Maybe some different aspect with respect to the thread topic: On http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/EGF_rating_system.php a full list of ranked players in the EGF can be obtained. From that it can be seen that there are currently a bit more than 6600 ranked players, and 1d rankings start at above rank 900.

This means that being 1d is equivalent to belonging to the upper ~ 13.5% of the active players population.

My current rank is rather within the upper 35% (around 4k), which is a factor of 2.6 more compared to the upper 13.5%. Is it reasonable to assume that - if I manage to reduce my rate of blunders and mistakes per game by more than factor 2.5 - I would make it to 1d?

It seems that the word tesuji can mean a variety of things.

I've looked at the sample pages of the Dictionary of Basic Tesuji, and it seems to me that it could have been called the Dictionary of Basic Haengma !
In the other hand, I have the book 200 Tesuji Problems, and all of them are tsumego.

Both books pretend to be about the same "Tesuji" subject, but in fact, they are completely different.

I'm not convinced that I am the one closing his ears

Earlier in the thread, I noted that I was skeptical that tsumego was not efficient, but that I am willing to expand my pallete and try studying pro games. That's partially because I feel, "Why not? Maybe there is something to it. My games are somewhat out of balance, anyway". Yes, I still feel there is more value to tsumego than you are describing, but maybe I'll change my mind. I am willing to give your method a shot.

Frankly, I am surprised at your position. It is almost inarguable to me that actively solving problems is efficient. Pros say you should do it often when asked "how do players become stronger?" So it must be somewhat efficient. I am sure you know that. The fact that this is even being argued is baffling to me.

I understand that we have argued about things in the past, and sometimes, I've been extreme in my viewpoints. But I don't think this is one of those times.

And frankly, for this particular topic, I don't care as much about convincing someone else, because it's related to personal strategy for study. So someone else studies a different way than I do. So what? We'll see who has the higher rank down the road.

Anyway, I plan on studying pro games in addition to tsumego. I'll be happy to admit that pro games are a more efficient way, if I find that to be the case.

I am willing to try it, though, and I don't think I have my ears closed on this issue.

_________________
be immersed

And I didn't have you in mind when I said it.

I intimated I would stop so I shouldn't be posting this, but let me (re)make two final points:

1. I don't deny it can be useful to do tsumego problems; I just don't think it is efficient, but I am aware that some people use efficient loosely to mean useful (i.e. mixing it up with effective).

2. Most important, the context kept getting lost. The thread started about the problems someone faced getting to shodan, so we are talking about someone on the cusp, in other words a high kyu player. My observations centred (I hope) on that group. But others pitched in to say, basically, "I am a low kyu and I don't believe that" or, more stridently, "I am a dan player and I don't believe that." So it became a case of if the cap doesn't fit, shoot the messenger. This messenger shoots back, is all.

To Pio2001: Yes, our observation that tesuji means various things (even in Japanese) is correct. One common sense you didn't mention is simply 'way of playing'. The western sense of brilliant move is not quite accurate, but not too wide of the mark. Your observation about its similarity to haengma is also correct, but it's really closer to suji = haengma, and maybe suji + katachi = haengma is better still. Either way, well observed.

I see. Perhaps I was led to that impression from your comment.



My ears are open, but I'm just making "potshots". Thanks for clarifying.



My fastest period of improvement in my go career (after getting "stuck" at a rank) was from 4k to about 1k, and I attribute that to a time when I focused consistently on go problems for hours each day. I've said this several times on the forum. So to me, it's the most efficient method that I've found. I say this from my personal experience.

I haven't had as much success with pro games in the past - it's very difficult to think as actively as I do when trying to solve go problems. But anyway, I'll give it another shot. I don't accept your claim that studying pro games is efficient just because you say so - the strongest argument you've provided is not from your personal experience even, and is from what you observed of T Mark.

Nonetheless, I think the idea is worth trying.



I believe daal is around 4k on KGS. This is the same rank I was when I started the first volume of "Train Like a Pro". I don't know if what worked for me will work for him, but I definitely attribute doing problems to my jump to KGS 1k. Even in your example, you said that T Mark did go problems as a kyu player. I don't know if he was KGS 4k at that time, but T Mark was already above 1-dan level. If anything, this argument would suggest that T Mark's case cannot be used as a good example for daal, since he was already stronger than daal when he started studying pro games.

Anyway, this conversation is too hypothetical. There are many ways up the mountain, and I believe both go problems and pro games can help you get there. It's not really that productive to get into this side-discussion/argument about what may or may not be most efficient when there is no real way to prove what is optimal. At best, we have stories from our personal experiences (and those of our friends).

The important thing is to know that there are multiple ways to study - go problems and pro games being a couple of them. I think we can both agree on that point, and that's all that really matters.

_________________
be immersed

I don't run marathons myself, but I think it has been proven going to the gym is a must. I think they also do some cycling or swimming or whatever.


But I had a few extra arguments. Two top chess players plus the go4go guy.

And don't forget Shusai.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Agree that there are people who have improved by studying pro games. Like I said, I plan on trying it more myself. To claim something is "most efficient" requires more data for me to believe it - that's all.

I've personally experienced results from go problems that I found to be "efficient", which has largely influenced my opinion on the matter. I hope to find the same in studying pro games, too. But I will probably stick to studying both, unless I end up finding one to be of less merit.

Actually, I hope that John is right in some ways. Going over a pro game is less taxing than a hard go problem, so if that's an efficient way to improve, great! I pessimistically suspect, however, that real results come from greater effort.

Anyway, that's just my plan. Others should define their own.

_________________
be immersed

I don't know Shusai, but I guess he studied his own games or none at all. It is known in chess the early champions couldn't match up to modern top players. Though of course most of it has to be just opening knowledge. But gathering that knowledge takes a fracking long time.

I thought of another analogy. I just heard on a youtube video 100 English words are used about 50% of the time. And many books have many rare words used only once. Without those special words the books would be nothing. You just gotta pump up through all the garbage to become a true champion.

On artificial problems and efficiency of learning

Here is a position that may never have occurred in a game (outside of beginner's games, OC).

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Black to play
$$ --------------
$$ | O . . . O X .
$$ | . . . . O X .
$$ | O O O O O X .
$$ | X X X X X X .
$$ | . . . . . . .[/go]

What is the result with best play? Death? Ko? Seki? Independent life?

As it turns out, there are a couple of nice lessons to the play. Dan players already know them, so they only have to read 4 moves deep, at most. But what about, say, 9 kyus. Some of them might not know those lessons. Is this problem the most efficient way to teach those lessons to them? I think not. (But if they discover them themselves, that's wonderful! ) I think that telling them that if they cannot solve the problem, they should not look at the answer, but should come back later, is bad advice. After working on the problem, their brains are primed to incorporate the right answers. The lessons are, after all, basic. Why leave the 9 kyus in ignorance? Why ask them to reinvent the wheel?

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Two points:
(1) Studying a go problem is "efficient" if the level is appropriate for the learner. If this go problem is too difficult for a 9 kyu, I agree that it might not be the most "efficient" way to study.

(2) Solving a problem of appropriate difficulty has value, even if the position doesn't occur in a real game. Let's say that we give this problem to someone of the appropriate skill level, such that it's a "good" problem for them to solve. By iterating through variations that don't work to find the solution, the solver has exercised his/her capacity to visualize and evaluate a position. That's the real value in the problem.

_________________
be immersed

In many areas of my life, I'm realizing the importance of balance. There are activities that are fun right now, but I may regret later. There are activities that are not fun now, but may be good for the future. Balance is important to maximize enjoyment.

In another thread, I compared the value of getting immediate territory vs. having influence which would result in territory later in the game. Go is a game of balance in this regard: both territory and influence are valuable in their own ways, and depending on the situation, one or the other might be better or more efficient.

Here we have a debate between the "efficiency" of studying pro games and doing go problems. They have different, yet complimentary attributes. Go problems have value in that they force active thinking and exercise of your brain to find the correct solution independently. On the downside, they may not always be representative of real situations. Pro games have value in that they are, by definition, real situations. On the downside, they may not always require as much critical thinking as a go problem.

I'd argue that doing all of one or the other is not balanced. If you only go through pro games and never do go problems, you lack the benefit of the concentrated active thinking required to solve go problems; if you only do go problems, maybe you are good at reading and visualizing, but lack sense in the big picture or flow of the game.

So, this entire discussion on which is "most efficient" is rather silly. It's good to reap the benefits of both as appropriate. If you lack reading power, go problems will certainly be an efficient way to benefit this. If you lack flow and direction in your games, then studying pro games must be an efficient way to see good examples.

We don't need to find one single action that is the "most efficient" way to study, because that doesn't exist. The answer, as in other areas of life, is balance.

_________________
be immersed

White is alive
The 4 interesting points are mutually equivalent.
There is a kind of uts involved
Good problem!

I don't know the level of this problem. If I had to guess, it may be around 7 kyu. But the appropriate level of difficulty is one with around a 50% chance of being solved.



Oh, I agree that this problem has value, even though it is artificial. I say as much here. viewtopic.php?p=197058#p197058

My main argument with the reading only approach is that, for amateurs and especially kyu players, it relies upon learning lessons that could be taught otherwise. And more efficiently, IMO.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Agree. I guess my current view can be summed up as:

1. I'm skeptical that pro games are the most efficient way to improve, if we have to select only one type of study.
2. I've had some success with go problems, and it's the most efficient single study method that I know of right now, if we have to select only one type of study.
3. Studying more than one thing (go problems, in combination with games, in combination with other stuff like lectures, etc.) is probably more efficient than studying by any one particular method.
4. I haven't had much success with studying pro games in the past, but I'm giving it another shot, and am open to changing my view on its efficacy.

I actually scheduled out this week's study yesterday for myself. On Tuesday (tonight), Thursday, and Sunday, I will go over a pro game around 9pm Pacific time. On Wednesday and Friday, I will play a game at the same time. Tuesday through Friday, I will go over Train Like a Pro problems.

I think it's a balanced schedule of problems, pro game review, and my own games. It's my first week with this particular combination, so I'll see how it goes. If I don't think something is working out, I'll switch things around for next week.

_________________
be immersed

More power to you.

When I was 4 dan with a goal of 6 dan in two years I divided a three hour study session equally among problems, pro games, and my own games: 1 hour for 4 problems -- they were hard --, 1 hour for a pro game, and 1 hour for reviewing one of my own games.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I think there are two key questions that govern this turn in the conversation:

• Is it better to pursue explicit or implicit knowledge to continue to make gains in strength? (i.e. reading ability or pattern recognition)
• If we assume that implicit knowledge is important, then what is the best way to gain that knowledge?

Most of us agree that both implicit and explicit knowledge are important; we all need a sense of where to play and the reading ability to confirm our intuition. Where we find the appropriate balance is one of the determining factors in our approach to go.

Tsumego can be used to train either reading ability or intuition. When we are first starting out, a lot of the go problems we do are helping us internalize basic shapes so that we can spot the vital point right away. They are training our ability to visualize situations and look ahead on the board at the same time. However, as problem sets grow more complex we often see less repetition of basic shapes and a greater emphasis on pure reading ability. (This is of course not universally true, but the highly lauded Graded Go Problems for Beginners series is a good example of this phenomenon. Book 4 has much less emphasis on recognizing common shapes than previous volumes.) I think this is the point where John suggests a different approach may be needed. (If I've misunderstood, please correct me.)

It's pretty common for folks who get stuck in the SDK range to complain about not knowing where to play once the basic fuseki has been played but a local fight has not yet broken out. We've trained our life and death ability to a reasonable level (again, not universal, and of course we can still improve!) but we miss the forest for the trees. The kind of problem sets that most of us pick up at this level won't help us with that problem. It's tempting to fill in the gaps with explicit knowledge about the direction of play or invading moyos or appropriate reducing moves, but often times the lessons we pick up don't stick because we haven't primed our pattern recognition pumps. In this case, going through a large number of professional games seems like a reasonable way to continue to develop the implicit knowledge that is important at this stage. The benefit is not likely to be limited to strategic notions; we can gain implicit knowledge about key points in fighting the same way. (Note that this is different from the type of study we're doing in the Relentless thread right now, where we are going through one game in detail and trying to explicitly understand what is happening.)

I do think that improvement will require a balance of work on pattern recognition / reading strength, but I don't think that balance necessarily means doing both equally all the time. In fact, this might be counterproductive. If you want to learn from pattern matching, you may need to immerse yourself in that method for a while. If you want to really improve your reading ability, you may need to focus on nothing else for a time. When we do a little of this and a little of that, it's possible that we're not doing enough of either to be effective. (Note: the above statements are conjecture. I don't have evidence one way or the other.) With this in mind, I think John's advice makes sense for someone who is stuck: immerse yourself in training your pattern recognition ability for a time. Looking at a large number of professional games is probably the best way to do this once you've reached a certain level. If you've given that a sufficient amount of time to be effective and you've stopped seeing improvement, maybe that's a good time to switch to making some of the lessons you picked up explicit or working on your reading ability for a while.

There's a lot of room for individual differences in this approach. If you keep getting stronger by studying fighting technique, have at it! If you keep growing while studying pro games, persist by all means! If mixing your methods of study works, great! We're all likely to have different strengths and weaknesses and different ways of approaching the game, and I doubt there are enough data to make a universal determination about the best approach. But I do think that we tend to get stuck in a rut regarding our approach to study, and trying something novel is a good way to get your brain to reengage with the learning process.

(Haha, as I was writing this Kirby suggested that mixing study types is probably most efficient. I've added a few more "this is conjecture" disclaimers to my original post. )

Maybe you are right that some people never reach shodan because they give up on improving, because they don't study in the right way and because they don't study the right things. Perhaps my assumption, that some people don't have the talent to reach shodan, is wrong. I've decided that I am going to keep trying to improve, and the way I'm going to do that is to replace a lot of my online playing with studying, and keeping a journal like everybody else does. Oh, I already have a journal - just that I haven't written anything in it for three years... Time to dust off that board and those books.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Whatever you mean implicit knowledge to be, if you think that it were relevant, in practice during the games, always check preliminary decisions based on implicit knowledge by verification with explicit knowledge. (E.g., you think that a static pattern is nice. Assess its dynamic development. Verify the connection status, life status, efficiency etc. by reading, counting etc. for every moment of dynamic development. I.e., replace subconscious guessing by conscious verification.)

I do not think that reading ability is explicit knowledge and pattern recognition is implicit knowledge. Pattern recognition is explicit. This is the vital point; this is the eye stealing tesuji; this is a backsnap; this is a throw in that takes away a potential liberty; etc. Reading ability makes use of both explicit and implicit knowledge, as a rule. Brute force search does not in general work. Also, judgement may be required to evaluate the results of search.

Also, humans are skillful at intuiting patterns, correctly or incorrectly. So there is no dichotomy between improving explicit and implicit knowledge. As we learn explicit knowledge, intuition increases, as well. OC, intuition must be tested to become judgement. Experience matters.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.