I'm sure we've all heard this at one time or another, but I have run into this interesting article http://preview.tinyurl.com/385hvk6 It gives a sort of layout for studying problems and has some recommended problem books. It's an interesting article that comes from some stronger players it seems. Just thought I'd share it with you guys.

I'd be very curious to know what this Tianlongtu is, and how to get a copy. It's the only one I haven't heard of.

_________________
"Those who calculate greatly will win; those who calculate only a little will lose, but what of those who don't make any calculations at all!? This is why everything must be calculated, in order to foresee victory and defeat."-The Art of War

http://tchan001.wordpress.com/2010/05/0 ... ems-books/
Tianlongtu is 天龍圖. I translated it as "Heavenly Dragon Diagrams" in my blog entry.

I'd recommend looking for the Taiwanese versions. You can look at this blog entry for info on buying Chinese go books:
http://tchan001.wordpress.com/chinese-g ... -go-books/

There are Japanese versions of Tianlongtu.
http://www.amazon.co.jp/天龍図1-碁楽選書-権-甲龍/dp/4488000231/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281922870&sr=1-3
http://www.amazon.co.jp/天龍図2-碁楽選書-権-甲龍/dp/448800024X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281922870&sr=1-1

Can't really give you advice if you plan to buy the original Korean version though. But if you are looking for the latest books from the author, they are currently only available in Korean

_________________
http://tchan001.wordpress.com
A blog on Asian go books, go sightings, and interesting tidbits
Go is such a beautiful game.

Thanks tchan, I've never heard of it either. Your blog is really useful, I've used it for help on ordering some chinese go books.

Yes, that article is one of the best to model a long-term study plan on. I have all of the books in the article, including the Kweon Kap-yong Baduk Academy Series (權甲龍圍棋道場系列), and believe that they are all very good.

I must say i don't really trust anyone who says it's easy to become 8d.

"Easy" is a bit of a relative term. Reading the article, I think the path described to reach 8D is "easy" in concept, and even in execution. What would be difficult (for me) is finding the time, energy, dedication required to follow the path as described. If you have those, and enough mental acuity to work through the program, then, yes, it certainly sounds possible.

It's a nice article, and I hope it inspires many players to redouble their efforts at reaching 8D!

Don't take his word for it. Try it yourself and find out

_________________
FusekiLibrary, an opening library.
SGF converter tools: Wbaduk NGF to SGF | 440 go problems | Fuseki made easy | Tesuji made easy | Elementary training & Dan level testing | Dan Tutor Shortcut To Dan

I'd hate to spend all that effort and find myself stuck at a measly 7D

_________________
1k KGS

Everything is easy if you put hard work in it.

_________________
My "guide" to become stronger in Go

I've tried flying by flailing my arms a lot as a kid. I'm still unable to take off or even glide.

_________________
Heretix [24k]: Anyone care to give a little bit of commentary, this game is confusing...
mattn [1d]: commentary: "oh my god"
tartrate vs. redrose game

This is not true. People have limitations. I've seen people work very hard and not become 8d.

I'm not sure. I mean 8d in 3 years if you spend all of your time studying tsumego* seems believable, but I don't think I can honestly give any say on this because I'm just a kyu.

*of course, if the tsumego difficulty follows with your level.

Less go specific, more just general with competitive games: when you plataeu, in order to get better, you have to either think at a fundamentally higher level (what was strategy before becomes tactics now, and what was tactics before is taken for granted) or at the lower levels master a skill you were ignoring before (learn those damn Starcraft2 hotkeys) or unlearn some deeply ingrained habits (cut whenever you can whether the fight favors you or not). All of which mean playing worse for a while because you're outside your comfort zone. Not everyone's egos can take that, so they get stuck in a blind alley skill-wise, trying to get better at the sub optimal techniques in their comfort zone.

There probably is some upper bound on how good a person can play go based just on physical processing power of the brain (it is finite in material, so finite in processing power) and time limits, but I imagine it's well in to the pro range for an average person. The limiting factor is ego, time/money, motivation/endurance, and knowing what to study (coaching). I think that's true of any activity that takes years to master.

_________________
1k KGS

I find it less important to ponder the absolute limitations and more productive to ponder if I can improve from where I am now and what's the best way to accomplish it. The above article shows the way forward. If 8d is the final destination isn't that important.

_________________
FusekiLibrary, an opening library.
SGF converter tools: Wbaduk NGF to SGF | 440 go problems | Fuseki made easy | Tesuji made easy | Elementary training & Dan level testing | Dan Tutor Shortcut To Dan

if its true we will see soon. Just started very hard go training by myself with tsumego and with Guo Juan Sensei.

_________________
sorry for my english - im Marsian

I would agree with palapiku completely. I learned go as an adult at about the same time as my father. We grew together. I now am watching his rank slide in the wrong direction as he begins to decline. I also know my brain isn't as flexible as it once was and this is a limiting factor. Why do you think go schools accept young brains only? I know of a physics lab in which they find young brains have all the fresh ideas. After 25 or so the brain just isn't open to new thinking. Older physicists are there to coach younger minds, not generate new ideas.

_________________
Hare

Play as Hare on KGS unless feeling peckish then I lurk as MrFudd.

While this is true of mathematics, sciences like physics and probably games like Go it is not universally true. I know, for instance, in my field of study (Philosophy) many of the most innovative and influential ideas have been made by the fairly old. Immanuel Kant was over 60 years old when he turned the entire course of the discipline on its head for better or for worse. He also did not begin study at an incredibly early age (16).

Starting young will help (a lot) for pretty much anything, but it is not true that old brains are incapable or even unlikely to produce new ideas.

While Kant produced a rash of publications towards the end of his career, it is not accurate to say that he developed any genius idea in his 60's. The man was a practicing philosopher for decades who never published any of his work. His writings represent the distilled efforts of a lifetime and not any special insight of later life.

Except that the production of the Critiques was directly motivated by a turn in his thinking caused by an encounter with Hume around 1771, which would have been at the age of 47.

He certainly did publish his work prior to his post-Hume publications (over a dozen works published, in fact), it's merely that none of them contained any significantly influential or original ideas.

Kant isn't some kind of odd exception in the field either, http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/20 ... r-old.html

I'm not claiming that it's easy to pick up anything completely new at a late age. The older you are, the harder it is. That's a different claim, however, from another claim that was made in addition: namely that only the youthful are open to to reception or production of new ideas EVEN within the context of a field of study or practice inhabited since early adulthood.

EDIT: It's interesting to note that in the sciences, the age given in this thread as a kind of cut-off (25) is more like the peak, with actual dissemination peaking a number of years afterwards (~30) presumably due to the time required after conception to research and produce a result in an appropriate form. But that's only the peak, not a cut-off. The gradual decline is still forgiving through the 40's.