I was checking the most recent brouhaha on AI cheating, and the KBA and such, and I was wondering... (This might come off a tad rant-ish)

Two most recent cheating events have involved teenagers; both girls, I believe. A Western chess and a baduk players. Now, amateurs have had programs better than them for a while; and we've always had the pros, better than us. It's the reason we're called amateurs. You realize you'll never be at the top and play on (or quit).

But pros now have "competition"; or, rather, an existential threat. And I think the feeling misses the point; and, by missing the point, actually points to a severe mistake in Go.

We don't play Go, we don't watch Go, to be the very best player. We don't watch baseball (or criket, or tennis) to watch the fastest batter. You could probably build a tennis robot able to score *through* the opponent; that's not the point.

We want to play well... and that's already wobbly. What does that mean? People join this kind of things for the mental challenge, or for the social aspect, or the historical link, or... Everyone has their reasons, and theirs alone.

And yet, teaching seems to be "this is the best move, these are the reasons; learn". Now, I have to put a disclaimer: I've never been able to attend a real life class, nor have I [yet; that one's closer] joined an online dojo. BUT...

I have links with school teachers. Grade to late high school. Also, martial arts and Sunday school teachers. These later have the advantage that, by and large, they have kids who actively want to be there. But the kids they're teaching... each has his own foibles. Some kids learn better this way, some kids learn better that way. Some are better with visuals, or touch... There are stages in learning, methods. Watch-Learn-Do? Do-Learn-Watch?

I don't see that really touched. And I don't see teaching certification programs anywhere. A good doer does not make a good teacher. There's that old phrase "those who can't, teach". Yeah, sure. I've watched more than a genious, or ten, fumbling through teaching something they could do with their eyes closed, not being able to understand, at all, the student's point of view.

And yet, instead of saying "we're humans, we can teach better than AI, here's how" what I see is professional organizations trying to find a way against AI in the competition room. We've known outside influence was a thing since, at least, the Meijin's retirement game (I think I read something about the Castle Games, but I can't pin it, now). Earpieces have been a thing for "ages", at this point. Solve it, ask official examination referees in other fields, they have experience, it's past time. Just don't make a fuss.

Solve the teaching. The nurturing of new talent; ethically, pretty please. And new fans. Sure, cheating's easier. But cheating was always possible. It used to be expected (Meijin). Learning was also expected.

It might be about time to expect teaching.

Take care.

_________________
玄 之 玄

That's certainly not the only teaching method. The teacher may ask the student "why did you play that move, what did you have in mind" in order to correct the student's misconceptions.

:>> There's that old phrase "those who can't, teach". Yeah, sure. I've watched more than a genious, or ten, fumbling through teaching something they could do with their eyes closed, not being able to understand, at all, the student's point of view.

My filmmaking professor used to say, “Those do the best craft usually cannot teach, those who cannot perform the tasks become terrible teachers, and those who cannot do either usually write the texts.”

Your second statement is a huge problem with advancing the new learners who come to us knowing or using online resources only. They ask for reviews but cannot possibly comprehend what they have been told because the superior players cannot or will not remember what it was like to know so little about go. And then there are the bullies who expect you not only to learn from their destruction of your groups, they also think you will respect them for their skills.

_________________
David Bogie, Boise ID
I play go, I ride a recumbent, of course I use Macintosh.

My apologies for responding to this thread over a year after the last post.

Perhaps we can compare Eastern pedagogy and Western pedagogy. From what I understand, the former is basically a lot of self-study and then getting instruction from the teacher to make sense of it all, while the latter is asking questions and getting answers from the teacher to know the most important things and study based on that. I imagine that most East Asian Go teachers get annoyed when dealing with Western Go learners that love to ask questions and don't do enough self-study.

I think it's better to engage in self-study and rely on the instructor to give me insights on how to make sense of what I learn so I can apply it in the way that is most beneficial to me. I think engaging in Socratic dialogue to learn about Go is useful only after one has learned a few fundamentals beforehand.