"How do I remember to apply what I already know?": This is insufficient. Although everybody knows much more than he recalls immediately, by far the most players do not have a comprehensive knowledge of the fundamentals. Acquiring it from scratch requires VERY much study. Nowadays (in contrast to 10 years ago), it is possible to acquire it from sources.

Minue's "stability": strength is a more appropriate word for what he describes.

"Lists": Again: I did not only use lists but also structure, methods, examples, comments etc. Formalised annotation of contents is related to density of information. A book conveying 10 major ideas can use one chapter per idea - a book containing 200 major ideas needs some kind of dense presentation. Alternatively, the contents would be distributed over 20 books. This is not about being or not being dry but about having thin or dense contents. Maybe you, John, consider texts with as little contents as possible the ideal. I prefer texts with enough contents to learn a lot about a topic so that one must not, after reading the text, read 19 further texts on the same topic. Of course, I do not go to your ideal.

This series is not "the fundamentals above absolute beginner level". The series covers only a small part and overlooks most. Just a number of pages does not provide completeness.

Yes. You also have to apply what you do not know. Consciously, that is.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

The culture has changed, John. Those phrases are clickbait now.

Edit: I agree that it's bad journalism. But not because readers don't like it.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Exactly, and therefore you have to learn / discover this knowledge.

Well, if you want to talk about dumbing down, I suppose a thread on fundamentals might seem like one possible rubbish bin, but I hope for higher standards, not least among go players.

I know I'm a different generation from the inveterate clickers who can rotate their thumbs 360 degrees around the top knuckle (Darwinian evolution in action?), but actually, by staying away from social media (which is not journalism), I find the world still seems a decently sane place. I say that even with your presidential election looming. Being overseas last week, I was able to watch CNN, and see there are some American journalists still keeping standards up. Most with grey hair or crow's feet, admittedly...

Right. Books are good for conscious learning. To learn unconsciously, the tried and true way is to play against stronger players.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Projection, John, projection.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Did you read the article or only my summary of it? I think Minue's tutorial is far above the 'ten ways to ...' level you refer to. I at least found it extremely thorough piece of pedagogy (rather than journalism).



Well, I still want to answer I think you're right: it deserves to be rewritten, if only for the fact that Minue is not a native English speaker. And though I disagree on it being list-centered (or perhaps disagree on the extent to which lists are detrimental) I do agree it is somewhat dry in its presentation.

Thanks for the answer!

In the second part of chapter 1, Minue highlights one fundamental principle.



Then comes the second chapter, about "positions of single stones", which is a step up towards haengma. He starts by restating the goal of the game:



For me this is the most important fundamental, which we amateurs should repeat over and over to ourselves in order to get rid of the flawed mental immage of "making territory" as "surrounding empty space".

After that paragraph, Minue comes up with two more principles



He somewhat jestingly suggests that the centre would hence come before the sides and the corners. But since the game is about survival of stones, it is the other way around:



This throws a surprising light on the well known principle "corners, sides, centre": it is not because territory is more easily surrounded, but because life (eyes) are more easily secured. Deep down it's the same thing but the perspective is different.

I have tried to read it in the past, but anything that includes a structure like 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 .. makes my eyes glaze over. You have to capture your audience before you can educate them.

It may be a "thorough piece of pedagogy" but that means precisely that it is a reference work. It may be great as something to mine for presenting the jewels in a tutorial, but it is not a tutorial as it stands (unless you are likewise a 1.2, 1.3 kind of person, perhaps).

Go is an elective hobby, not a compulsory school subject. People with choice will mostly choose entertainment (good writing) over "pedagogy" (lists).

I'm not sure that pedagogy is the appropriate word here anyway. It's not a subject I'm really familiar with, but I would imagine it covers the practice of teaching, and that must surely include the best ways of getting information from teacher to pupil.

People like Robert may prefer massive data dumps but I for one have never come across many people like that. And in any case, just because he wants that doesn't mean everyone else does. More importantly, I even think that pedagogically data dumps/list/etc can be dangerous. It like sucking up snot. You can't stop in the middle and digest bits of it. That means that what is at the start of the list (the fundamentals) gets passed over quickly and soon gets submerged and forgotten. The traditional method of going over just a few things at a time from various angles with lots of examples is universal for good reason. Reference books stay on the library shelves for good reason - people mostly borrow less dense text books. Both types of books are valuable, but which is best for pupils learning the fundamentals?

In This 'n' that I have been exploring the idea of a base, one of the oldest opening concepts in go, and certainly one of the fundamentals of the opening. See viewtopic.php?p=211817#p211817 and following notes. I am responding to Knotwilg with that in mind.



A base is mainly about the survival of stones, but is a bit more general, as a player may allow a base to be divided, or even sacrificed.



Takagawa makes the point that corners, sides, center is about making a base.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

These days I am too busy with teaching and writing to reply to every data dump meta-discussion.

I would think that journalism has various rhetoric, and preferred style depends on the audience. If I don't have time to read a long article, I like lists - they quickly establish key points. On the other hand, if I'm looking to just enjoy reading a long article, I can see how lists might come off as too dry.

Either way, I don't think Minue is that active in maintaining his tutorial now, so we'll have to make due with what's out there to get value from it. Maybe someone could rewrite it if they'd like. I don't personally see it as that hard to read, though, the content is a little boring to me.



Wider areas are better than small ones, but they take more moves to complete. Maybe I'm missing the point, but I'm not completely bought on this principle.

_________________
be immersed

...Don't forget that the centre is smaller that the sides and corners (169 intersections only vs 192).

But what does this tell us? Center strategies are possible. One just should not play all moves 5th line and higher. All this box counting is trivia of people not knowing how to teach fundamentals well. The relevant fundamental concept is: make positional judgements. Then judge whether to build a center moyo.

In his 3rd installment, Minue discusses 4 basic moves:

- the iron pillar or stretch (nobi)


- the one space jump (ikken tobi)


This comparison preludes a later elaboration about efficiciency of stones (good shape) or its antipode, overconcentration (bad shape). In isolation, the one space jump is obviously more efficent than the iron pillar.

- the diagonal move (kosumi)



Therefore, Minue states that diagonal moves are mostly used in specific circumstances:


- the knight's move (keima)



Overall, he discusses their virtues and weaknesses in terms of development and stability, using the foundations he laid out in the first installments.

http://senseis.xmp.net/?HaengmaTutorial ... gPositions

I didn't reply, but due to your post, I have read the tutorial in its entirety, found it useful, but not extremely useful due to the already known status of some of the information and the lack of more examples "in later chapters" which are not forthcoming.

I like it a lot, and I think that the list-objection is really silly. The numbers just label the different sections. I am certainly against someone rewriting it who just dislikes the style on principle. I think that it is rather depressing that the discussion here is whether numbering the sections of a tutorial is a bad "list-style" and whether "stability" should be called "strength".

One thing is clear: This tutorial does not cover the fundamentals in any meaningful way that are referred to by people who say in reviews "just learn the fundamentals". Knowing the things in Minue's tutorial will not help a lot. If the tutorial had be continued, this might be different.

I also think that Joe has a good point: In the instruction "just learn the fundamentals", it is not only the word "fundamentals" which is problematic. Yes, I know that it is a bad idea to self-atari, have I learned it?

That is not really true if a player consistently cedes the center (because the side player cannot truly get what you count for sides and corners).

Point in case:
http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... =18&t=3024

in particular, see the game in
http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 904#p49904

This seems bad/wrong for a reference site. An iron pillar is not a nobi and vice versa. An iron pillar is not played with any intention of advancing or being flexible. Its purpose is precisely to close down the action, so the demerits mentioned can hardly be called demerits.

The merits/demerits can, however, be applied to nobi, but then you also have to distinguish narabi, sagari and other variants.

The differences between the named forms are actually at the heart of understanding the fundamentals of shape.