Bantari wrote:Of course, understanding is a spectrum not a binary, and I don't think anybody ever can say they "understand" something in its entirety. Not amateurs, and not the pros. And I don't think anybody here meant full understanding in this context, I certainly did not. There is always only understanding of a certain, higher or lower, level. Its more of a philosophical than practical question - can we really say we fully *understand* anything? Can anybody?
Finally.
Understanding as a continuum, post 5.
Two ideas of
understanding:
- (C) as a continuum.
- (B) as binary: either 100% or zero, nothing in between.
Bantari, you seem to mix the two ideas, (B) and (C), at different occasions, and you seem to do it at your convenience and at the expense of the other person.
Examples:
Bantari wrote:Bill Spight wrote:In short, if amateurs stick to plays that they think that they understand, they are making inferior plays.
So the point you are trying to make is that you think we all should make moves we
don't understand instead??
Above: you used (B) here and you forced it on Bill.
Bantari wrote:it still seems to me that if you advocate against making moves we (think we) understand, you are basically saying that you advocate for making moves we don't (think we) understand, or at least for moves where our perceived understanding is not really a factor. This is what I disagreed with. If this is not what you said, as it seems from what you say now, then there must have been a misunderstanding on my part.
Above: indeed it's a misunderstanding in your part, because you are still forcing (B) on Bill.
Bantari wrote:And yet we still have to use whatever limited understanding we have to make the decisions we make.
Above: you meant (C).
Bantari wrote:When you make moves you (think you) understand (1), you can put forth arguments to back up your decisions - even if the arguments are weak or faulty. If you simply make "correct" moves you don't understand (2), you can put no arguments forth,
Above paragraph: you first used (C) for (1), then you used (B) for (2).
Bantari wrote:...implementing ideas of somebody else, ideas you don't know, don't understand, and cannot follow up logically. How is that good, I don't know.
Above: you meant (B).
Bantari wrote:I paraphrase, it is better to play a move you (think you) understand (3) than to play a move you think is correct but which you do not understand (4) (and so cannot logically follow up with appropriate moves.)
Above: again, you used both in the same sentence --
you meant (C) for (3), and (B) for (4).
Bantari wrote:my opinion is that it is better to make moves which you (think you) understand (5) - i.e. ones with some kind of ideas behind them - then moves which you just seen pros play and so suspect might be "correct" (or more correct than your moves, which might or might not be true), but which you have no understanding (6) of and so cannot follow them up in a coherent way.
Above, same habit: you spelled out (C) for (5) "
some ideas",
then switched to (B) for (6) "
no understanding".
Bantari wrote:I saw Takemiya play a move I have never seen before, and which I absolutely did not understand.
Above: you meant (B). Yes, this is the
zero understanding move (B) you played. But this is not what Bill said.
The main flaws in the line of logic is that, although you say
understanding is a continuum (C) and not binary (B):
- You don't make it clear which of (C) or (B) you mean in a sentence;
- You routinely mix up (C) and (B);
- In particular, when you take a positive (C) "I understand it at some level X"
and you negate it, you don't turn it to "I don't understand it at level X" --
instead, you collapse it to (B) "I have zero understanding of it."
Example:
Bantari wrote:Now, if we make the pro moves without understanding them,
then we regress to the level of beginners.
Above: this is the central flaw.
The negative of --
- I understand this move at pro level. (C)
is --
- I don't understand this move at pro level. (C)
It is
not --
- I have zero understanding of this move. (B)
-- which is exactly how you collapsed it in the above "beginners" sentence.
If I say "I don't understand this move at 4-dan level,"
I
don't necessarily mean I have
zero understanding of it (although I could).
Rather, I mean my understanding of this move lies somewhere within the continuum
from absolutely zero understanding, to just under 4-dan understanding.
This is my opinion: Bill has never said, in this thread, to play a move where you absolutely have
no idea what you're doing,
zero understanding -- the (B) sense -- and you kept forcing this (B) onto Bill.
However, I think that my example of the game with the 2 dan does show how often and I differ.
