I have taught chess to children AND adults using H.G. Wells "limited game" approach: http://www.online-literature.com/wellsh ... atters/30/

Good for you.
But this is not the usual method, and from my experience - very rarely used. There is a reason for that.

In every field you will find outliers. This is why I said "usually" in what you quote of my words.

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

Uhm … do you really believe this is the way to have a decent discussion? I for one think this is extremely rude behaviour.

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

Really? My apologies then.

But please let me explain.

I really think it is a pile of hogpoo to discredit a good teaching method by pointing out at some teachers with apparently unresolved issues mistreating their students for unrelated reasons. As an argument, this was hogpoo to me, sorry. In *any* discussion.

There might be good and reasonable arguments made against teaching beginners on 19x19. Some of them were made, for example the complexity which might confuse beginners. But the fact that the teacher can act out his/her ego is definitely not one of them. Pointing out how this brings out the "coaches' arrogance" or his inner need to show off "how smart he is"... Especially since all this can be said about teaching on any board size, from 1x1 to 100x100. What can I say? I find it intellectually dishonest. Hogpoo was the first word that came to mind. Not very diplomatic, you are right, but I thought it fitting.

If this, or my previous post, offended somebody, again - my apologies.
Maybe I should have put a smiley somewhere in my post.

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

From what I remember a raw beginner may not have the mental stamina needed for a 19x19 game. So 9x9 is usually recommended, with 13x13 for experienced beginners. Even so, a particularly determined novice can begin on the 19 board.

I agree with Bantari's assertion.
I would not say that free club culture as a failure. If the objective was to expose ordinary people to the game of Go, then it has proven rather useful. (I first learned Go in a club setting.) If the objective was to sustain popularity of the game, then by itself it is not so useful. If free club culture projects an image of Go as being a mere pastime and not a game that can be life-changing for those that pursue it earnestly, then the popularity of Go will not increase. Clubs should remain open as an option for those playing Go for pleasure and not on a formal basis.

As well, I agree that there should be settings in which beginners start off on the 19x19 board. However, as mentioned above beginners usually lack the mental stamina to play a game over 200 moves long. Also, there is the all-too-common "Where do I start off" problem. I believe this can be remedied by having the beginner spend a week replaying pro games before playing the first actual game. Of course the beginner is more than likely to lose the game, but at least he/she will have an initial impression as to how the game is played, thanks to those first few pro game records.

Unless you are setting up a boot camp style weeks long gathering for formalized training, it is probably best to treat everyone as they come. Determine their comfort level (perhaps consider asking them) and then try to work always slightly ahead of them to pull them forwards.

I would rather say that Go has different variations: There is the official 19x19 board, but 9x9 is also part of it as there are even 9x9 tournaments, where (besides of the numerous computer engine contests) also strong players participate. Thus, at least, I would let a beginner have his/her choice. I can remember that I was overwhelmed with my first 19x19 games and my brain tends to switch into a kind of "standby/safety mode" during midgame or early yose, where I was no more able to play any reasonable move at all. Playing some hundreds of 9x9 games against KGS bots etc. helped to come over this phase. Of course there are beginners (especially younger beginners) who get faster in touch with the 19x19 board; thus YMMV.

I agree there is a risk of beginners thinking that this must be a silly game. But I'm quite sure that beginners find 19x19 too complex to even appreciate the game. So I prefer to err on the silly side.



As long as you use 5x5 and 7x7 for the first few days of instruction and move on to 9x9 fairly quickly, including an occasional 19x19 for the feel of it, there should be no issue. Taking offense for not being treated like a master from the start sure is a Western thing to do.



I'm sure many teachers are honestly trying to teach Go on 19x19. It just takes too long and there is no need for it ... on a small board. All comes from one rule.



Teaching should not be rewarding for the teacher but for seeing good results. Teachers take themselves too seriously.



Not at all. Reducing the size of the board is precisely meant to remove the handicap. Crushing beginners with big handicaps is not part of the method. You must have been projecting something else onto my thoughts about teaching.



This is not at all what I observe. I see diligent teachers drowning their pupils in information.



HAHAHA! That's the best one. There's no teaching, my friend, only learning. I can clearly see from your report that you teach for the sake of teaching and for the wellness of the teacher. As a teacher you should choose the best way for people to learn. In my opinion, this removes the teacher as much from the process as possible. You can call that sloth if you wish, I call it modesty.

IMHO, there is no good reason to set up the chess board, take a "couple" minutes to explain the rules, and start playing a game with a total beginner. Unless it's to stroke the teacher's ego. And yes, I've seen people teaching the game this way too often. Unlike Go, which I am not discussing, chess has a simple goal of checkmating the opponent. Thus, letting a new player see how to achieve this with limited material--starting with giving them, say, queen and rook versus lone king--is far more effective (again, IMHO) than crushing them in a full game. The quick success that they experience with simple mates encourages them, while the slow introduction of new pieces and rules does not overwhelm them. BTW, I have personal experience teaching and coaching chess in elementary public schools in Tucson and Gary.

Emmanuel Lasker talked about teaching beginners how to mate until they could mate with king, knight and bishop vs. lone king.

The handicapping system of go allows the teacher to play roughly 50-50 games with the student. Each game presents a challenge that is neither too easy nor too hard for the student.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Yes, I think that the handicap system in Go is far superior to giving chess odds, which have the effect of distorting play to a much greater extent, at least for substantial odds.

Edit: After rummaging about on the internet, I found a pdf copy of Lasker's Common Sense in Chess (1896-97)--a book that I must have given away at least a dozen times to aspiring near beginners. In that book, he starts right off with game records, though. (The reason I double checked my memory with the pdf, first.) Perhaps Lasker mentioned starting with mates in his earlier lectures (c. 1895), which formed the basis for this work? If so, this does predate H.G. Wells' Certain Personal Matters (1898). In fact, it makes me wonder if Wells attended Lasker's London lectures!

You can all go back to arguing about Go pedagogy, now.

I disagree. Teaching in and of itself can be rewarding, just like anything else, when well done. What you are talking about is that good teaching is measured only by good results. There is some grain of truth to it, but I find this too simplistic and a materialistic-type of approach. There are other factors.

To me, reward in teaching can be can be measured in "reaching" the student, making this personal connection, and seeing the proverbial light go on when there is understanding. It takes a very specific approach and tailored to each individual student. If that translates into measurable results, like skill improvement and such, is quite another story. usually it does, but sometimes it does not, so I rather not use that as a measure.

For example - when somebody explains the finer points of chinese fuseki to me, this does not translate in my increased strength, I do not start winning more games, and generally do not really play stringer. And yet I have learned something, and if the teaching was good I appreciate it - and assume it was also rewarding for the teacher. As long as it is, he might continue to do it for other players, which would be great - we all benefit.

And as for teachers taking themselves too seriously... I dunno. This is all volunteer-basis-like, when I teach you it is because I have fun doing it, or want to do it for other reasons. I give my time and effort for free, so I see no reason why I should not expect it to be rewarding for me in some non-monetary way. I have always found teaching to be a pleasure when done right, and very rewarding. Might be just my personal view, though.

I know many players see teaching as a chore, especially teaching beginners. Some others use it to tickle their egos, or whatnot. But none of that is really teaching, and this is certainly not what I am referring to. It seems this is the kind of people you keep running into. My condolences.


Why is reducing a handicap of any value in this respect? I can crush a beginner with 9h on 19x19 or with 5h on 9x9 with equal ease - does not matter to me. In both situations the beginner would have no clue why he was getting crushed, possibly not even *that* he was getting crushed. What does it matter how many handicaps he gets?

I thought small boards were meant to shorten the game time and lower the complexity.
And if so, it serves dual purpose:
- lower the load on the teacher (less time involvement, explanation easier, issues smaller, done faster)
- lower the complexity on beginner so the teacher can send the beginner off to play other beginners sooner

To me, this all has a value. But for teaching seriously - I think 9x9 is a joke.
But your mileage might vary, it is just my opinion.

Ultimately, we would have to settle it with a teaching duel. You have a beginner for a week and use only 9x9, while I have a beginner for a week and use only 19x19. Then we send them to a tournament and see which one does better. I bet on my beginner, any amount.

Maybe one day...


There is good teaching and bad one, regardless of the board. You seem to be willy-nilly mixing those two together and blaming the board size for quality of your teachers. I would bet the bad experiences with teachers and teaching you have had would still be there regardless of the board, if the teachers were serious. The only thing that skews this assertion is that teaching on small boards takes much less effort on the part of the teacher, and thus his involvement in the process is much smaller and certainly less intimate. And so the possible damage is less.

As I said - 9x9 is better for mediocre or lazy teachers. And if this is the teachers you have, then 9x9 is indeed the preferred method.


Then, according to you, the best teacher is the one who just gives you a book or says "go practice, shoo!"
No teaching, no involvement, why even bother talking to the guy?

I guess we just have to agree to disagree on the value and involvement of a teacher in the learning process. Maybe the difference is that I was fortunate enough to have a few very good teachers in my life, ones who got deeply involved in the process and made a huge difference and impact - but they had to invest quite some time in me, and they did. I hope they did find the experience rewarding, regardless of my improvement or lack thereof. And I hope they continue doing the same for other players.

I guess not everybody is that lucky. But don't give up hope, maybe you run into a good teacher one day.

PS>
Anyways, I think maybe I have said enough on this topic for now. If it is still not clear what I mean, I am not sure what else to say. If you still disagree, then so be it, everybody is entitled to an opinion. Unless something sparks my interest anew, I am bowing out of this conversation.

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

Sounds like an Oriental teacher

IMO a teacher who simply gives material to the student for his study wants him/her to struggle and become familiar with the material enough to ask questions about it, at which point the teacher will provide additional information. (The asking of questions is a sign that the student is beginning to understand the material.) Afterwards the student is left by herself to struggle with any new concepts. To most Westerners, this sounds like a cold, distant approach. Of course it has the advantage of allowing the student much freedom in pursuing a discipline, but for a student accustomed to asking for information prior to learning something this approach can seem intimidating, as there are many unknowns and the student will often be afraid of doing the wrong thing.

In Western pedagogy the standard approach is to provide all necessary information before the student does her own learning, so as to reduce the margin of error; reduced margin of error makes for a more efficient learning approach. Which is often preferred since life in Western societies is often strictly rationed in terms of time for most people. The higher level of personal involvement on the teacher's part is encouraging to the student, but the teacher should remember to encourage the student's autonomy through this approach, as there are cases in which the student might feel as if she need not do anything on her part to advance in understanding of the material.

I conclude by saying that the best approach is individualised and combines the best of both worlds, in varying proportions, of course.

I'll leave the thread alone for now. Not many fish biting here

I have absolutely no proof for that, but I have always though that the typical western and eastern approach (at least in Go teaching, the way you describe it above) simply differs in what the final goal is.

In western teaching (explain, make logical, make them understand, put effort and time, etc) - the goal is to expose/teach/reach as many as possible so there is a broad field.

In eastern teaching (by imitation, or give material and leave students to themselves) - the goal is to find/foster the individuals who have exceptional talent and can thrive with such method. All others might sink-or-swim and most likely drop out at some point, but this is no worry as long as the absolute best are caught. And they, since eventually when they reach the top their approach to the game will have to be more intuitive than scientific (more like a child learns a language than like an adult does) - they might as well start off the right way.

But that's just my theory.

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

I think the Eastern-Western difference you're talking about is also partly the difference between teaching general subjects to students who are more or less required to be there vs. teaching a profession to apprentices.

I am not sure if this hits the point. I would say that learning some new stuff is always hard work - and when I say hard work, I mean hard work for the student and not primarily for the teacher. I believe the brain somehow works similar like a muscle - if you apply continuous training it will become smarter etc. over the time, otherwise if the teacher is doing all the work for you in advance, the brain does not see the the requirement of adaptation. All IMHO of course

Thus, IMHO a good teacher will give the student the motivation required to undergo the tough training (Tsumego, games reviewing, whatever...) and only will give some 'kick' in the right direction, if he sees that the student is getting stuck with some false approach.

Therefore, I would rather state that the "eastern teaching" method filters out the individuals who are willing to put up the required effort. That might be equivalent to "exceptional talented" or not, who knows...

Bantari, you are inferring a lot about me as a teacher and the teachers I had. I'm trying to discuss different methods and their merits.



Of course it can, but my point is that you should not seek this reward in the first place. The first question is: what does this beginner or aspiring novice need? Some of them may like long expositions but I project that the majority wants to get to play quickly and finish a real game quickly, without too much explanation. This is the root of my "stone counting on small boards" intro.

Similarly for studious kyus, I see a lot of reviewing for the sake of the reviewer, not the student. I've been guilty of indulging in such reviews myself.



This is an honest thing to say. Indeed, many of us are teaching out of a personal desire to do something significant. As long as the personal reward does not interfere too much with the student's desire to improve, there's no big issue.




You see, the argument again comes from the teacher's perspective.



Mostly the second argument but both go together. Reducing the load on the teacher is not the issue. The teacher needs to bear with the difficulties of teaching, which is not the same as bearing with the difficulties of the subject.



Sending a beginner to a 19x19 tournament after one week is good for showing him the world of Go. I don't care how well they do in the tournament. There's too much for a beginner to learn to perform well on 19x19 in one week, let alone in a tournament. Also, 1 player each is not a good statistic.

I'd rather say, let's both teach 50 pupils in either fashion and see how many return to the club after two months. That's a more meaningful statistic.




I'm not inferring anything about the quality of my teachers. I was mostly self taught as a beginner and indeed when growing up we only had 6k available in our club. My observations come from my own teaching, what I've seen happening in the club and online.

How you can make inferences about my teachers, is beyond me.



I'm starting out on 5x5, then moving up the scale. That makes me super lazy I guess.




No, this is not at all what I'm saying. You divide the world of go teachers in those who teach like you do (and by your account, only you seem to have the required quality) and the lazy bums. I have a slightly more refined view of the world. The quality of teachers will vary and probably each teacher will get the best results with the method they prefer. I prefer small boards to start with and a targeted but not too forceful follow-up approach as they improve. I think of teaching as carefully allow the self motivation to blossom. I see this not at all as lazy, rather as removing the ego of the teacher from the teaching. For some teachers and pupils, this may not work out and often my ego still gets in the way.



I got a fantastic one, Minue. Many of my ideas were inspired by him.

I think that many traditional teaching approaches, both Eastern and Western, were concerned with selection as well as training. Concentrate your efforts on teaching the best. Much knowledge was esoteric, and access to it had to be earned. But now we are in the age of exoteric knowledge and mass education. They require different approaches to teaching.

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

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Well, your arguments against 19x19 teaching was, let me quote here, that "In most go clubs, beginners play their coach with 9 stones handicap on a big board, are butchered and then get an explanation which mostly serves to show how smart the coach is. The coaches' arrogance then propells into the beginners' attitude who think they're too grown up for small boards."

This tells me two things:
1. the kinds of teachers you have had (I sense bitterness, so I assume you had such teachers yourself), or have observed, and
2. that you think the particular teacher's (or group of teachers) attitude is a valid argument for/against a teaching method.

This is why I say what i say and infer what I infer.

But lets move on.



Why not? I am not Mother Teresa doing things and sacrificing selflessly to help others. Just trying to be a nice guy, so if I can help I will, but mostly I need to get something out of it as well, and in the case of free teaching all I can get is satisfaction. This is my reward, and I think it is a very small one compared to what I, as teacher, give. If I have no expectation of getting any satisfaction, I will not teach. Its that simple.

Now this satisfaction, or reward, can have many forms. It can be the personal connection I mentioned, it can be the student's improvement you mentioned, or something else. It can even be that I like teaching and doing the thing I like gives me satisfaction. Some people teach for money. Hey, when I was younger I taught a few times jut to get to know a girl better, and that was reward enough. There can be all kinds of reasons. But deep down, I think there is always a reason or goal, and achieving this goal is rewarding. And this is why people do it.

I absolutely not buy it that anybody out there teaches for the sake of teaching when he/she finds it a drag, a chore, and generally hates it. Thus _ I assume we all do it to get something out of it on a personal level, and if there is no chance to get anything out, we don't.



I understand this. And this is why I say - 9x9 has its place.

My point is that Go as a game is not a fast game, and whoever does not like it will not make it very far anyhow. To me, a serious beginner who is motivated to improve at Go, needs to understand that. If he has the expectation to have some quick-and-dirty fun, he might play on 9x9 indeed, or maybe go play tic-tac-toe or something. But he cannot expect for me to take him very seriously until he understand that this is not Go.

Now, there is a class of people for whom this small-board-method is useful: people walking into a club and wondering "what is it, can I try it?"... Sure, show such people a few things on 9x9 and let them play, but these to me are not really "serious beginners" worth of "serious teaching" (not just yet, maybe never) - they are just curious onlookers. When they jump that hurdle to the next level and decide they want to get serious, I think there is absolutely no need to ever show them a small board again.


And again you bring the shortcomings of particular teacher(s) to argue for or against a method.



This why I am talking about *good* teaching. When you teach correctly, this never interferes, because the aim of the teaching is always the student and his personal needs.
This is *how* I teach. But this is not *why* I teach. You keep mixing these two things together, I think. Both in talking to me and in talking about teaching method and the teachers you had/observed.



I am a teacher, in this context, so of course I speak from teacher's perspective. Don't you?

And I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. Teacher's perspective not only does exist, but it is a valid, even crucial part of this equation. It comes back to what I said above - teacher is not somebody who puts aside all his own goals and needs and pleasures just to selflessly give and give and give, and then give some more. This is not teacher/student relation, this is slavery. I can be a teacher, but I am not going to be a slave. When i teach, I want it to be rewarding in some way to me. If I cannot have such expectation, I don't teach.

I would be extremely surprised if not all of us, who teach, thought the same - when they look deep down into themselves and are brutally honest.

I am not sure why you object to such perspective so much.

Why do you teach when you teach? Would you teach if there was no hope of any kinds of satisfaction? Would you plant a garden if there was no hope of seeing stuff grow and eventually harvesting and eating the veg? I don't know nobody who would, to be honest. Its human.

--------------------

The bottom line is, here is what I really want to say, in a nuttshell.

1. I have a feeling you keep mixing the "why" of teaching with the "how" of teaching. In my particular case, the "why" is to get some kind of satisfaction out of it, or see it rewarding in some way. The "how" is a different story, and in that I agree that the students needs have to be put first and that whoever does not do that should not be teaching, really. I would be very surprised if not every teacher thought in some such way. But this has really nothing to do with "method", and so is a little OT here.

2. I also have a feeling you talk about "casual" beginners/students while I talk about "serious" ones. The casual ones are the walk-ins to the club, people saying "hey, looks neat, how does it go?" and then you need to show them a few things. 9x9 boards are good for that. But when i see somebody really serious about learning this game, somebody willing to go the distance and understanding that Go is a slow and long and complex game - and liking that! - I will never ever even look at small boards. Such people I call "serious" beginners/students and worth some "serious" teaching, not just a demonstration on a small board. And I would never use 9x9 or 13x13 while teaching such people, unless there were very special circumstances (analyzing pro 9x9 game, or something like that.)

And that's that.
I understand your mileage might vary, and you just like the 9x9 method. This is fine, everybody can have a preference. But to me, that does not mean the method is better.

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

I think the consensus is that no matter what method is used, if a jerk is teaching, then the beginner will suffer?

I am sure that some methods are better than others for most people, but none of that matters if the company is unpleasant. Toward that end, perhaps it is more important to recruit people of good character into our wonderful game so that future beginners will enjoy their company.

The current discussion seems more relevant to a situation where a benevolent dictator has been put in charge of a club that only has jerks for teachers. The dictator cannot turn the jerks into decent men, but he can force them to use different methods...or something like that. However, given that the jerks will do what they want in reality, it all seems like a moot point.