I'm not an expert on language development, but I know that my 3-year old learns some phrases by imitation, even when he doesn't know the meaning 100%.

_________________
be immersed

I seem to recall reading somewhere that babies even as early as in the womb are already "learning" the rhythm and stresses of the mom's language.
Of course, after they are born and can hear much better,
the theory is they still first learn the rhythm (and tones & streseses) of the language(s) spoken around them,
since it would take (much) longer for them to "understand" the meanings of the words.

( I don't have the citations ready; but this theory kind of makes sense to me, intuitively. )

So usually, the auditory and oral come first, before the reading and writing (visual) -- in language learning -- I think ?

Hi Tami,

I don't think this is really necessary to have everything you know flash in front of your eyes before each move. All one needs to do is have a very clear and precise reason for each move. It can be done, and I think this is how Robert thinks - although this is just a guess, of course.

However, most normal people think slightly differently, and there is usually some (or even a lot) of room for intuitive leaps and what we call "feeling".

It would take a lot of discipline for me to think like Robert, but I could do it if I tried - although it would make me weaker.

I think for Robert this is the "normal", to the point that he has hard time believing that such things like "intuition" even exists. My personal opinion is that his way of thinking is tremendously powerful and has great advantages in many situations. In some situations, however, it makes things harder. And it can mess up hopes of mutual understanding.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

That's a good point.

I think perhaps it would help if we were to make a distinction between

1) Naive reflexes - automatic responses to a situation that do not depend on prior study and experience
2) Acquired reflexes - automatic responses to a situation that are based on prior study and experiences
3) Reasoned responses - responses to a situation based on logical thought and conscious analysis; responses derived from principles

I suppose RJ believes he plays only by No. 3, and would hold that up to be the ideal. However, I think for most of us the process of choosing a move would involve a large degree of No. 2, in which moves come to us because we've seen a situation or one like it before and that's what we've learned to do, and perhaps an element of No. 1 as well, for instance, the naive instinct that beginners show to defend, defend, defend.

The OP asked "why are our instincts so bad?", but let me rephrase that as "why are our reflexes, both native and acquired, so bad?"

The answer is indeed, in my opinion, that we don't know enough theory and that what we do know is flawed or incomplete. The cure is to put in the effort of learning how to read tactics, judge positions, use aji, build reliable shapes, etc., so that both our acquired responses become better and our ability to reason out responses becomes better.

This would explain, also, why playing too many fast games and not reviewing them will prevent progress. The faster the game, the more you rely on No. 2, and if these acquired reflexes are not very good to begin with, then it certainly won't help if you don't subject them to scrutiny post-game.

On the other hand, unless you're playing in a two-day game with eight or nine hours thinking time each, you're unlikely to be able to play exclusively by No. 3. However, that said, perhaps playing more "correspondence" go is the way forward, because that gives the potential to apply maximum effortful consideration to each move, and that is a good thing.

I wanted to give examples, but I don't have time to make the diagram. So you'll have to imagine.

Example based on Kageyama's Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go - it's late in the game, and one chooses between capturing six stones in gote and playing the hane and connect on the second line.

Naive reflex - just take the stones because you can

Acquired reflex - take the hane and connect because that is said to be worth up to 15 points, while capturing six stones in atari is gote is worth 12 points

Reasoned response - bear in mind the acquired reflex, but take a good look at the position and ask if there may be a better move elsewhere or indeed whether, for instance, taking the six stones will have added value such as eliminating bad aji or setting up beneficial follow-up. Look for other factors in the position and make a judgement.

Eventually, with practice, one's acquired response to such a situation may become something like the reasoned response, with an accompanying improvement in playing strength.

_________________
Learn the "tea-stealing" tesuji! Cho Chikun demonstrates here:

I don't think I need to convince anyone except RJ that intuition plays an important part in go, and my view is that he just doesn't want to be convinced for reasons of self-esteem or whatever. But to keep the pot bubbling here's an example.

It's a position from a new book that I've recently mentioned in another thread. Marcel mentioned that he'd looked at the book earlier and decided it was too kyu-ish for him, and looking at this position, which is typical of the book, you can see why. But what intrigued me about it was that I had no idea where Black should play now. In fact, you are seeing the hard version. I was looking at the easy version where author Kim Sujun presented two options to choose from. Even then I had no idea why one was better than the author. Of course I could rattle off a long list of factors that would influence an evaluation, and I could even rank many of them hierarchically. On top of that, I knew the book was about surrounding territory, so I had a billboard-sized helping of help! (And now you have it, too - and it's not a trick question.)



But my intuition told me there was something strange about this position, and - that's the point about intuition - I couldn't at that instant tell you why. As you can see, no dense reading will be involved, there are no dead groups or empty triangles. So where's the difficulty? Since this, too, was typical of the other positions I looked at when first riffling through the book, that was why I said most of this was knew to me. Although the penny dropped later, that assessment is still valid enough to make the book very interesting for me.

Before I continue, it would be good if you chose your own move here and decided which factor(s) dominated in your thinking. It would be fascinating if you shared your ideas here, too.

What I discovered once I got down to reading the text was this was an amateur game. That was my penny-dropping moment. That was when I realised why I was having trouble with this game, but it still didn't help me find the answer.

The explanation for my enlightenment is that I have transcribed thousands of games. Mark Hall transcribed much more. We both found (as have others who have transcribed many games) that practice makes perfect and we could normally build up a decent speed. Mark could do most games in about 20 minutes. I would take more like 30-40 minutes (and fall asleep after the first one - Mark would do five before breakfast, just to get warmed up!)

But what we also found was that, when we did a game that included one or two amateurs - even good ones, e.g. at the World Ama - our speed fell dramatically. Close to double the time was needed. We talked about this many times and were quite clear about the explanation. When doing a pro game we had a reliable intuitive feel for where the next move would be. That meant finding the move on a dense diagram was not specially hard - we knew where to focus. The only real problems came when ko threats were scattered round the board (or, of course, as quite often happens, if moves are missing from the printed source). In amateur games, however, moves just followed each other without any rhyme or reason apparent to us, so we had to waste time laboriously scanning the whole board, over and over again.

Our conclusion was that we had both developed a good feel for pro play. This does not mean, of course, that we could read like pros or explain exactly what the pro was thinking. In fact we didn't know ourselves what was enabling us to focus so often and almost unerringly on the next area of play. The only logical inference, supported by many other things such as the repeated advice of pros to play over pro games, was that we had played over enough games to train (but unwittingly, without any conscious study-type thoughts at the time) our sub-conscious into acting like a reasonably reliable machine. For pro games. Pro games only.

Now at this point I need to bring in another element. You may say that we should be able to look any position objectively and make an evaluation irrespective of whether it was pro or ama. Indeed, Mark and I often used to tease each other at our weekly meetings with weird positions we had come across in the previous week, and ask the other to say whether it was from a pro game or amateur game. Our scores on these tests was no better than random guessing. Same for the position above. Why? Well, I don't know the full answer to that, but in his book on positional evaluation where he recommends not counting, Kataoka Satoshi (yes, I know he's only a 9-dan Japanese pro, Robert, but still...). To be precise, he says the following: 形勢判断は細かく地を計算する必要がありません。石の流れや石の形などから簡単に判断できるのです。(Exact counting is not necessary to evaluate a position. It is possible to do an evaluation in a simple manner on the basis of the flow of stones, the shapes of groups, and the like.)

He stresses that it is important to follow the flow of stones, by playing over the game, in order to get a feel for the position. For that reason he adopts the unusual approach of giving, in an appendix, the complete game record for every position discussed in the book.

It seems quite clear to me that it was indeed the flow of stones that was helping Mark and me absorb a wealth of signals (of which we remained blissfully unaware) which translated into sharp focus. You may interject that most moves tend to be in the vicinity of the last move, so of course we could often make a good guess where the next one would be. But I can assure you that we were both more precise than that and could very reliably follow all the tenukis (and, in line with having done many more games than me, Mark was noticeably more reliable than me).

Going back to the position above, I'm sure we can all see straightaway that White's high approach on the lower side is unusual. But is it New Fuseki, is it Gan Siyang? In fact, the GoGoD database tells us that no pro has ever played that move, even though there is a rather wide range of moves have been tried for White 6 (nineteen). The vast bulk of over 1,000 games up to Black 5 have White playing on the right side next, so you may say "wrong direction of play" for the White 6 in the game above, if you try to pin a principle label on it. But around 30 pros did play on the lower right side (only, they chose the low approach) and many more played on the left side or elsewhere. It is therefore something more subtle than can be reduced to an algorithmic procedure. In fact it's not even certain that the amateur move here is bad. All we can reliably say is that it's unusual.

I'll post Kataoka's explanation of the above position later. Suffice it to say that it was entirely convincing to me, in that everything he said tallied with something that was in my brain already. I "understood" him. But I don't think I'm ready to use that explanation yet to help me in my own games. For that, I need to play (or play over) lots of games that feature this "surrounding territory" aspect so that I can develop my intuition.

A seasoned chess player may be able to give a more accurate version of this, but I recall a story the gist of which is that Hans Berliner became world correspondence chess champion and also convinced himself he could easily produce a very strong algorithm chess program. Yet he was baffled why he was so weak at over-the-board play and why his chess program didn't get very far. (Of course chess programs have become better than humans now, but that's because they don't think like humans.) And of course Nimzovich wrote a book on his algorithmic My System, but rarely followed it in his own play, which is apparently why he was so successful. And wasn't it dogmatic Tarrasch who fulminated about losing to idiots who played intuitively?

I don't know the answer, but I think (as briefly mentioned in my post just above) that it's worth considering the possibility that "maximum effortful consideration to each move" is the wrong approach, and that the right approach is the maximum effortful consideration of the flow of stones. And, if so, is that something which is so complex that it can only be done by relying heavily on intuition?

Acquired reflexes is a good term, but I think we need to accept that in the process of acquiring them, we actually acquire far more than we think. The subconscious brain will be making connections with all sorts of other aspects. In order words, synergy happens and 2 + 2 = 5.

My guess is that my intuition brings me down about 2 stones. If I were capable of consistently playing like Robert says he does (the way I play maybe 60% of the time), and avoiding intuitive moves that cause me to shriek "AY CARAMBA!!" before invading where it's not necessary, or to mutter under my breath "die foul fiend..." while attacking before defending, then I would surely win more often.

As to why my go instincts are bad, I suspect that it has something to do with shortsightedness. Despite ample experience and knowledge to the contrary, my play does not do justice to the fact that go is a long game. We have all seen time and again that giving up territory early in exchange for influence can often be a winning strategy, yet when I employ it and it works, ("wow, my stones were strong enough to kill that group!" or "wow, even though my opponent invaded and lived, I still got enough benefit to win!" etc..) I am usually surprised.

It is probably one of the essences of go that stones played early have a certain amount of potential, the value of which unfolds later in the game, and that skillful play waits for the right moment to utilize that potential to its greatest effect. Many kyu players such as myself fail to do so, and instead either destroy that potential or waste it. Go is complicated, and if something arises that I am familiar with and I remember some snippet about how to handle it, I usually just do it as soon as I can, for fear that the chance to apply the little that I know might dissipate.

Clearly I should be learning from this, and changing my behavior, but my bad instinct to pay more attention to the present than the future is strengthened by my poor reading ability. Or maybe it's the other way around.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Here were my ideas in the order that they occurred to me and what crossed my mind when thinking of them.



A: This is the biggest side of the board. Don't play too close to those three stones. Oh, they are not thick.

B. Biggest side of the board, since those three stones are not thick, if w approaches me from his hoshi side, I can nag those three stones by taking away a possibility for a base. Hmm... Those three white stones don't have much to worry about atm. Reconsidered. A and B are both low, and w might pressure them from above building a framework on the left working well with the other high stones. Shouldn't I be looking to the future as I mentioned in my previous post?

C. If I were to play B, white might start encroaching on "my" right side. Hey, isn't this two moyos? Shouldn't I play on the junction of them? C seemed the best in the area to do that. Did a bit of reading. Wasn't particularly impressed with results.

D. Re-read John's text. Surrounding territory. Oh, what about firming up that corner that can still easily be ruined? Also looks like sente, so I could come back and play one of the other moves afterwards. This is my choice.

(Thinking time, 1 minute.)

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

I think you are really talking about instinct (and I have little idea how to overcome that - yoga?). There is (I hope) a big difference between using intuition to help you and just playing the first move that instinctively comes to mind. Even in a blitz game you may be getting two signals from your intuition: (1) play this move in that shape, and (2) Oh oh, I've been caught out in situations like this before.

What I find disturbing in this position is that black should like to have another stone at Q10 or R10 which would coordinate well with the upper right shimari. However playing Q10 in the given position would look inefficient. The problem seems that black already started to build territory in the opening thereby letting white have all the influence. Thus, the upper and lower black stones are not well coordinated (i.e. it is still too easy for w to jump in between at the right border and the already built territory seems too small compared with the w influence).

I assume, the game sequence is r16 d4 r4 d16 p17 and then w approached high at O4, followed by Q6 O6 Q8 O8. I'm not sure, if black's subsequent Q6 and Q8 moves are the best direction. Instead of Q6 black could e.g. approach at F3 himself or play Q10 right away, which seems to give more future options. Are there any more opinions on that?

Edit: Included the position into the quote.

Allright, I'll have a go! The first two moves coming into my mind were(in that order) C6 and J5. I came up with C6 by the principle "urgent before wide before big" that I learned from Haylees videos. I couldn't see anything urgent, so the widest place seemed the left side, and I decided approaching the bottom left was better than the top left, beacause of white's potential on the bottom side.

Then I thought, white isnt really that happy on the bottom without an extension(might that even be urgent?) and so I developed the idea of J5. I wanted to be high, because whites stones are high as well, but on a second thought, I think J5 is too high, and J4 would be better.

My intuition tells me that you may be using speech recognition software.



I think that it is clear that Cher Robert has a different idea about what intuition is than the rest of us. I have not read his books, but judging from his online writing about go, I do not think that it has anything to do with how good he is, but with how he thinks. I am no fan of the Myers-Briggs test as it is commonly applied, but I expect that RJ would score low on the intuition scale. And I would classify him as expert at go. As for your example, I think that Robert would find a good play based upon his principles.



I know that you do not intend that remark literally, but even so I am amazed.



My experience told me that it was a peculiar position, and I guessed that it was from a kyu game.



Speech recognition?



I am snipping the rest of this. Your illustration of how intuition can be learned is wonderful.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Regarding the position, I was originally thinking about D6 to keep white from building too much, but now I'm thinking Q10. It looks slow, but white's so-called area is so vast and there's nothing on the 3rd line, so I don't think black should have trouble limiting white if white responds to Q10. If white doesn't, it's easy for black to expand while limiting white's area of influence and keep a decent looking invasion in reserve.

The other thing that came to mind was just splitting the left side and leaving it at that. It's difficult for white to turn the bottom into something with just one move.

Since people have chimed in on this question, my guess is that my intuition is worth about 20 stones to me.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

My intuition: Q10 and let white figure out how he wants to consolidate this entire area.

There is a special "flow of stones" in games between very strong players.

My beloved wife might be 4 dan / 5 dan in Ikebana (they do not have these ranks in Ikebana, but this assumption will match the interval between her certificate, and the top), but is below 20 Kyu in Go. Accompanying me on Go tournaments, she always loved to follow the games of the top players, especially of professionals, 7 Dan Korean players, and similar.

She said that these boards would look like a good Ikebana.

Games between the other Dan players would show flaws on the board (as a matter of course, the more the lower the rank). No need to talk about games between Kyu players.


My wife had also a good feeling for the overall position on the board. When asking her sometimes, who would be ahead on the board in my games, according to her "feeling", she was right in the overwhelming majority of cases.

As a matter of course, she would have been unable to give an idea for the next best move.

_________________
The really most difficult Go problem ever: https://igohatsuyoron120.de/index.htm
Igo Hatsuyōron #120 (really solved by KataGo)

intuition
ɪntjʊˈɪʃ(ə)
noun

[list=]the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning.
"we shall allow our intuition to guide us"

a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.
"your insights and intuitions as a native speaker are positively sought"[/list]

I personally don't think that people are born with an instinct to play Go. I think they acquire knowledge to play Go either through study or lots of play (or both). This becomes second nature after repetition in the same way as playing a musical instrument or learning a foreign language. At some point it becomes natural and we no longer think of it.

I think when a person plays with instinct/intuition in Go it's just subconscious learned reasoning. With that in mind perhaps playing moves with more conscious thought rather than 'it feeling right' should work better if we can understand the knowledge or insight that comes to us subconsciously. Perhaps it's our inability to know/remember why this shape looks bad that leads us to just call it intuition.

Currently I'm studying and applying fundamentals to my play. I have jumped from 18k to 11k in months by doing this and I contribute not getting higher than this to a) not having more time to study the fundamentals fully b) not applying them always fully. The latter I can learn retrospectively by reviewing my games. I've also only played 100 games.

I also doubt that people are born with an instinct to play go (well), but imagine a person who has just learned the rules and objective of the game, who for some reason understands eyes and ko, and is playing their first game. Where do they place their first stone? Some will play at tengen, some will play in a corner some on a side, some on an edge. What is their reason for playing that stone where they played it? They don't have any go experience to draw on, so they must follow either their intuition or their instinct (in contrast with intuition, instinct is not based on learned experience, but is just a natural tendency). Later in the game, other situations will arise that the player may recognize as similar to other experiences (being surrounded, being threatened, getting the short end of the stick etc.,) and must also choose how to respond. Is their response not necessarily intuitive/instinctive?

One of my points is that these intuitive responses (fighting, running, hoarding etc.,) exist and that they can continue to influence one's decisions even after one has learned more about go, because often, one's knowledge is full of holes, and when in doubt we might find ourselves making our choices on instincts and intuition that have nothing to do with go.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Q10 without much thought. The stones are moving and black just can't stop there. Besides, white can't secure the bottom in a single move. If white does secure fourth line territory there, it's not that huge and then the O8 for Q10 exchange will be terrible for him.

If black tenukies now, then he will be reduced from both sides, which is really annoying.

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders