I started this new thread for a few reasons.
The most recent one is prompted by a question in this thread,
Failure of Free Go club culture, post 92:Ninja'd by DrStraw:Which turns out to be perfect timing, because:

I want to apologize to everyone here on the forum
who has had an unpleasant experience with me, for whatever reasons.

If I said something offensive, I apologize.
If it was because of other reasons, say, both sides exchanging
heated words, I still apologize.

The people include: Araban, Uberdude, Bantari, DrStraw.
If I've offended anyone else, please let me know, and I'll apologize to you.

( Will continue after DrStraw's post below. )

I totally agree with you. This thread is so much easier to understand than the meme thread.

And I was not aware you had ever offended anyone. You don't really seem to be that sort of person. Maybe the other person was easily offended.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Some time ago, Bantari and I started a conversation.
I'll try to find the link and include it here...

What does it mean, to understand something ?

Here's a story I heard ( I'm not sure of its historical accuracy,
but I like the gist of it ):

Back in ancient Japan, a man crosses a bridge
and asks a Zen monk, "How deep is this river?"
The monk promptly throws the man into the river.

Perhaps this episode never actually occurred,
not even in ancient Asia; it's just a made-up story.
Of course, today you're looking at a lawsuit.

But it tries to convey some "understanding"
of what it means to understand something,
the different levels of understanding.

This thread touches on these various levels of understanding.

Here's a crude attempt:

An understanding is a particular state of the neural system (and likely, other parts of the mind-body).

I'm not a trained biologist or neurologist. I guess I'm about 28k at biology and 29k at neurology.
( If someone "understands" what I'm getting at with the above crude attempt, please help me word it better. )

Going back to the Zen monk story:

• (a) Hearing "This river is 30 feet deep" gives rise to some configuration in the neural system of the person's mind-body;
• (b) Getting thrown into the river gives rise to some other configuration of the same system.

( For brevity, I'll use the shorter "state of mind" or other phrases in place of "configuration of the neural system of a mind-body". )

I suspect the two experiences, (a) and (b), result in different states of mind -- but I cannot prove this.
We probably have the technology today to scan the brain of the person to see the different effects.
But I'm going to assume (a) and (b) result in different understandings.

Since understanding has to do with all the neurons (and possibly other parts of the body),
and their configurations,

Understanding is a continuum.

Since understanding is a continuum, it's impossible to list all the different levels
(too many neurons, too many possible configurations -- for all practical purposes, infinite for current technologies).

Still, for various reasons, we find it useful to have shorthand notations to describe these understandings.
For example: the use of a single digit or double digits to describe a particular configuration of these neurons: e.g. 10 kyu, 5 kyu, 3 dan.

In other fields, there are other, similar shorthand notations for these understandings.
Example: a bachelor degree, a masters degree, apprentice, journeyman, master craftsman, etc.

Here's another random list of various levels of understandings (out of the continuum), about a particular subject A:

• Don't know anything about A, but fake it, lie about it.⁽¹⁾
• Know about A, but deny it.
• Know something about A, but give out wrong or hurtful information.
• Don't believe A is possible ( Examples: Luke when his X-Wing was stuck in swamp; never heard of Go. )
• Seen A ( Examples: Yoda lifts X-Wing out of swamp; have heard of Go.)
• Know the basic rules ( Example: first 5 minutes after hearing about the basic rules of Go.)
• Still struggle with the fundamentals ( Example: kyu level )
• Very rudimentary knowledge of the fundamentals, stop tripping over oneself (Example: 1-dan).
• Can teach the basic rules to a beginner.
• Can help a beginner reach about 10k.
• Can help a 10k reach 1 dan.
• Can help a 1 dan reach mid-dan.
• Can help a mid-dan reach high-dan.
• Can help a high-dan make pro level.
• Can help someone make pro level, but don't know how to teach kyu people. (This is a very common level, as it turns out. )
• Top level expert but cannot teach a beginner. (Also very common -- teaching level is something else, all together.)
• Can help many people make pro level ( Example: Kitani )
• Can help a pro make top pro level ( Examples: Kitani, Fujisawa. )
• Top genius, only a few per century ( Examples: Go Seigen, Einstein, Feynman, Hawking, etc.)

When we discuss what's the "best" way to teach or explain something to someone --
that is, one target is a particular configuration of the neurons plus muscles --
we have these follow-up questions:

- how effective are words ?
- how effective is a demonstration ?
- how effective is direct personal experience ?

Back to one of the original questions:Follow-up questions:

• (big question) How effective are words in this case ?
• If it turns out, words are 100% effective -- then I think the problem is solved:
  just verbally give the explanations, and the student instantly reaches the level.
• If it turns out, it takes both words and some physical demonstration to be 100% effective,
  that's great, too -- do it, and the student instantly reaches the level.
• However, and here's the rub -- what if words and demos are still very ineffective ?

Curious follow-up question: what happened to that person who decided to try the 10,000-hour plan
to make pro level in Golf ? How is his current progress, and what's his current level ?

For example, in Bantari's question -- (paraphrased) why doesn't the teacher "simply explain" it ? --
I infer that Bantari assumes there exist certain words and/or physical demonstrations
that are highly effect in explaining this understanding to the student.

But that's a huge assumption.

Instead, we should first ask, do such words and/or demos exist ?
And how effective are they ?

For example, on a scale of 0% (least effective) to 100% (instant understanding),
how effective are words in this case ?

I infer, by Bantari's question, that he assumes such words exist, and they are highly effective
(say, over 80%). Because if he thinks no such words exist, or even the best verbal explanations
are only at 5%, then he would not have asked his question to begin with.

( The same is true for physical demos. )

Examples:

• "How deep is this river? I just want an approximate number to the near foot."
  "The deepest part is about 30 feet, +/- 1 foot." -- This verbal reply would be highly effective, close to 100%.
• "What's it like to jump into this river ?"
  In this case, words are probably highly ineffective to transfer the understanding (neural + muscular experience)
  of the Zen monk who has jumped into the river, to someone who has never been in water, ever.

Another example:

The cliche "Finish 100 games ASAP." ( Or, some prefer "Lose your first 100 games quickly." )

I say this to beginners, because based on my understanding (and others may feel differently, I'm sure),
I find the direct personal experience (of finishing the 100 games) to be more effective for the raw beginner,
than reading many books. At least in the beginning.
I find in-depth reviews for raw beginners not very effective.
However, after they have finished around 100 games, then I find reviews to be more effective.

Of course, this is a general guideline. With some beginners, they need much fewer than 100 games, for example.

We adjust based on each individual situation, much like each Go move.

People from various different backgrounds come to this forum.
We have different understandings. This is a double-edged sword:
it provides diversity and different views; it can also create disagreement and conflict.

This is one reason for the relatively "low" level discussion of "understanding" --
in terms of the neural and muscular systems and the mind-body.
I cannot go any lower -- to chemistry or physics. I'm already a very beginner layman
at biology and neurology.

I wanted a low-level approach, "from first principles":

• Let's discuss understanding starting with this low level.
• Question all assumptions.
  Example: did Bantari assume there exist highly effective verbal or physical demos when he asked his question ? Or no ?
  Let's first make sure we are on the same page -- (ironically) on similar "understandings," on similar shared backgrounds;
  otherwise, it's difficult -- instead of talking with each other, we'd just be talking past each other,
  which is often what happens in many threads.

Bantari, that other thread was so long ago, I can't see seem to locate it.
Maybe you can dig up the link and include it here.

Now that we have some more foundation here, we can continue the other chat, if you'd like.

This: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9077
and this: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=8833
and some other surrounding threads.

I will be out of town for the next month, so not sure if I get a chance to do any serious discussing. Will try... not sure if I can stay away, old grumpy arguer that I am. Family obligations may interfere, though.

What I read so far looks really interesting.

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

Hi Bantari,

Thanks for the links! No hurry, I intend to add, slowly over time,
more of my personal experiences and understandings, here.
I've wanted to make a thread like this for some time now.
I just decided to do it today. I dunno why. It's for the long term.

Please take your time. Hope all's well with your family.

Cool. Family is ok, just have some overdue functions that need attending, and since I am in San Diego and they in Canada, we bundled it all up together just to make only one trip. Thus - a whole month. Still, thanks for the care.

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

I think words are effective in describing what has happened in an understandable manner. Example: You missed to protect that weakness in time, so white invaded and - while you were fixing the cut - turned the left side of your group into a ko.

However words seem not that effective in helping to find out what's going to happen in future. In the above example a beginner might understand the explanation and might avoid the very mistake in future. However there are almost never exactly the same situations recurring in Go.

• In the next game there might be another type of weakness to protect. The question is how do I identify all kinds of possible weaknesses in advance?
• There might be the same local situation but the board situation would allow sacrificing that "left side of your group" as the outside strength created during this process would allow to establish a big moyo etc., i.e. how can I foresee all the relevant variations and possible consequences of a local decision in advance?

These abilities cannot be teached just by "words", you need to encounter such situations, get experience with them and finally adjust your "pattern recognition", which is a rather lengthy process.

In short, words can describe things you are doing wrong over and over again but they can not show how to do it right.

True.
However, contrasting the two methods we were discussing with Ed in the past, words can convey more meaning than no words.

Example, rather simplistic, but still...

Case 1.
Master slaps the stone on the board and says: "This is a good move. There is where you should have played in this position. Now you know."
Meaning: In this particular position, this exact move is best. In similar positions, who knows, maybe too.
Lesson learned: Hmm...

Case 2.
Master slaps the stone on the board and explains: "See, dude, you have a weak group there, and another one here, so you might want to do something about protecting at least one of them, but best to look hard for a move that protects both. A good strategy to consider is to defend by attacking - like here, he also has some bad shape, and by poking at it you can gain time to fix both your weak spots. This is why the move I just slapped on the board is so good."
Meaning: when you have weak groups, you need to pay attention to strengthening them, and sometimes you can do it by attacking, so keep an eye out for his weak spots too.
Lesson learned: In general, pay attention to weaknesses on both sides.
Or something like that...

I think you can extrapolate much more from the teaching method in Case 2 and it does help you react better to what happens in the future, although not really to predict it. Predicting the future is a risky business in general, and I am sort-of glad it does not work that well. Or Go would not be fun at all.

But I understand what you mean. It comes back to the taiji example we had in the other thread and the questions I posted (viewtopic.php?p=173742#p173742). The problem is, I think, that while you are right, you eventually *will* acquire the necessary pattern recognition skills, until then you will grapple in the dark, without a clue what is good and why is it good.

When more words are given and better explanation provided, this does not prevent you from acquiring the same pattern recognition skills. But you might be able to acquire them in a more focussed, and so faster way. And also, you will not be "blind and def" throughout the process, but will have some kind of idea what is going on and what are you looking for.

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

Hi schawipp,

The original question in this case was about taiji, but here I use the Zen monk river example.
(I'll return to the taiji situation later.) To the question, "What's it like to jump into the river?"
Words are completely inadequate for someone who has never been in water.
To "understand" what it's like, one must do it -- jump into the river.

Your Go example brings up a good point, which is, you're actually referring to
different levels of understanding:

• We finish a game, we have not reviewed it yet. Let's call this understanding, (a).
• A good teacher reviews the game, and "explains" to us what we've done wrong,
  why certain moves are good, and why some are bad.
  We listen. Let's call this level of understanding, (b).
  Remember an understanding is a configuration of the neural system (plus other body parts).
  How different is (a) from (b) ? This is a big question.
• Luckily, Go is empirical. We have actual data and we can look at the statistics.
  In the future, if we continue to make similar mistakes reviewed in that game,
  then it turns out, maybe (a) is not very different from (b).
• Again, we see a continuum. For example, in one extreme case, we have a student
  who, after only one review, stops making the similar mistakes forever.
  At the other end of the extreme, maybe there is a student who,
  no matter how many reviews of the same mistakes over and over,
  never stops making them. Then we have students in between.
  Maybe after seeing these mistakes pointed out 10 times is enough, for someone.
  Maybe after seeing these mistakes pointed out 50 times is enough, for another person.
  It's another continuum.

Hi Bantari,



I agree with that and like your examples. However the problems are often more "fundamental" than a teacher - who may be already plaing in the Dan levels himself - could imagine:



I think the relation "a move which protects two of my weak groups and at the same time harrasses a third weak group of my opponent is a good move" should be very obvious - even to an almost complete beginner. The more fundamental problem is that - during an actual game - there is no one telling me that these two groups still have weaknesses which are now becoming urgent enough to take care of. A dan-level teacher may find it pretty obvious that these groups are weak and can not imagine that a beginner still struggles in recognizing that obvious fact.

In an actual game I tend to follow rather "my own plans" , i. e. spending much time by reading out in detail if a complicated invasion sequence at upper right side may still work or not or if I can cut off these nice and juicy looking center stones. I might try getting the initiative by such doubtful actions, the opponent defends in sente and then - BOOOM - plays on my severe weakness (which I didn't recognize at all up to that moment...).

That's what is actually happening in many of my games.

Your teaching example above is good but would not really help to overcome my blind spots. However I agree that the teacher can help to bring some more structure into the thinking process (I am actually thinking of writing down a 'thinking sequence recipy' on a paper and follow it move by move, which may be cumbersome but probably helpful...). Also, if obvious mistakes are pointed out over and over again, it may have some positive effect on the long run.

IMHO the most positive effect a teacher can have occurs in following situation:

• I lose a game, make a review on my own and blame my loss to one or more specific mistakes (wherof I mostly think, that they could have been easily avoided...).
• I discuss my review with a teacher.
• The teacher puts the focus of attention on some complete different sequences in the game, where I thought I played quite ok, while they turn out to be the really decisive mistakes.

In these situations I think it will take a very long time to find these issues without a stronger teacher by myself (if possible at all). Thus, again, I would say that words can be very effective in describing what went wrong, however this can be invaluably important to initiate new thinking processes for the student.

Great thread Ed. And I like the monk/river analogy.

Personally, I remember joseki much better after mis-playing them, getting punished, then either looking up or being taught the proper sequence. I can't think of many joseki I learned just by reading a book.

So, the experience of playing the joseki ("how did I get in this river?") plus the pain of misplaying ("Damn, that was a sharp rock on the bottom!"), plus the education ("this is how you elementary back stroke") combine to help me remember.

I look forward to seeing where this thread goes.

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