Not having the wrong moves explained does lead at least to the amusing situation of going through the book the earlier times and being completely stumped as to why your answer won't work, and then on a later try realising it's fairly obvious why it won't work.

The one thing to remember with the GGPfB series is that the rank they state it for lies... Lies I tell you!

PeterN

About that stated rank ... my copy of GGPfB3 has "20k to 15k" on the front, and "12k to 6k" on the back. It's quite clear there's something fishy going on there.

Starting and ending ranks?

In order to highlight the contrast with GGPfB, Baduktopia's approach deserves some attention.

This problem is from EL&D2:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . O , O O O O . O . . .
$$ | . . O X . X X . O . . . .
$$ | . . O X . . . X X O O . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ +--------------------------[/go]

This problem appears as the first diagram, it's a bit of a thinker, but for those who don't have the discipline to not look very slightly to the right (or down, in the case of this post), the answer is right there on the same page.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . O , O O O O . O . . .
$$ | . . O X . X X . O . . . .
$$ | . . O X b c . X X O O . .
$$ | . . . a . . 1 . . . . . .
$$ +--------------------------[/go]

The GGPfB approach would just give and say "No matter what white tries, black gets two eyes."

In EL&D2, it's given along with several potential white responses, which each get several diagrams dedicated to showing why white might try it, and why it doesn't work. The message is simple: this looks scary, but you can counter this.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . X , X X X X . X . . .
$$ | . . X O . O O . X . . . .
$$ | . . X O . a . O O X X . .
$$ | . . . . . b . . . . . . .
$$ +--------------------------[/go]

What's this then? The same problem is shown inverted, with a bunch of diagrams spent on showing what happens if you do it wrong. They even spend a diagram on a wrong response to the wrong response. I'm hoping for a wrongception in the later two books.

So that's one single problem, over three pages, for a total of 18 diagrams. Most problems aren't shown that elaborately, but it's quite common to have three diagrams about the same problem. It feels a little unwieldy and I often catch myself thinking "yes, yes, that was obvious".

What if it's not that obvious, though? After reading out the first diagram, you'll see nothing new in the other 17 diagrams, but if your reading failed due to a blind spot, or you simply don't understand why your different answer fails, it can be helpful to see the result.

This sort of demonstration isn't aimed at people who can just read it out perfectly, but it is aimed at people who want to learn how. It's showing plainly what you "ought" to be able to see if you can read it out.

There are almost (I don't know why there are exceptions, but there are a few) no letters or numbers or other markings in the diagrams. Just some stones with a simple instruction written above each diagram, like "kill white" or "save black". The reader is always black. An inverted problem always signifies you switch between killing and saving.

The theme of every page is clearly mentioned on top. It's a very strong hint about what kind of move you should be trying to find. If you're supposed to be looking for a ko, you will be told on a per diagram basis, too.

There are no answers in this book, either. I really don't know what I'd do if I could still not see whether something is correct or not, after all those diagrams. I really treat them as answers. You might want to use a card to cover them when you're going through this book.

The only ones which aren't a case of the blatantly obvious are the little "tests" every once in a while, which refer back to specific pages. There are actual answers available, for the especially hard of learning, or the highly insecure, which you could download off the Baduktopia website.

One other thing which I should really mention, is that a lot of problems have several solutions. The foreword freely admits this, since it's not really a problem as such. If you ignore the pervasive hints, you can find perfectly workable alternatives in many cases.

The goal of this book is more about teaching you specific moves than trying to drill the one sacred correct answer, so that's why the authors haven't contrived their problems in such a way that only one move could work for each of them.

The end result is a far gentler approach to tsumego, which is a little wasted on me. I still appreciate this format, since it adds something completely different which may work very well for some people. I really wonder how much this could have helped me earlier on.

Obviously, it's not actually worthless to me now, either. It just lifts the curtain to things I've already seen with all the extra diagrams. I'm too lazy to extract all the first diagrams (without any solution or hints) into a list when they're already printed in the book.

Kano (or his ghost writer) did not establish the difficulty of the problems empirically, but guessed. A beginner's thought process is just about as mysterious to a pro as a pro's is to a beginner.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

That does seem likely.

A pro will usually have a VERY different perspective. Things which an amateur may struggle with in adult life will be kiddie stuff for most pros. If you hit pro strength in your late teens, everything before that is for kids.

February's KGS performance ended with a 58% win percentage. This is okay, I guess...

I want it to be higher this month, even if I get a higher rank. Why should I be satisfied with a mere 58%? I have to keep pushing until it's 100%!

My win percentage with white was 61%, while with black it was a deplorable 55%. With handicap, it was 44%, against handicap it was 73%.

I should try giving higher-ranked players a handicap. Maybe that will improve my win rate ....

Hold up there a second. If you're winning 100% of the time, you're not doing well, you're sandbagging. Improvement is good, but you need to lose well to show that you're being properly challenged and to continue to learn (as opposed to losing poorly, where you defeat yourself). If you're playing at the right rank, you SHOULD be winning in the neighborhood of half your games by definition.

If I play a few weeks at 100% win ratio, I imagine my rating graph goes vertical and I'll run into even games vs people who are much less gentle in short order.

The only way this could be avoided is if I end up being unbeatable, but I don't think I'm quite that impressive.

I'm also a little disappointed that several months of trying to improve at full throttle haven't yielded an awful lot. The present win ratio suggests the rank graph will go flat soon after tipping over to 3k.

I'll just have to accept I don't easily gain insight, and if I want to really get anywhere, I cannot accept any arbitrary "good enough". I don't sincerely expect a 100% win ratio to exist for long, if it occurs at all, but until I manage to reach 6d or somewhere near there, I don't mind intermittent periods of invincibility along the way.

Well, here's the newfangled weekly tsumego update. It's extra-wide, so I has hided it.



Stopped 501OP for a bit to do 1001L&DP again. Then I'll do another 100 of 501OP and some other collection. Hopefully as time goes by, magical insight will accumulate and 501OP will be less painful to slog through.

I very strongly doubt a mere 5 passes will suffice though. It seems much more difficult for me than any of the other titles currently on my schedule.

EL&D2 feels a lot like it will take about as much effort as EL&D1 did, which is a bit of a relief. Obviously that still means it will take quite a while yet to be done with, but it's a predictable while.

1001L&DP is moderately difficult, but not impossibly so. It feels like it's slightly harder than Cho's E, but it's not much difference. I wouldn't be that surprised if someone went and said Cho's E is the one that's slightly more difficult.

Of course, what this means is I'll focus on EL&D2, 1001L&DP and Cho's E and then they will get dropped leaving me only with harder problems. In around a month or two? I should really make more time for doing these, because it'll take over three years to go through all the books I have at this rate.

Black resigned.

I felt more in control than I have in a while. And yet, it was lots of fun, too. I really felt like I had a bit of a handle on the opening this time around.

Too low? I want to fight, but I don't want to leave any aji.
Very loose formation. INVASION TIEMZ NAO!
Hm. Questionable. I suddenly feel I can read a little deeper than my opponent.
This can't be good for black at all. The intended moyo has been severely impaired.
I really feel this is far too slow.
I was really happy to see this. Black has some spirit!
I was pretty sure I walked straight off joseki here. I didn't remember how to do this.
A little adventurous, but I felt sure it was harsh on black.
With the intent to take the corner.
Restrict back to small and miserable life on top.
Black fights back again. Good stuff.
A little too slack. I thought I caught those two stones.
Not impressive. Tenuki time.
I'm pretty sure this is not good. White is forced to connect and the corner is left wide open. The 3-3 response seems far better.
This move seems a little too loose. L13 seems urgent.
I should be able to catch something...
+100:
I felt no pressure from this. Or maybe this was a miai with M15?
I think capturing at N12 is not optional anymore.
I was surprised by the resignation, but it made sense to me when I realized just how hard it would be for black from here on.

Some comments:

I get the impression that your opponent was not so good at knowing when to pick fights and when not to, and how to pick fights. It's always good to learn to deal with overplay, though.

The overarching theme I get from your comments is that I was let off by someone who couldn't punish me properly for my bullshit.

No wonder I felt in control, then. Someone wasn't biting me in the exposed, soft fleshy bits.

The point of resignation is still a bit jarring, but I can understand if my opponent was simply sick of being pushed around by someone who shouldn't be winning.

Sorry, that's not what I meant at all. Your moves, in general, were much better than blacks, and as you said, you were in control for most of the game, while black was overplaying all over the place and getting punished for it.

Well, the point I'm unhappy about is that the big difference is that I was simply not being punished for the same crime which black was committing.

I guess I'm impatient to see some sort of superiority emerge, which heralds my catapulting into a higher level. Not that impatience makes things happen faster.

At the present rate, I'm months away from a real jump in ability, though. All I can do is suck it up and keep going. I did remove some mistakes from my repertoire, after all. Every mountain can be moved just one pebble at a time, if you keep at it long enough.

Well, if you're 4k now, let's assume you make mistakes typical of a 4k. Someone who is 3k hasn't completely eliminated all those mistakes and moved on to 3k mistakes. As a 4k player, you make mistakes from 4k mistakes up to 9p mistakes, and you also make some 5k or 6k mistakes, and maybe worse ones at times. A 3k player similarly, hasn't eliminated all the 4k mistakes. They just make them a bit less frequently. Enough to give them maybe 7 points per game on average, since it's considered even if you play them without komi.

Seven points is pretty small, when you think about it. I'm sure in most games, you can look at them afterwards and easily identify 7 points worth of mistakes by yourself, so in a sense, you're already there, you just need to realize it while you're playing, instead of in hindsight.

You really should stop focusing on your ranking graph, and your win/loss records. It doesn't show you where you are, but rather it only show where you've been. You are not your rank. It does not define you.

As mentioned earlier, you'll learn more from your losses anyway. So the fastest way to improve is to push yourself to play stronger players, and study why you lost.

If you think about it... you could actually lose every game from here on out, and yet still grow in strength with each game (its just that your rating graph won't properly show that growth). Let the sever track your win/loss records, but you focus on your game and actual improvement, not paper improvement.