I have learned on 19x19 board, never played a game of "atagi-Go" until I was SDK, and personally see nothing wrong with that. I have had some very good teachers, and never ever felt that 19x19 was somehow "not suitable" for me to learn on. When I got confused, I asked the teacher and my confusion was dispelled.
Everybody else who learned at that time went through the same experience, and most of us are still around kicking buts on the board.
Having said the above as an intro, you might guess that I strongly disagree with some of the stuff you say.
Knotwilg wrote:
In Hushfield's marvelous journal of his study in China, Abyssinica challenged my claim that beginners should play many games on small boards before moving to 19x19. Here's my answer, which I did not want to hijack the journal with.
In essence it is an attack on the non-existing training culture in our clubs, at least the ones I've been part of, which extends into the even more liberal online gathering (maybe the Nordic Go Academy and likes are an exception).
--------------
Anyone can of course do whatever they like. We're discussing fast ways to improve. Beginners can decide to read Invincible by John Power prior to Life & Death by James Davies too. It's however this culture of total freedom in our clubs that leads to their poor average performance. In martial arts clubs a beginner doesn't enter 1,5 hours after the club evening has started, they don't were a black belt if they care for it and they don't throw swords and knifes around until their coach thinks they're ready for it. In tennis, kids play with small rackets on half a field. In soccer, kids play in teams of 5 on small fields. There ARE preferred ways to instruct newbies, even if there are no lives at stake or physical limitations present.
Most of the examples you cite are so not because of beginner-friendliness or being a better method in general, but they are rooted in some very real and specific limitations beginners display. The "throwing knives" example is the most extreme, of course, and it should be obvious why beginners are not allowed to do that in club setting. Playing soccer on small fields is a function of stamina and availability - you might not have access to large field for each training, or access to more than 10 beginners at a time, or whatnot. Small rackets and small fields are used because it takes strength and dexterity the beginner does not have to play on proper field.
On the other hand, where such physical limitations are not present, the "full featured" game is usually taught. Chess is conceptually probably the closest "western" relative to Go, and beginners sure are not taught on half board with limited number of pieces. You don't teach poker with half a deck. When teaching guitar, you might give the kid a smaller model, but it still has 6 strings. And so on...
I am not sure why there is this tendency to treat Go beginners with such kid gloves. Its almost like we try to mislead them, or lure them into our web by showing them something like 9x9 and teaching on that. Or even start with something as silly as "atari go". And then, step by little step, once they are firmly hooked (by putting time and effort into it) start "unveiling" the *real* game. After atari-go or 9x9 games - they might not even like real Go.
If I was treated like that as a beginner, I would have been offended, honestly.
Why not just say: here is the proper board, this is how you play, and you either like it or not, you're a big boy/girl.
And beginners will either like it and play it, or look for some other game which is more to their liking.
If that means some beginners will never come back - well, the game might not have been for them, or they were not ready yet. I would rather find it out now than after I spent 2 years bringing such person up to 15k or so, and then losing him/her. When I teach, I take it seriously and put a lot of effort into it, and I don't like to see this effort wasted. I see no reason any less should be expected of the student.
Knotwilg wrote:
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 is really a pile of hogpoo.
As a matter of fact, I see it as a laziness of the teacher to teach on 9x9 board rather than the proper game. The teacher willing to spend time and effort and who is considerate and sensitive can have wonderful results teaching on 19x19, usually much faster. And I believe it will also benefit in the long run.
You are correct when you say 19x19 is more complex, and beginner can get lost in that complexity. But this is why the teacher is important, to cut through this complexity and help the student along. It is not always an easy job to do that as a teacher, but this is why teaching can be so rewarding in and of itself.
On the other hand, 9x9 is a cookie-cutter method. First let me *quickly* crush you on 5 handi and maybe explain a thing or two, then go and play some other beginners while I can do more interesting things. Come back when you are ready to get *quickly* crushed on 4 stones and get few more things pointed out. Rinse, repeat. This is not teaching, this is avoidance. And 9x9 is very teacher-friendly in this respect. Lazy or mediocre teachers *love* 9x9. This is why it is so popular, and so many use it, I think.
Teaching on 19x19 takes more effort and dedication and knowledge, and so many shy away from that.
I mean - there is nothing wrong with not being a good teacher, not everybody has that skill. And there is certainly nothing wrong with recognizing that fact and admitting it. In such cases, teaching on 9x9 might the best you can do, and that's that. Better than nothing, I suppose. Heck - sometimes even good teachers don't have the time, or the will, to get invested in yet another student. So 9x9 has its place.
But I strongly disagree with the statement that it is something which is generally superior and preferable as a method. It is not!
Knotwilg wrote:
I find this a pitiful situation and envy the culture of excellence the Chinese foster, as witnessed by Hushfield's account. I'm also staggered by the subliminal belief that Asians would somehow be smarter or culturally-genetically predestined to play go. They're not as can be seen from their rapid take over of mastery of western classical music. They're more studious and respect the idea there could be a fast lane to mastery, which may not be to their spontaneous liking. Whether their genes or culture is the primary cause for this, I cannot tell.
As a matter of fact, from everything I have seen, it is the westerners (particularly the Americans) who are seemingly in love with the idea of "fast lane to mastery" - and easy way, at that. I think it is better understood in Asian that there is no real shortcuts, not when you aim at the top, and to reach mastery in any field takes years of hard work, dedication, sacrifices, and sweat.
Other than that, I agree that Asians are more studious. I think there is more respect for education by itself in Asia, both personally and in social context. In the West, education is often just seen as a means to an end, like a good career, more money, whatnot, and if you can achieve that with less education, the more the better! But this is just my personal opinion based on my personal observation, and your mileage might differ.