plan is to do lots of tsumego (L&D, tesuji and other kinds), study pro games and play go as much as possible. Of course I will continue to learn joseki and fuseki patterns, but that will be secondary to learning how to use the stones well.

In my view, a good analogy to tsumego practice is practicing scales and technical exercises on a musical instrument. Obviously you have to learn to play real pieces (i.e., play full games), but such exercises help you to focus on challenging and improving specific skills. So, tsumego are the scales and arpeggios of go.

The only other difference is that I`ll quit consciously "trying to apply" things to my games. Instead, I`ll take each position on its own terms and play the best move my reading shows me. It really is hopeless attempting to play by heuristic, anyway, if my experience of it is anything to go by. It just slows you down and leaves you feeling disappointed.

I probably will post less on this blog now. I have investigated and attempted quite a few things, and there`s not much left to say other than just to carry on.

[Tami]

Hi everybody. I`ve not dropped off the face of the earth, and I don`t think I`ve given up playing go, but I`ve been completely immersed in music...

To be honest, especially if you have any kind of major and unavoidable distraction, such as family and/or work, you probably have to accept that you can probably only expect to get reasonably good at just one thing. I don`t think I have a lot of talent, but I do have perseverance, so I`m pointing it at music more and more now.

I did, however, buy the Kiseido book on Attacking and Defending Moyos just before Christmas, and I was struck hard by the very introduction, in which we are recommended to "just play" and not think about it (so much). I have always wondered why I have tended to be much stronger at fast chess than normal games, but maybe it`s because I just play. With guitar playing, I find the same thing - I`m much better when I just play and let it happen.

But this makes me wonder - what is the conscious mind actually for? What is thinking good for if it tends to get in your way when performing an activity?

My guess is that thinking is useful in the acquisition phase - you have to understand the reasons why this or that technique works, or why this tesuji succeeds under such-and-such conditions, or why you choose one joseki in one situation and another in a different case. When you reach the performance phase, you either know what kind of things to consider, or you don`t. If you should think at all, perhaps it ought be a kind of "pondering", when you let the moves come to you, rather than attempt to find them.

I`ll try it next time I play go, but goodness knows when that will be.

[EdLee]

what is the conscious mind actually for? What is thinking good for if it tends to get in your way when performing an activity?

It depends on the activity: http://news.yahoo.com/brain-works-025027478.html

[Tami]

Well, after nearly four months I started playing again. But no more studying. In fact, no more "thinking" even. Just look at the board, and play whatever seems right. Trying to verbalise the processes seems impossible, and as unhelpful as it is when playing the guitar, speaking another language, riding a bicycle...

My approach will be "play and learn". Play a game, not too slow, and afterwards make a mental note of the main points. It`s usually obvious where the game changed direction, but my good friend Toge also often looks in and points out things I miss.

When you dispense with all the pseudo-logical verbal thinking, you find a deeper level of concentration. It`s fun, too.

I don`t have much more to say.

[tekesta]

@Tami: Your approach is a good one. (More play and less talk ) Thinking about each move is OK if you have enough experience in the game. Otherwise, if it is too hard to think, it is better to simply play according to what you believe to be the best move at the time, without worrying too much about winning or losing. Eventually, in conjunction with doing problems of different skill sets, you will observe enough in your games to be able to think more clearly. Getting good at Go takes time. It's like playing the guitar; if something doesn't sound right, simply change a note or two and play again. And doing problems is like practicing the scales and tabs; if you practice them enough, they stick and you can play just about anything.

[Tami]

I can`t afford to spend a lot of time on go, but I do feel the urge to play again, so I think I`ll be very disciplined. I won`t consciously attempt to apply anything I learn from books, but simply remain vigilant while playing and hopefully will be able to see opportunities or necessities as they occur.

Actually, my current opinion is that "thinking" in the sense of a little internal voice going "he goes here, I do that...must not play near thickness...bad aji there" is distracting and misleading, if anything. Isn`t it just that you either know what to do in a given situation or you don`t? For an experiment, I`d like to play purely by instinct, slowing down to ponder if I don`t have any immediate idea of what to do. It should take the stress out of things, because all one has to do is hush the ego and just play. What`s the worst that can happen? After losing, you can find the mistakes and then you`ll know better for next time.

[GoRo]

Well, after nearly four months I started playing again.

Thanks for your verbalization, Tami!
The "four months" immediately reminded me of the wonderful Go comic by Colette Bezio (inkwolf):
http://home.earthlink.net/~inkwolf/Inkw ... Quest.html

The first sentence there is:

Aji has been playing Go for a whole month...and he still sucks at it!

This is so lovely a start, and it continues wonderfully. You will like it.
The story is so beautiful and encouraging for beginners that I decided to
translate it into German which is my native language. With permission of
the author I gave it the title "Ajis Weg" which is exactly the same as the
title of your topic (in German we omit the apostrophe, and Weg = way).

If you like to study the guitar, Go and German too then please visit
http://www.rwro.de/Go/AjisQuest/AjiHeft1.pdf
and
http://www.rwro.de/Go/AjisQuest/AjiHeft2.pdf

Cheers,
Rainer
(GoChild GoRo with 1699141 points)

[Tami]

For GoRo, yes, I have seen and greatly enjoyed Aji`s Quest

Today, just another variation on a theme.

Is there a mental illusion to which some or most of us succumb most of the time? Namely, do we mistake the chattering of the ego for thinking?

Isn`t true study simply to engage completely, i.e., to pay full attention? If you are self-consciously arguing with a concept or idea you read or hear or see, does it not mean that you are trying to fit your ego to it somehow?

Could it be that logic and rational discourse are merely sophisticated fronts for the ego?

The older I get, the less I trust those things, and the more I yearn to return to childlike intuition. That is, I`d like just to perceive the situation and possible actions, without confusing myself with reasonings. In other words, to understand the reasons before me, and not to be distracted by the reasons within me.

I`ll be purchasing Malcolm Gladwell`s Blink later on. I`d like to find out more about the way intuition works.

By the way, on the "How to Avoid Blunders" thread, some people argued that they usually made blunders when "playing intuitively". Actually, I suspect they mistake "playing without paying full attention" for "intuitively". If you`re paying attention, a trained intuition should know how to respond. An analogy: road accidents happen because people are fiddling with their cell-phones instead of looking at the road ahead, not because they don`t know how to drive.

Sorry if this doesn`t make a lot of sense to you. All I can say is that I appear to be arriving at an outlook diametrically opposed to everything I used to think about everything. It`s kind of exciting, because it offers a new way to live my life. I don`t even care about "achievement" anymore, just being and doing.

Less ego, more igo!

[GoRo]

Less ego, more igo!