Life In 19x19

wine&go, would you say that the muscles on your face and neck are tensed when intense concentration leads to these headaches?

Depending on how severe and frequent the headaches are, you might want to talk to your doctor. The worst-case scenario is that you have an unruptured aneurysm that comes under stress when your blood pressure rises. The best-case scenario is that these headaches are completely harmless and your doctor can prescribe a pill to prevent them. (Sorry if this isn't quite as satisfying as becoming one with your go!)

jts wrote:wine&go, would you say that the muscles on your face and neck are tensed when intense concentration leads to these headaches?

Depending on how severe and frequent the headaches are, you might want to talk to your doctor. The worst-case scenario is that you have an unruptured aneurysm that comes under stress when your blood pressure rises. The best-case scenario is that these headaches are completely harmless and your doctor can prescribe a pill to prevent them. (Sorry if this isn't quite as satisfying as becoming one with your go!)

Should be in Breathing?

ez4u wrote:

jts wrote:wine&go, would you say that the muscles on your face and neck are tensed when intense concentration leads to these headaches?

Depending on how severe and frequent the headaches are, you might want to talk to your doctor. The worst-case scenario is that you have an unruptured aneurysm that comes under stress when your blood pressure rises. The best-case scenario is that these headaches are completely harmless and your doctor can prescribe a pill to prevent them. (Sorry if this isn't quite as satisfying as becoming one with your go!)

Should be in Breathing?

I replied there, anyway. Thanks to jts and ez4u.

John Fairbairn wrote: I reviewed the book somewhere else on L19.

Thanks, I'll have to add this to my list to check out sometime.

John Fairbairn wrote: I reviewed the book somewhere else on L19.

Here is a list I've been keeping of book reviews that have appeared here on L19.

John's review of Cho's book can be found here.

John Fairbairn wrote:

What book is this? I can't find any recent books by Cho Chikun. Maybe a 2005 Mycom book?

Yes it's the 2005 book, but we are from different planets if you don't regard that as recent. After all, how old is go?

I reviewed the book somewhere else on L19.

Indeed. Some of us glide effortlessly between the worlds of 'Gateway to All Marvels', 'Inoue Genan Inseki', and 'The Life of Honinbo Shuei'. The rest of us are too busy complaining about our beer going flat in fifteen minutes.

I've discovered that I'm not the first to describe the "professional advice" method. In 2008, Milton Bradley (the go player and author) wrote a book called "Improve Fast in Go" in which he claims that after stagnating around 1d for 20 years, he discovered techniques which at age 83 enabled him to improve at least two stones. He reserves the very end of the epilogue of his book to divulge his secret:

"...in order to really profit from your watching it must be an active rather than a merely passive experience!
What this means is that move-by-move you must mentally assume the role of each player in turn, evaluating the whole board situation, performing your own SWOT Analysis, and deciding on what you believe should be the best next move. Then as the player actually makes his move you must compare that with your own idea, and, in the many cases in which they differ, try to figure out why the move actually played was preferable to your own choice."

In the last sentence of the book, he writes: "If ever there was a “royal road” to Go mastery, this is it! And it’s fun as well - “the best of all possible worlds”.

Contrary to what I have read elsewhere, this book is still available on the net here.

I am still continuing with this method - almost exclusively - and like Bradley, I am no longer using my age as an excuse for not improving - because I am.

daal wrote:"...in order to really profit from your watching it must be an active rather than a merely passive experience!
What this means is that move-by-move you must mentally assume the role of each player in turn, evaluating the whole board situation, performing your own SWOT Analysis, and deciding on what you believe should be the best next move. Then as the player actually makes his move you must compare that with your own idea, and, in the many cases in which they differ, try to figure out why the move actually played was preferable to your own choice."

Very good advice, I think.

As a sidenote - I always wondered about the very last part: 'the move actually played was preferable to your own choice.' How do we know that? In particular, how do we now that some other pro would not play the move you picked rather than the one from the game? It might even be that the move you picked is *better* that the move in the game. I admit - the possibility of either scenario is not 100% (heh) but given any particular move, how can we be sure?

Because if so happens that our move is as good or better than the game move, aren't we really harming ourselves by rejecting it or trying to figure out why it is bad?

I am asking because it happened a few times to me. I was replaying a game, i picked a move, and the pro in game made a different one. Then some time later I found a game in which another pro would make *my* move in the same position. Granted - it did not happen a lot (actually, very seldom) and usually in the early stages of the game - but it did happen enough to make me wonder about it.

Another problem here is that the game move, even if objectively better, might not be suitable to your level of play - for example the quality of it depends on a continuation which you cannot possibly be expected to come up with. The move you pick, even if objectively inferior, might be much more suitable to your level of play, and give you much better results. Good (but extreme) example here are some complex josekis - even if pros play them in certain positions, for a beginner it might be better to stick to simpler choices, even if these choices might be objectively inferior.

So, when there are no obvious reasons why your move is worse than the pro's, what to do? I think a better approach is this:
Be clear about the idea behind your move. Then figure out the idea behind the move in game. Compare both ideas, and unless you see some clear reasons why one is better than the other, file them *both* away for future use. Most likely - one will stand the test of time as you grow stronger, and one will not. But it might be that both will.

Of course, it is impractical to do it with every move, so just maybe do it with moves which surprise you, or which you like, or whatever.

Bantari wrote: As a sidenote - I always wondered about the very last part: *snip*

Another problem here is that the game move, even if *snip*

I think a better approach is this:
Be clear about the idea behind your move. Then figure out the idea behind the move in game. Compare both ideas, and unless you see some clear reasons why one is better than the other, file them *both* away for future use. Most likely - one will stand the test of time as you grow stronger, and one will not. But it might be that both will.

Of course, it is impractical to do it with every move, so just maybe do it with moves which surprise you, or which you like, or whatever.

I think your better approach is exactly what MB is advising, you just missed his full meaning because he was succinct.

Bantari, if it is inconclusive at first glance whether your or the pro's (or very strong amateur's) move is better, but you can support your move with, what you believe is, good reading, go ahead and demonstrate your superior reading! At times it works, and the professional praises you.

Drew wrote:

Bantari wrote: As a sidenote - I always wondered about the very last part: *snip*

Another problem here is that the game move, even if *snip*

I think a better approach is this:
Be clear about the idea behind your move. Then figure out the idea behind the move in game. Compare both ideas, and unless you see some clear reasons why one is better than the other, file them *both* away for future use. Most likely - one will stand the test of time as you grow stronger, and one will not. But it might be that both will.

Of course, it is impractical to do it with every move, so just maybe do it with moves which surprise you, or which you like, or whatever.

I think your better approach is exactly what MB is advising, you just missed his full meaning because he was succinct.

He says: why the move actually played was preferable to your own choice. To me this implies the assumption that the move 'actually played' is preferable to 'your own choice'. From many many discussions with Milton I have had (I assume it is the same Milton Bradley) - this seems to be something he would think and say.

But regardless - be it as it may - my main thought is: can we always assume that, given a discrepancy, the pro's pick is always better than our own?
I have been actually wondering about this ever since I've read the 'Dramatic Moments at Go Board' - the chapters about pros totally disagreeing about where to play next in a position, and each being very certain that his way is absolutely right and best and the only one - at least from the implied tone in the book.

So it really does not have much to do with Milton himself, other than it was his words that sparked this particular thought in my head again this time.

Bantari wrote:can we always assume that, given a discrepancy, the pro's pick is always better than our own?

No, not even if two pros play discussion go against an amateur. There are so many fields of go knowledge that an amateur can infrequently beat pros in a usual game / game position. (E.g., I once beat two 8p discussing a middle game position against me. The field of go knowledge was: using a center moyo to kill a group.)

Bantari wrote:As a sidenote - I always wondered about the very last part: 'the move actually played was preferable to your own choice.' How do we know that? In particular, how do we now that some other pro would not play the move you picked rather than the one from the game? It might even be that the move you picked is *better* that the move in the game. I admit - the possibility of either scenario is not 100% (heh) but given any particular move, how can we be sure?

We don't need to be sure. When I'm replaying Cho Chikun's game then Cho Chikun is my teacher, and in that moment it's irrelevant what Yi Se-tol might have to say about it, because he's not doing the correcting.

As to whether my move might be better - I'd say the chances are pretty slim, but it's also irrelevant in my eyes. If Cho said that this move was the one to make, my job is to think about its merits. This isn't about rejecting my ideas, but rather about assimilating new ones.

Another problem here is that the game move, even if objectively better, might not be suitable to your level of play - for example the quality of it depends on a continuation which you cannot possibly be expected to come up with. The move you pick, even if objectively inferior, might be much more suitable to your level of play, and give you much better results. Good (but extreme) example here are some complex josekis - even if pros play them in certain positions, for a beginner it might be better to stick to simpler choices, even if these choices might be objectively inferior.

In his book, Bradley suggests starting not with pro games, but with the games of amateurs an handful of stones stronger, because the likelihood of understanding the moves might be greater. I personally am not concerned if I don't understand a move. Chances are, that as the game progresses, the meaning of the move will become more apparent. Also, I'm not looking at games to copy the moves, so it's not like I'm trying to learn the josekis I see. My focus is more about the pro's attitude when facing certain challenges.

So, when there are no obvious reasons why your move is worse than the pro's, what to do? I think a better approach is this:
Be clear about the idea behind your move. Then figure out the idea behind the move in game. Compare both ideas, and unless you see some clear reasons why one is better than the other, file them *both* away for future use. Most likely - one will stand the test of time as you grow stronger, and one will not. But it might be that both will.

I am fairly sure that much of my go is a collection of bad habits. If I don't see why my move is worse, I am pretty sure that in most cases I'm missing something, and the few instances where this is not the case don't carry much weight. I don't feel that I have to file my ideas - they are already in my head anyway.

I just spent half an hour looking for one of your posts, only to find that it wasn't you who wrote it, but rather Shapenaji, whom for some reason I often get you mixed up with. (damn virtual people) Whatever - I'll talk about it anyway.

About half a year ago, he wrote: People who get stuck before 1d are often lacking in a healthy fearlessness. It seemed to me fairly likely that he had described a big aspect of what was keeping me back, but I had no idea how to correct it. I found it extremely difficult to distinguish between brave and foolhardy, and I couldn't bring myself to be seriously foolhardy. But it's changed. Despite not being able to read out what pros are doing, I've come to realize both the necessity and the normality of taking risks in a game. I've learned, and have become comfortable with the fact, that the proper approach in many many situations is not to be satisfied with what's put on one's plate, but rather to ask for a little bit more. If the opponent says no, then I have to be willing to try to take it. In go this is good style, and seeing how pros do it again and again with elan and audacity has made me willing to step over my shadow and try to do the same.

daal wrote:

Bantari wrote:As a sidenote - I always wondered about the very last part: 'the move actually played was preferable to your own choice.' How do we know that? In particular, how do we now that some other pro would not play the move you picked rather than the one from the game? It might even be that the move you picked is *better* that the move in the game. I admit - the possibility of either scenario is not 100% (heh) but given any particular move, how can we be sure?

We don't need to be sure. When I'm replaying Cho Chikun's game then Cho Chikun is my teacher, and in that moment it's irrelevant what Yi Se-tol might have to say about it, because he's not doing the correcting.

I guess we all have our preferences.
Personally, when I reply a game of 'anybody' I try to figure out the ideas and decide if I like them or not. If I don't, I don't care if the game is by Cho or by a SDK player - I just don't like the idea. To me, its not about parroting the moves or ideas of a particular player but about getting to the bottom of how *I* would play in this position and why. Not sure if this is the function of skill or just a quirk I seem to have.

Anyways - in this sense it is not important to me who is the 'teacher' - I don't replay the game to benefit *him* but to benefit *me*, and so I have to take what's best for me, not necessarily what he came up with just because he came up with it.

Still, I see your point.
I guess most people think like you do.
This is why I threw the idea out there so people think about it. Not looking to change anybody's worldview.

As to whether my move might be better - I'd say the chances are pretty slim, but it's also irrelevant in my eyes. If Cho said that this move was the one to make, my job is to think about its merits. This isn't about rejecting my ideas, but rather about assimilating new ones.

I fully agree with that. And my issue was not with not assimilating ideas - it was about rejecting them.
So we agree here: assimilating = good, while rejecting = bad.

Another problem here is that the game move, even if objectively better, might not be suitable to your level of play - for example the quality of it depends on a continuation which you cannot possibly be expected to come up with. The move you pick, even if objectively inferior, might be much more suitable to your level of play, and give you much better results. Good (but extreme) example here are some complex josekis - even if pros play them in certain positions, for a beginner it might be better to stick to simpler choices, even if these choices might be objectively inferior.

In his book, Bradley suggests starting not with pro games, but with the games of amateurs an handful of stones stronger, because the likelihood of understanding the moves might be greater. I personally am not concerned if I don't understand a move. Chances are, that as the game progresses, the meaning of the move will become more apparent. Also, I'm not looking at games to copy the moves, so it's not like I'm trying to learn the josekis I see. My focus is more about the pro's attitude when facing certain challenges.

So, when there are no obvious reasons why your move is worse than the pro's, what to do? I think a better approach is this:
Be clear about the idea behind your move. Then figure out the idea behind the move in game. Compare both ideas, and unless you see some clear reasons why one is better than the other, file them *both* away for future use. Most likely - one will stand the test of time as you grow stronger, and one will not. But it might be that both will.

I am fairly sure that much of my go is a collection of bad habits. If I don't see why my move is worse, I am pretty sure that in most cases I'm missing something, and the few instances where this is not the case don't carry much weight. I don't feel that I have to file my ideas - they are already in my head anyway.

Not if, as implied, you reject them as being inferior to the pro's ideas.

I just spent half an hour looking for one of your posts, only to find that it wasn't you who wrote it, but rather Shapenaji, whom for some reason I often get you mixed up with. (damn virtual people)

1. I assure you - I am not virtual. Flesh and bone here. How about you? I don't think I am damned neither... at least not yet. But thanks for caring.

2. It seems you went out of your way to find something I might have said. This is nice of you and I certainly appreciate it. Even if your memory mislead you.

Whatever - I'll talk about it anyway.

About half a year ago, he wrote: People who get stuck before 1d are often lacking in a healthy fearlessness. It seemed to me fairly likely that he had described a big aspect of what was keeping me back, but I had no idea how to correct it. I found it extremely difficult to distinguish between brave and foolhardy, and I couldn't bring myself to be seriously foolhardy. But it's changed. Despite not being able to read out what pros are doing, I've come to realize both the necessity and the normality of taking risks in a game. I've learned, and have become comfortable with the fact, that the proper approach in many many situations is not to be satisfied with what's put on one's plate, but rather to ask for a little bit more. If the opponent says no, then I have to be willing to try to take it. In go this is good style, and seeing how pros do it again and again with elan and audacity has made me willing to step over my shadow and try to do the same.

Not sure what this all has to do what what I said. But since you have been so nice to me, I take it in good faith and assume it is relevant.
Thank you.

Bantari wrote: I guess we all have our preferences.
Personally, when I reply a game of 'anybody' I try to figure out the ideas and decide if I like them or not. If I don't, I don't care if the game is by Cho or by a SDK player - I just don't like the idea. To me, its not about parroting the moves or ideas of a particular player but about getting to the bottom of how *I* would play in this position and why. Not sure if this is the function of skill or just a quirk I seem to have.

I do have a minor objection to "parroting the moves," because although in practice that might be what I do, it's not my intent.

The idea behind this "professional advice" method is to imagine that you are playing, and a teacher is pointing out what he believes to be a better move. What a person does with this information and how they interpret it is up to them. If you are learning a subject open to interpretation, such as creative writing or perhaps go, and a teacher or mentor of yours whom you respect points out that they might try a different tack, it's not a matter of treating their word as gospel, but rather as a valuable perspective on a situation that they have experience with. I wouldn't want to write like my poetry teacher, but I expect that knowing how she would approach a situation will expand my repertoire.

... I don't feel that I have to file my ideas - they are already in my head anyway.

Not if, as implied, you reject them as being inferior to the pro's ideas.

This is a good point I suppose. In a game one is alone with one's ideas, and it's better to have some trust in them. What makes it difficult is the knowledge, in fact the certainty that in a majority of situations, the plan I have can be improved on. That may involve looking for a slightly better move, putting the plan on the back burner, or tossing it entirely. I don't think morphing into Cho Chikun is the answer (though I'd like his hair), but rather it's a matter of making better using of the knowledge I have. When I replay a game in this manner and the pro makes a different move than the one I chose, in many cases there is an element of the move that makes sense on my level - for example I might see that the pro's move is dual purpose and mine wasn't. It's not that I didn't know that a dual purpose move is better, it's that I didn't look for it, and seeing it done encourages me to activate my own knowledge.

1. I assure you - I am not virtual. Flesh and bone here. How about you? I don't think I am damned neither... at least not yet. But thanks for caring.

2. It seems you went out of your way to find something I might have said. This is nice of you and I certainly appreciate it. Even if your memory mislead you.

Nice to hear that you are not a cyborg, an despite appearances, I myself am not a talking painting. While words go a long way to indicate who we are, in the absence of human contact they tend to drift away from their writer and into the realm of ideas. I enjoy reading your posts, but sometimes without hearing a voice to tie them to a body your arguments and thoughts become...arguments and thoughts. Looking from this side of the screen, I can't really know that you are not Shapenaji. Then again, my mixup might just be a matter of onsetting senility. Greetings to you from across the data fog!