Life In 19x19

I found this article about the differences between basics and fundamentals on a martial arts website. I could care less about martial arts, but the writing to distinguish between the two concepts basics and fundamentals was particularly elegant, and in fact rang very true to my experience in various pedagogical relationships, including Go, especially the the part about how it is possible to teach basics without teaching fundamentals.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/ba ... mental.htm

Using the words 'basic' and 'fundamental' as they're used in the article:

When I teach, I knowingly teach basics without really trying to teach fundamentals. I do this because I feel like teaching fundamentals is just saying empty words - to learn the fundamentals, you really have to learn to feel them. I didn't understand 'hane at the head of two stones' until I was 1-2d, because even though I knew the words, I couldn't feel how much it hurts to get hane'd. There are plenty of other things like that for me. I wonder if it would be better to note the existence of the fundamentals, but not mention them.

It's interesting that you think of it that way, Shaddy. I think of it the other way - basics are the sorts of things that it doesn't make much sense to talk about. Telling people to "pull out of atari" but also "don't save junk stones" is useless - when you start playing you don't mean to let your stones be captured, and you don't mean to save pointless groups, it just happens to you because you have no idea what's going on. By the time you are aware of which groups are in atari (or could be in atari soon), you don't need anyone to tell you that it's often a good idea to pull out of atari. That's basic. I think this is the gist of the advice "lose fifty games quickly" or "don't worry about reviewing/books/theory until you've played more games" - you need to identify the basics with 90% practical experience and 10% light guidance from your sparring partners.

With fundamentals, meanwhile, I feel like it makes sense to (a) have a name for the fundamental and be aware of it, and (b) try to follow it even when you aren't getting an instinctive feel for that point. If I veto my own dubious judgment and follow fundamental concepts, I will get with, for example, hane at the head of two stones, and what possibilities it offers both for attack and for defense. The more I inject fundamentals into my games, the better I will grasp them.

Shaddy wrote:
I didn't understand 'hane at the head of two stones' until I was 1-2d

Great, I thought I was/am the only one. I still do i, because you read it so much, but honestly the move doesn't feel too impactful to me.


Well the article gave a definition, but I'm not sure if that translates to go very well. Maybe I got this wrong, but the basics in go are rather simple and intuitive, but the fundamentals give me a lot of trouble. I know that I should make as much territory as possible(basic) but that is clear from the ruleset, the way how I do it, influence, making live groups, ...(fundamentals) are the kind of stuff that I don't know how to do.

jts:

I essentially think of basics as 'what to do', and fundamentals as 'why do that', so some pretty complicated things like direction of play and joseki choice get swept up into basics. With regards to having a name for fundamentals, I think that if you have an idea and give it a name and do it without understanding (the goal being to understand it), that is doing the basics. If you have an idea and understand it, so you know when to obey and when to subvert it - that's the fundamentals.

Does that make sense?

Shaddy wrote:I essentially think of basics as 'what to do', and fundamentals as 'why do that', so some pretty complicated things like direction of play and joseki choice get swept up into basics.

Perhaps along those lines, I think of the snapback as a basic tesuji, and the rule of capture as fundamental. I also think of a throw-in to take away a liberty (dame) as a fundamental idea, which the snapback exemplifies.

I also think that a lot of things that are called basics aren't very basic.

Shaddy wrote:jts:

I essentially think of basics as 'what to do', and fundamentals as 'why do that', so some pretty complicated things like direction of play and joseki choice get swept up into basics. With regards to having a name for fundamentals, I think that if you have an idea and give it a name and do it without understanding (the goal being to understand it), that is doing the basics. If you have an idea and understand it, so you know when to obey and when to subvert it - that's the fundamentals.

Does that make sense?

To a certain extent that makes sense - although maybe we would be more on point with more examples. To the extent that this is a helpful distinction to me, I think of both basics and fundamentals as elements of good play, but as different sorts of elements. Some basics: don't play out sequences that don't work, pull out of atari, reply to contact moves, ignore junk stones, capture cutting stones, know the life and death status of your groups, don't keep playing if it doesn't affect the status of a group/capturing race... these are basic ideas that no one would mention as things that differentiate pros from amateurs, but nonetheless new players need a decent amount of experience to wrap their heads around them. And it's hard to distinguish between knowing what to do and knowing why to do it - it's almost too basic for that. (This is why we find that it is almost impossible to teach people the basics, or lecture them into following them, and yet invariably people acquire them in their first few months playing. The basics are also connected to very low-level go skills like reading two moves ahead, identifying connected chains that share liberty, and so on.)

Fundamentals: I would include things like hane at the head, death in the hane, know the balance of territory, emphasize the corners, attack indirectly, avoid broken shape, etc., as "fundamentals". These are fundamentals in the sense that if a kyu asks himself, "would counting be a good idea right now?" or "should I hane at the head of two stones?" he may well be more accurate if he just says "yes!" rather than obeying his own instincts. If I show someone hane at the head of two stones, mention a few reasons why it is powerful, show a few variations in which it is powerful, offer a few joseki or problems in which those variations are put to use, I would say he knows what the fundamental is. (Although it seems you would prefer to say that he "understands the basics".) As I find myself in more and more games where my opponent has lousy shape, or I can come up with a sensible strategy because I know the score, I get practical experience with the consequences of the fundamentals, and a sort of aesthetic instinct for them. If, as I get stronger, I'm no longer applying the fundamentals as a conscious rule-of-thumb (overriding my own instincts) but as a habit and as a part of an over-all plan, I would say I am growing to appreciate, or comprehend, or conceptualize the fundamentals.

Shaddy wrote:jts:

I essentially think of basics as 'what to do', and fundamentals as 'why do that', so some pretty complicated things like direction of play and joseki choice get swept up into basics. With regards to having a name for fundamentals, I think that if you have an idea and give it a name and do it without understanding (the goal being to understand it), that is doing the basics. If you have an idea and understand it, so you know when to obey and when to subvert it - that's the fundamentals.

Does that make sense?

No, actually it doesn't, its almost as if you didn't read the article at all.

How do you understand it?

Shaddy wrote:How do you understand it?

As was discussed in the article. Basics are pedagogical tools that ideally teach fundamentals, however aren't necessarily supported by any fundamentals.

SmoothOper wrote:No, actually it doesn't, its almost as if you didn't read the article at all.

What if you don't agree with the article?

Here's my take:

I would call this a basic:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . . X . .
$$ . . X . W .
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . .[/go]

the key point is marked (plus the 3 symmetrical points to it)

A beginner can improve his go just using that as a heuristic. If the point is already occupied, try to avoid making the diagonal. If you have a chance to occupy this point, it's probably a good thing. Some players, in particular very quick playing ones, seem to progress quite far by just accurately learning heuristic values for shapes. That's basics without fundamentals.

The fundamentals would be 'why?', things like: one tiger mouth is impossible and another is pre-peeped. That means the shape has less development potential than otherwise.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . . X . .
$$ . . X . W .
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . X . . .[/go]

Or that this likely extension would normally be impossible to cut, but the white stone is now perfectly located to create the cut.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . . X . .
$$ . . X 5 O .
$$ . 3 1 2 . .
$$ . . X 4 . .[/go]

A point of that article was that you can always improve the fundamentals. What I've written so far doesn't do a modicum of justice to the considerations of the marked spot. Consider just the cut of the extension: What surrounding stones matter for a peep cut, for a jump into the center cut? Which more advanced shapes actually come down to an application of this shape? What alternatives should be considered? etc. etc. Thinking about the lost tiger mouth is a good start, but can you accurately assess the local impact of it?

As I learn more fundamentals, I see more of a position. The directions I choose to read out are more plausible and important. Previously unlikely moves become clear candidates, and things I'd have played unquestioning now strike fear into my heart. I can continue to deepen my appreciation for the possibilities of the opening diagram through my whole life.

That there is such thing as a leaning attack, that you need to watch your connections, standard reduction sequences: These all have an element of the 'basics', that you can explain them, give some quick examples, and help a beginner. They are also fundamentals, in that we'll never master all the nuances and possibilities in a leaning attack.

SmoothOper wrote:

Shaddy wrote:How do you understand it?

As was discussed in the article. Basics are pedagogical tools that ideally teach fundamentals, however aren't necessarily supported by any fundamentals.

I feel like I'm misunderstanding something here. The article goes on for quite a while about how a punch which is unsupported by good punching technique (which is referred to as fundamental) is useless.

Polama wrote:Here's my take:

I would call this a basic:

$$B
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . . X . .
$$ . . X . W .
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . . X . .
$$ . . X . W .
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . .[/go]

the key point is marked (plus the 3 symmetrical points to it)

Why isn't it a silly move?

This article makes me think primarily of the way in which players build and use thickness.

Basics: Make a wall and an extension, and if they invade, push them against that wall for fun and profit

Fundamentals: How did you build that wall? What are its defects? Which attacks can it support? If they pressure that wall, how will you keep the invasions in mind? Can the wall be fixed if it has weaknesses? Is the timing right for that kind of a fix? Can I induce a fight which will allow me to fix with good timing?