Life In 19x19

Magicwand continues off-topic discussion. His message is repeated here:

Magicwand wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:

oren wrote:RJ asserted facts from a book about Cosmic Go that he could not understand.

1) Two books.

2) Do not make arbitrary claims about what I understand.

3) tchan001, continued OT discussion in a new thread is a good idea.

1) a book two book same difference.
2) it is not arbitary but based on you skill which direct reflect your knowledge of go.
3) everything you post on L19 is an advertisment of your worthless books. it is not a discussion.

lol - what more is there to say?

Magicwand wrote:1) a book two book same difference.

"one book" is falsehood. "two books" is truth. If you do not distinguish between falsehood and truth, that is your choice. I do distinguish between them.

2) it is not arbitary but based on you skill which direct reflect your knowledge of go.

oren's statement "RJ asserted facts from a book about Cosmic Go that he could not understand." is an arbitrary guess about what my understanding is. The understanding I got from reading the diagrams of the two books by Takemiya about (also) his cosmic go. oren cannot know what my related understanding is because he does not have reading access to my mind. oren can only guess what my understanding is. Contrarily, I know what my related understanding is because I - surprise, surprise - do have reading access to my own related understanding.

My skill (strength of go playing measured by winning) does NOT directly reflect my go theory knowledge. I wish it did directly reflect it; I would be much stronger. However, skill involves more than only knowledge. Would you not agree on that? APPLICATION OF knowledge can require also reading, thinking speed etc. My reading skill and my thinking speed skill do not equal my amount and quality of go theory knowledge.

3) everything you post on L19 is an advertisment of your worthless books. it is not a discussion.

Everything you post on L19 is advertisment for my books being worthless. It is not a discussion.;)

RobertJasiek wrote:
Everything you post on L19 is advertisment for my books being worthless. It is not a discussion.

Apparently you don't read his malkovitch posts - too bad!

Perhaps to take this discussion into a more constructive area (or not, we'll see) ...

I am surprised at how staunch Robert is in his disdain for the term "intuition" and the application of such an idea to the playing of go, even going so far as to equate it (however tentatively) with laziness and an unwillingness to read (forgive me if I'm misrepresenting your position, Robert, but this is what I've gotten from a few of your posts).

There is some truth in your claim of "laziness masked as 'intuition'", at least in my case. I play this game for fun and to relax my mind while still exercising it gently, like taking a nice long walk along a wooded path in the early autumn, when the temperature and the wind are pleasant but neither hot nor cold. I'd get more exercise and become stronger and faster if I decided to jog the path instead of walking, but I'm enjoying the scenery and the experience of just being in this place at this time. Similarly, with go I'm enjoying the experience of the game in front of me, letting my mind wander around the board and playing with the shapes I find.

If the entirety of go is that wooded area I'm walking in, the wooded area is a vast place indeed. I could examine the trees, listen to the natural sounds around me, categorize everything. Some people enjoy that; some even challenge themselves to be able to find their way in as many areas of the woods as possible using the details of what they know to deduce where they should direct their steps next.

Instead, though, I find the meandering path I walk in the woods to be much more pleasant for me. Some details stick in my mind as I pass them by ... a particular tree might stick out as a landmark that I might come across again in my wanderings, as an example ... but the overall goal is not to understand the woods, it's to enjoy the walk.

If I walk the woods enough, I do become familiar with them, slowly. It may not be as "efficient" as careful study and planning, but that's not the beauty I'm looking for here (Note: I do not deny the beauty of mathematics, as it applies to go or otherwise. I don't play go for the math, though).

I just thought you might appreciate a perspective from one of us "intuitive" players. I don't claim to represent all (or even most) of them, but I know I'm not alone in my quest to enjoy the game in front of me, regardless of strength. This isn't always how I've seen it, but as I've mellowed and changed I've found that this perspective leaves behind the obsession with rank I've had previously, anxiety over lost (and won!) games, guilt over studying, and numerous other stresses that I just can't find the time to care about in my busy life.

Back to my wandering, thanks for reading!

Marcus wrote:"intuition" [...] even going so far as to equate it (however tentatively) with laziness and an unwillingness to read (forgive me if I'm misrepresenting your position, Robert,

My position is: intuition does not exist. I prefer to talk about "subconscious thinking", because this phrase does not make presuppositions of the kind the word intuition is too often associated with.

I just thought you might appreciate a perspective from one of us "intuitive" players.

I appreciate it as from an often subconsciously thinking player:)

Marcus wrote:Perhaps to take this discussion into a more constructive area (or not, we'll see)

...

Back to my wandering, thanks for reading!

What about our game?!?

Oh btw, you have a very comfortable style of writing, I really like it, so I liked it.

Quotation reference:

viewtopic.php?p=120999#p120999

oren wrote:Would you feel better if I'd have said you didn't understand the language of the text?

Much better. It would be (almost) the truth instead of falsehood.

RobertJasiek wrote:
Much better. It would be (almost) the truth instead of falsehood.

Most people aren't quite as pedantic as you are and would know this is equivalent.

Starting Having a conversation (discussion, debate) with Robert may not ever end seems it does not end.

lovelove wrote:

Marcus wrote:Perhaps to take this discussion into a more constructive area (or not, we'll see)

...

Back to my wandering, thanks for reading!

What about our game?!?

Oh btw, you have a very comfortable style of writing, I really like it, so I liked it.

Let me check, but I was sure I posted my move a few days ago ...

EDIT: GAH! I missed YOUR last move! How did that happen? Going over there now.

oren wrote:Most people [...] would know this is equivalent.

I would not make the guess that most people would repeat your extraordinarily great mistake of equating "no knowledge gained from diagrams and text" and "no knowledge gained from text".

RobertJasiek wrote:I would not make the guess that most people would repeat your extraordinarily great mistake of equating "no knowledge gained from diagrams and text" and "no knowledge gained from text".

Or your mistake of "understanding a book" when you can not follow any of the text. You really have a lot to learn, Robert.

oren wrote:your mistake of "understanding a book" when you can not follow any of the text.

I wrote:

viewtopic.php?p=120875#p120875

"I could, of course, read the diagrams and move number / diagram number related references to diagrams (such as move sequences in the text)."

You write:

"your mistake of 'understanding a book' when you can not follow any of the text."

Explanation:

What you perceive as my mistake is my ability to read the diagrams and learn from them. What you perceive as my understanding of a book (mainly) is my understanding of its diagrams.

You really have a lot to learn, Robert.

Therefore I continue to make what you perceive as my mistake: I continue to learn from diagrams also when I cannot read the text around the diagrams.