Life In 19x19

Calvin Clark wrote:There is a large gap between what is possible and what actually happens.

I recommend looking at EdLee's classic thread So.

Not sure this is relevant.

The thread tries to illuminate the difference between intent (or hope) and final result.
Or so I tihink, since Ed never realy explained what the heck he was trying to say there.

Hope and intent might or might not be related to what's actually possible. I would rather say - it is not, in those particular cases.

Bill Spight wrote:It is possible to develop savant like capabilities, even without brain damage. (Not that I know how to do it! )

If you have access to academic publications, you could read An Exceptional Talent for Calculative Thinking. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract. I read it almost a decade ago, and recall it as a fascinating description of the thought processes of a mathematician who was also an very good mental calculator. It goes into great depth into how he calculates particular answers, and he also describes his history. There is also a freely available speech by him: http://stepanov.lk.net/mnemo/aitkene.html.

The relevant point for the present discussion is that while he says most calculators were prodigies, he did not develop his abilities until well into his teens.

hyperpape wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:It is possible to develop savant like capabilities, even without brain damage. (Not that I know how to do it! )

If you have access to academic publications, you could read An Exceptional Talent for Calculative Thinking. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract. I read it almost a decade ago, and recall it as a fascinating description of the thought processes of a mathematician who was also an very good mental calculator. It goes into great depth into how he calculates particular answers, and he also describes his history. There is also a freely available speech by him: http://stepanov.lk.net/mnemo/aitkene.html.

The relevant point for the present discussion is that while he says most calculators were prodigies, he did not develop his abilities until well into his teens.

Many thanks, hyperpape!

If you train 2h every day and if you have a strong teacher I think you can make it to 4D-KGS, no matter what. 5D I am not so sure, 6D needs special talent, no matter how hard you practise.

"Strong Teacher" is the important part

interesting article about why adult chess players fail to improve. I'm sure quite transferable to go players as well.
http://www.thechessworld.com/learn-ches ... e-at-chess

xed_over wrote:interesting article about why adult chess players fail to improve. I'm sure quite transferable to go players as well.
http://www.thechessworld.com/learn-ches ... e-at-chess

Holy crap, almost all of those apply to me! Especially the late game collapses due to mental stamina. What a painful article.

I will focus on visualization and physical fitness first. That should give me the confidence to overcome most of the others.

In all honesty, the fitness part is mostly for other reasons, like wanting to be able to enjoy life in my 50's, 60's, 70's, and beyond. But if it helps my go, all the better.

At a certain point, 2 hours a day becomes the most significant part. Motivation to get two hours is one issue, but at a certain point it's about whether it's even a possibility.

As my life stands, 2 hours a day is just barely possible if go is my absolute #1 priority short of neglecting my wife/kids. To get 2 hours a day, I'd have to spend my entire lunch break studying, and use the weekends to make up for the days I don't make 2 hours during the week.

Things would be different if I didn't need to average 8 hours of sleep, or if my kids and I didn't each take > 30 minutes to fall asleep.