John Fairbairn wrote:
Quote:
I ignore the meta-discussion about the exact meaning of 'accurate'.
I think this sums up why it's so frustrating for people trying to help you.
I continue to ignore meta-discussion.
Quote:
You seem not to want to learn but just want to bolster your own theory, and will ignore or twist anything to do that.
If you re-read my previous message,...
Quote:
Quote:
So what is the method, please?
...you need not launch another meta-discussion.
Quote:
No pro has said fuzzy is good per se. They have often said it is good enough for amateurs, or good enough even for pros, who have to make compromises under time limits. The fuzzy way to count territories is a lot easier and so is of earlier and more direct benefit to amateurs, but beyond that it teaches players to look at the right things.
You, and the pros teaching in this manner, mix correct and false things.
It is correct that
- there are time limits requiring compromises in thinking,
- there are cases when rough counting is good enough,
- rough counting is a lot easier.
It is wrong that
- rough counting is always good enough (it is insufficient for a) close games or b) deciding between every two variations with resulting similar judgements),
- rough counting provides more direct benefit for amateurs (it provides only the illusion, because strategic applications from rough counting can be right or wrong and one does not know which),
- rough counting is the easiest way of making a judgement of a count (simply guessing who is ahead is much faster and easier than even rough counting, and with just a bit of practice successful with a similar frequency),
- it teaches players to look at the right things (a) If players do not count at all, they have more time to look at the "right", non-counting things and b) accurate counting enables players to look at the right things much more than rough counting. The "right", non-counting things are, as a learning concept, essentially independent from learning counting in positional judgement. Teachers should not use counting as a excuse for bad teaching of "right", non-counting things.)
Quote:
Counting stones and working out ratios might teach you a lot about arithmetic but teaches you next to nothing about go,
Counting presumes basic knowledge of arithmetics: addition, subtraction, multiplication, devision. It is immaterial whether counting motivates improving one's awareness or speed of arithmetic calculations.
Counting stones and points and doing the right calculations with the counts belongs to the most important go skills. Not just basic counting of territorial positional judgement, but many other concepts and methods of counting, calculating and interpreting the counts and calculations are extremely important. The more I study and unnderstand pro games, the more very basic concepts of counts and calculations I discover that every professional gets right (even if he should achieve it subconsciously and not aware of the aspects explicitly) and almost all amateurs are not aware of because traditional go theory has neglected to express and teach those concepts.
For example, I see very many beginners making the same mistake because beginners often do not count to 1. They create 1 weak group because they are not aware that having 1 weak group is much worse than having 0 weak groups. Next, they create the 2nd weak group. Because they have not counted to 1 before, then they do not count to 2 to understand the most easily that they hurt their own position. And so they sometimes create 5 new weak groups within their 5 successive moves. Counting is essential! Even trivial counting is essential.
Your statement is one of the worst advices I have ever seen about go theory. You dislike numbers, but this is no reason to teach disliking numbers and counting.
Quote:
but using approximations teaches you (especially your subconscious) a lot about go, and so is much more useful in the long run.
Approximations, unclarity and hidden knowledge have been extremely great hurdles for me to overcome when confronted with them in professional books and teaching.