I have reason to doubt that, one would be seeing people holding onto a low SDK rating (KGS) for many years, although they are playing games every day.

_________________
My "guide" to become stronger in Go

That happens, doesn't it? And, who is to say what the best solution is? Somehow I doubt that it's getting advice from others. I tried pro lessons for a short period of time, for example, and did not find it very effective.

I also suspect that those that have the same rating for many years do not study as much as they could.

_________________
be immersed

I agree with what you said, but I think this is almost impossible to put into practice without seeing in action for yourself first. This is why I liked shygost's lectures when I was weaker, despite disagreeing with some of the issues he presented as dogma. He was very good at demonstrating how to attack a weak group, and that helped me shoot through the 8-3k range. I wish I still had some of those lectures on my computer for others.

_________________
We don't know who we are; we don't know where we are.
Each of us woke up one moment and here we were in the darkness.
We're nameless things with no memory; no knowledge of what went before,
No understanding of what is now, no knowledge of what will be.

Clearly you've forgotten what it was like to be a beginner. Without any sort of objective, experimentation just becomes placing stones in random locations. And by the time you realize all is lost, your too many moves removed from what got you into trouble in the first place, in order to make the mental connection between a failed or successful experiment.

As a beginner, not only did I not know where to play, I had no idea why one spot might be better than another. And usually because I couldn't read past my own move to figure out my opponent's objective and where he might play next.

Once I started to get a rough idea of an objective, only then I could start narrowing my search pattern for trying to read out what the next few moves might look like.

I think you've hit right on my problem.

I took a style test ( http://style.baduk.org/style/index.php? ) that said I was way too passive, and I've been trying to play more aggressively since then, Maybe too much. Some general rethinking of my entire strategy concept is clearly in order.

I don't think the idea is different for a beginner and more experienced player. You say you had no objective, but now you do. How did you get to that point? I think you could have learned these objectives independently of proverbs or outside help.

_________________
be immersed

I do not think this is about some kind of "best solution". Everybody learns in different ways but I'm pretty sure no one learns Go with playing alone (practice/experience) and no form of guidance.
As far as I'm concerned, a Coach is the best thing. You took lessons from a pro player and it wasn't effective, but that just shows that being a strong player does not mean to be a good teacher.
But let alone the Coach, if you study Go, you study examples, principles and advice - again giving from other players. I can't see a way around that.

_________________
My "guide" to become stronger in Go

Actually, I do not typically study examples, principles, or advice. I train with go problems. I try to train my brain to find solutions given a particular board position. This allows me to find a solution myself, rather than spitting out what somebody else told me.

It's possible that people learn in different ways, but in my experience, I do not get much from somebody else telling me what to do.

It could be me, too. Though I went to college, I didn't usually put much weight into what professors told me.

_________________
be immersed

What is an opening problem except for an example designed to prove a point? Even tsumego are often chosen because they highlight particular techniques that the student won't see on his own.

Also, do you look at solutions to those problems?

I hope you mean "unconditional weight."

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I believe that doing go problems are very much more oriented toward individual training/exercise than what you'd get in, say, a book on go theory, which tells you the correct moves - or, than getting lessons from a pro, for example.*

(By the way, I typically prefer life&death or tesuji problems, as opening problems seem a bit vague to me.)

I typically do not look at solutions to problems, except as a means of verifying that my calculations are the same as what the author came up with.

Yes, this verification does come from another person, but the bulk of my training does not rely on some canned proverb or advice.




I don't really know what you mean.


*Maybe I should give an example. I believe that taking a jog outside is more effective in strengthening my body than to have somebody push me around in a wheelchair. Both are effective for getting me around the block, but actual training and working for myself is what gets me stronger - and more able to move around freely on my own.

_________________
be immersed

Here is my SDK advice on this swarm of issues:

1) When someone invades, I first try to look at the stone (cause it is just one stone for now...) as a potential target. I then ask myself:
a) Can I attack this, or
b) Do I have a bigger/better/more urgent move elsewhere?

If attacking/countering this last move is the best thing for me to do right now I then try to remember my 3 priorities for reasons to attack (I think I got this from a Yulin Yang book) in descending order of importance:
1) To secure life for a group of mine
2) To increase my territory/influence
3) To kill the opponent's group

So if I can combine these then great! Double-point play! So frequently my responses won't be planned to kill off the invading stone, but instead kick the group around some and gain advantages for myself in the process while it is still weak and needs to defend or run. This helps keep me out of all-or-nothing sequences that can decide the game with one fouled up (mine, usually...) move. I'm usually happy to give my opponent 10-15 points if I can secure 25+ with my responses.

Now please note that these are not ironclad rules, just a train of thought I follow with some limited success. Sometimes (and this is what makes go fun) a wimpy defensive, passive move can be the right response and sometimes the invasion is ludicrous and deserves to be stomped into the ground. Only experience can let you see what is the best response for you, but I find this process helps keep me from making overly "reactive" moves as a near-reflex.

Good luck and have fun!

Bruce "Keel moose and squirrel" Young

_________________
Currently reading: Plutarch, Cerebus, and D&Q 25th Anniversary

Coming back to the jogging example, I suppose it's possible that one could relate learning knowledge from books to receiving a piece of technology from another person.

That is, maybe reading a book on go theory could be like getting a scooter from the author. It'll help you to be faster, even though you didn't work much for that speed yourself...

Hmmm...

_________________
be immersed

@Kirby:

I think that's a horrible analogy XD A more apt one might be trying to reach the end of a path, and getting wheel-chaired there for the first half?

But I personally think a better analogy would be like climbing a mountain with a guide?

Perhaps... I suppose in that case, given the choice of:

1.) Sitting in a classroom, having the guide teach me about mountain climbing technique.

2.) Practicing my mountain climbing skill by training on small hills behind my house every day.

I'd probably choose number 2 if I wanted to become a better mountain climber. I think that the hands-on experience is valuable.

I don't think that learning from others is totally useless, I guess. I would probably rank my personal experience in study technique in the following manner:

Personally acquired knowledge > book knowledge > knowledge acquired by somebody telling me

So, back to the example, if I had to learn how to be a good mountain climber, I'd put preference toward going out and trying to climb mountains over reading a book on mountain climbing, over hearing what the guide has to tell me... And I suppose that hearing what the guide has to tell me would rank higher than hearing what somebody else said that the guide told them.

_________________
be immersed

That's a rather odd analogy, but what do you think of this one:

I know that I'll get stronger by jogging than by being pushed about in a wheelchair, because I wasn't sleeping the whole time during biology class.

or perhaps more to your liking:

I know that I'll get stronger by jogging than by being pushed about in a wheelchair, because I pay attention to how my body feels.

or this one:

I believe that having someone teach me how to fly an airplane is more effective that trying to figure it out myself.

If that makes you groan, what about this:

I'd rather try to figure out how to fly an airplane myself than have someone teach me.


I think this is more like your position. You prefer to learn go by doing over being taught. Maybe this is the best way, maybe it isn't. Who's to judge?

Edit: as to climbing a mountain or reading a book about it, nobody says that they're mutually exclusive...

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Yes. I think that, if I got to the level of being able to fly an airplane by myself, I would know more about flying than if I had had an instructor.



Yes, this is what I feel. And you're right, "Who is to judge?".

I feel this way, because in my personal experience, I do not feel like I get much from being lectured on something. Other people's experiences could certainly vary.

_________________
be immersed

Kirby, there's more than one way to learn something, and usually combining insight from different schools of thought is more effective than sticking dogmatically to one idea. Anyone with limited time (nearly everyone) is going to be more interested in finding study methods that produce good results - as opposed to methods that sort of work if you do them for long enough. There are thousands of ways to sort of improve at Go and other activities, provided enough time.

Go problems are one way of studying, and I agree with you that they'll make you stronger. So will lessons or games with stronger players - if you approach them in the right frame of mind. So will looking at model plays in books and listening to the ideas of other players. Most people will find it more effective to combine many of these ways of improving.

I know you're not going to like what I have to say next, though now that I've said that maybe you'll change your mind... Over the last few months I've read many of your comments on this forum. I've noticed that you like to play the devil's advocate or disagree with people on principle.

I believe this kind of critical thinking is a product of the western education system. We spent our time at school being asked to do things like criticize the writing of people who were much better writers than ourselves. What did that teach us? It has it's strengths and weaknesses of course, but I was also educated in that system and it took me years to unlearn some of what I learned there.

When you try to study with this kind of critical approach, it's like you have a goal keeper always ready to stop any new idea getting in. You have to analyze everything before deciding whether it's worthy of acceptance. Imagine how much that slows things down...

Have you ever wondered why children learn so quickly? It's because they accept knowledge first and question later. It's because the child brain perceives most new information as useful. Studies into neuro-plasticity have shown that adult brains are still capable of remarkable change and learning, but not when adults convince themselves that they're incapable of it.

You've probably already composed a reply in your head while reading this. By all means reply, but I have a better idea. Why not try it? Why not go a month trying to find the good advice in people's comments instead of the bad? Why not try accepting first and reflecting later. If you're able to change your focus, you may be surprised by what you discover.

David

_________________
David

Go Game Guru: Learn Go | How to Get Better at Go | Go Game Shop | Go Boards | Baduk TV

Is this relevant to how to handle invasions? I don't know, but it's certainly true; this is exactly what I was thinking when Kirby wrote that he didn't put too much weight on things his professors told him. Not that anyone should mistake his professor for a petty prophet, but it's extremely hard to educate students who take pride in believing in nothing.

Just read the first quote--you're the one making the judgment that advice from others won't work. And that's ok! Judge away! Think about the best way to improve and when you have an idea, judge that it's the best. If later on you get a better idea, change your judgment.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Well, every belief that you have comes with some degree of confidence. From my experiences thus far, I have some degree of confidence that I don't get that much via advice from others.

"Who is to judge" is a phrase that confirms the uncertainty of the matter. But I don't think that this prevents anyone from having some degree of belief toward a particular point of view.

In other words, I cannot say with certainty that I cannot learn from a pro teacher as effectively as I would by doing go problems. But I have some degree of confidence that this is the case.

_________________
be immersed