Life In 19x19

Not that my games are of any interest, except as specimens of weakness, but the result of the very first "Defence First" approach? Carnage!

Tami wrote:But, it's not just knowledge, is it? I mean, my vocabulary and kanji ability are probably better than the average 10-year-old's; but I can't put the words together as fluently! They have a grasp of the principles behind it all.

Only tacitly. You probably can state more grammatical principles than they can, if you mean things like "...when there's a direct object that..."

The difference is that they follow those principles without having to think about them.

John Fairbairn wrote:...
If you merely want to understand, go is more like philosophy. You want to grasp the fundamental principles, for their own sake rather than to beat an opponent. You are at something of a disadvantage because go literature tends to be written for the "want to be strong" and those who want to be strong tend to ignore anything and anyone that doesn't help them in their quest. But for you, go can be fun all the time. To be sure, losing games can be disconcerting, but more because it produces a general angst that you are not yet understanding the principles...

That's defnitely me. Indeed, I am as far at the 'fundamental principles' end as anybody that I have ever met.

I hate tsumego.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:I am as far at the 'fundamental principles' end as anybody that I have ever met. I hate tsumego.

One of my long-term projects is solving in general as much as possible of tsumego and life and death by means of fundamental principles etc. Do you have some suggestions of what you would like to see or how it should be approached?

RobertJasiek wrote:

Joaz Banbeck wrote:I am as far at the 'fundamental principles' end as anybody that I have ever met. I hate tsumego.

One of my long-term projects is solving in general as much as possible of tsumego and life and death by means of fundamental principles etc. Do you have some suggestions of what you would like to see or how it should be approached?

I think that it is a great idea. Sorry, but I haven't a clue how to go about doing it.

Upon reflection, I think that it will not be possible. Principles often work well on a whole board, for the minor changes of a stone or two here and there constitute 'noise'. In tsumego, where every stone may matter, there is amost never such a thing as a small change.

For a good example of this, see Bill Spight's post ( viewtopic.php?p=51279#p51279 ) on a slightly different subject. The four problems shown differ only in the placement of one or two stones. But one is dead, one is alive, and the other two are ko.

Don't worry - I have quite some ideas of how to proceed... It will be very much work though. I might need decades... But... the bigger the problems the less I can resist! :)

RobertJasiek wrote:Don't worry - I have quite some ideas of how to proceed... It will be very much work though. I might need decades... But... the bigger the problems the less I can resist!

It will be interesting to see. There is a comment Michael Redmond made some time ago about tsumego. He said, the "simpler ones are closer to the correct suji."

I am not sure what he meant by that, but my guess is that some tougher problems are tough because they require moves that are normally bad shape and therefore could be blind spots.

So principles might help with the simpler problems. (E.g., squeeze from the outside first, diagonal moves are better for making eyes, etc.) But the harder problems might be contrived so that normal-looking sequences don't work.

One approach that I am starting to take with harder problems is a kind of inventory approach. Instead of immediately starting to read with what looks like a good starting point, instead I just enumerate the reosurces both black and white have. For example, if white is trying to kill black, black might have resources like a sente eye or a threat to connect. White might have a way to reduce liberties here, or a move that generates equilavent options there. Maybe none of these things is immediately useful, but the solution might involve considering all of them in the right order, in combination with more normal moves. This inventory method gets one away from immediately seeking a forcing sequence. Although forcing sequences are easier to find, the harder the problem, the less likely there is one. And it may be a bad habit to always be seeking forcing lines in one's own games first. I'm not sure.

In one trivial sense, you only need one prinicple to solve all tsumego: exhaustive search. Of course, one can't call this an interesting principle. A more interesting principle would be one that helps prune the tree in cases where exhaustive search is impractical.

RobertJasiek wrote:I might need decades... But... the bigger the problems the less I can resist!

Sorry, I can't resist: How old are you? (It would be kind of sad if you make the mathematical analysis of the L-group your life time project. Wouldn't it?)

snorri wrote:tougher problems are tough

Mainly they are tough because they involve multiple-step analysis or interaction and it is a priori unclear which method should be applied during each step. Like 1. preliminary step to get known problem type such as "2. reduce space, 3. occupy vital point" or alternatively to get another known problem type such as "2. occupy vital point, 3. reduce space". Yet tougher problems have more than one preliminary step.

tapir wrote:How old are you?

Born 1970. This is indeed the greatest opponent for the project. Therefore I hope for thousands of fellow researchers! :)

Regarding tsumego, one little thing I would like to say. I have recently bought two small books from the Nihon Kiin collection: 六段合格の死活１５０問 and 七段合格の手筋１５０問 ("150 Life and Death Problems for Gaining 6 dan" and "150 Tesuji Problems for Gaining 7 dan). Maybe I should write a review elsewhere, but they're nicely pocket-sized and challenging without being unrealistically hard.

Anyway, the thing is, these problems are causing me to try hard to refute possible solutions. In other words, when I see a good-looking move, I look for ways to reply. Sometimes the solution turns out to be a less obvious move, but one that prepares the obvious solution or defuses the resistance to it.

Going further, I suppose one reason for getting stuck at one reading level is that the popular books (the James Davies ones and the 501 and 1001 ones) don't so much require that you go further in your analyses. They teach you to find good moves, for sure, but they don't get you past that level. Therefore, you have to step up to more and more difficult collections as you find them, in order to develop your thinking processes.

Anyway, getting back ON THREAD in my last couple of posts, I was trying to say that I'm losing a little faith in the idea of improving through accumulation of knowledge. Of course knowledge is important, but I get the nagging feeling that strength is based primarily on understanding, on principle. How else could it be that some people get really strong quickly, while others toil for incremental gains?

Further, I get the feeling that the key ideas to building a really powerful game are honte and mamori (as in, when you have a strong position, the tactical shots will come like magic).

Could it be that there is an easy way to get stronger, but that most people choose the hard ways? What say ye to that?

If it were easy to get strong, would you still want to do it? To me, one of the appeals of getting strong is that it is challenging.

For example, at 1k, you are already stronger than some players. So in a sense, you can say that you "are already strong". But there are many that are stronger than you (so you are also "weak" in addition to being "strong"). I think the challenge of trying to improve against those opponents is what makes go interesting. It's what gives you a challenge.

Kirby wrote:If it were easy to get strong, would you still want to do it? To me, one of the appeals of getting strong is that it is challenging. For example, at 1k, you are already stronger than some players. So in a sense, you can say that you "are already strong". But there are many that are stronger than you (so you are also "weak" in addition to being "strong"). I think the challenge of trying to improve against those opponents is what makes go interesting. It's what gives you a challenge.

Don't you agree that go is challenging at any level?

I'm not strong. I think I am very weak, and I don't like being weak. I'm already doing the hard work (the study, the tsumego, the reviews); but I have the inescapable feeling that I'm missing something obvious,　which would, if only I could grasp it, help me to improve much faster.

The whole point of this thread is that there appear to be two main components of a player's strength (setting aside metago, i.e., gamesmanship, personality, maturity, for now). These are knowledge of specific things, such as joseki and L&D patterns, and understanding of the principles of strong play. I have really been trying to find out how strong players feel that these two components fit together for them - who thinks they are strong because they have mastered some concepts? who thinks they are strong because they know how to read several thousand L&D patterns?

At the same time, I've been aware of a change in my own thinking - I'm starting to think principles have a deeper value than most people credit them with.

And quite possibly it's a 50-50 relationship. For example, we are advised to "defend before attacking" and "if we have a weak area, to defend it". That's principle, but in the last couple of games I have played, I have lost because I didn't know what was weak and strong - and that's where better reading, L&D and knowledge would come in useful.

Could it be that people, strong and weak alike, have the tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater? (For non-native English speakers, that means to overcorrect, to erase the right answers as well as the wrong ones.) We get stronger by learning principles, but then we forget them and rely on our knowledge? We get stronger by learning knowledge, and that knowledge deepens our grasp of principles, and we let go of the knowledge and sometimes regret it? Could it be that knowledge informs understanding, and understanding informs knowledge, and that we should strive for both equally at all times?

Tami wrote:I have the inescapable feeling that I'm missing something obvious

You have already read it: Overcome your weaknesses!

which would, if only I could grasp it, help me to improve much faster.

If you can't identify them by yourself, take lessons from me!

We get stronger by learning principles, but then we forget them

Principles are there to remembered and applied - not to be forgotten. There are stronger principles though that sometimes require replacement or adjustment of weaker principles. E.g., "Exceptions to other principles could occur." is a stronger principle, which does not deny weaker principles but reminds us to expect also exceptions.

We get stronger by learning knowledge, and that knowledge deepens our grasp of principles, and we let go of the knowledge and sometimes regret it?

Principles and other knowledge bits are not enemies. Rather wrong principles are the enemy of right principles and wrong knowledge is the enemy of right knowledge. Principles are an efficient substitute for many knowledge bits of the same type.