Memorizing Tsumego via SRS

[speedchase]

No.

At ~1 kyu, I [sadly] read about the same speed as I did when I was ~20 kyu. I can now solve tsumego I couldn't then, in seconds. The difference is experience, which has honed my intuition.

(Edit: Maybe even stronger players do read faster; barring concrete evidence, I'll just assume they have superior intuition. Not taking into account individual abilities of course; my reading admittedly sucks.)

maybe you don't read faster, but I definitely read faster than I did as 5kyu. How do you think stronger players could read 15 move sequences in two seconds, if they can't read faster than 20kyu'?

[yoyoma]

I think it's a good idea. No one ever said memorizing rabbity six is dead was bad. This is just extending that concept further. Is it bad that I memorized L group is dead, L+1 needs a move, and L+2 is alive? Or the status of some of the standard side shapes (Door is dead)?

[singular]

maybe you don't read faster, but I definitely read faster than I did as 5kyu. How do you think stronger players could read 15 move sequences in two seconds, if they can't read faster than 20kyu'?

15 moves in two seconds? I'd better start drinking my vitamin water . . . . I think I can manage four moves per two seconds going at a good clip.

[topazg]

My experience with professionals is also that they don't read faster, just better.

I'm lucky if I'm reading more than 2 or 3 moves a second, and that's on simple sequences (although my subconscious may be crunching faster in the background).

I remember a fun anecdotal experience when I was about 5k. I had been working on a go problem that was about 1d level with another 5k and a 2k. We spent 20 minutes getting to what looked like the right answer, having broken a couple of wrong answers along the way. We showed it to a Korean 3p, who picked the right move within a second - a second and a half at most. His English was poor, but it was very clear that from a quick analysis of the shape it was the only _intersection_ that could work. No reading involved at all, apart from subsequent confirmation, but he didn't even seem look at any other candidates other than to assess whether they occupied as critical a point in the shape.

[speedchase]

I'm not saying that professionals don't read more efficiently that mere mortals, I just think that they also have a huge speed advantage.

Ps. take a look at the first footnote on this page: http://senseis.xmp.net/?ReadingDepth
PPs. singular, I don't really understand your point, can you please elaborate?

[singular]

I'm not saying that professionals don't read more efficiently that mere mortals, I just think that they also have a huge speed advantage.

Ps. take a look at the first footnote on this page: http://senseis.xmp.net/?ReadingDepth
PPs. singular, I don't really understand your point, can you please elaborate?

Sorry speechase, perhaps you don't understand it because it's too flabbergastingly simple: "I suck compared to professionals".

[Lamp]

My experience with professionals is also that they don't read faster, just better.

I'm lucky if I'm reading more than 2 or 3 moves a second, and that's on simple sequences (although my subconscious may be crunching faster in the background).

I remember a fun anecdotal experience when I was about 5k. I had been working on a go problem that was about 1d level with another 5k and a 2k. We spent 20 minutes getting to what looked like the right answer, having broken a couple of wrong answers along the way. We showed it to a Korean 3p, who picked the right move within a second - a second and a half at most. His English was poor, but it was very clear that from a quick analysis of the shape it was the only _intersection_ that could work. No reading involved at all, apart from subsequent confirmation, but he didn't even seem look at any other candidates other than to assess whether they occupied as critical a point in the shape.

Indeed, and This is exactly why i had the idea. Obviously history shows that memorizing tsumego is not necessary for improving reading, and its almost certainly not sufficient either. On the other hand, solving tsumego is clearly necessary, but probably not quite sufficient (you need to actually play the game too, i would think)

But the question really just revolves around whether it would help at all.

Its hard to pinpoint exactly why a professional's eyes would go straight to the only possible intersection that might work, whereas a weaker player wouldn't begin fo have the slightest idea why other intersections wouldn't work.

I think it really comes down to what part of their subconscious makes them realize the other intersections are hopeless. It certainly seems logical that it could be because they've seen similar shapes before, in which case memorizing could work.

[Time]

The reason strong players solve tsumego quickly is because they can read fast, not because they can guess the move. Of course intuition is important, but you will not get the type of intuition you need to read quickly from this kind of memorization. It will only help you for problems that are similar to ones you study, and it won't help you at all outside of life and death situations. Besides, even if you can solve a problem and know that your solution works, that doesn't mean that there isn't a better way to live.

I've been told by several strong players that this view of the purpose of life and death is completely incorrect, and that studying life and death to learn basic shapes is critical. I also read that Cho Chikun (or maybe some other pro, but I think it was Cho Chikun), said that studying very difficult and uncommon life and death was bad for your go, because it would train you to intuitively see moves which don't typically work, whereas studying common life and death shapes was beneficial because your intuition would be correct more often.

Also I have evidence for this view in the countless games that I've won due to my opponent's not realizing that their invading stones are forming the outline of an L+1 or J group (and also that those are dead), whereas I can see it 10 moves in advance. I'm not sure why so many people in L19 think that life and death is all about learning to read better and not at all about practical knowledge of common life and death shapes.

[speedchase]

I've been told by several strong players that this view of the purpose of life and death is completely incorrect, and that studying life and death to learn basic shapes is critical.

any quotes?

I also read that Cho Chikun (or maybe some other pro, but I think it was Cho Chikun), said that studying very difficult and uncommon life and death was bad for your go, because it would train you to intuitively see moves which don't typically work, whereas studying common life and death shapes was beneficial because your intuition would be correct more often.

It's true that improving you intuition is important, but important =/= the main point.

Also I have evidence for this view in the countless games that I've won due to my opponent's not realizing that their invading stones are forming the outline of an L+1 or J group (and also that those are dead), whereas I can see it 10 moves in advance.

Just because something works against weaker players, doesn't mean it will work against stronger players. If a strong player sees something 10 moves in advance, it is because he read, not because he saw a shape forming.

I'm not sure why so many people in L19 think that life and death is all about learning to read better and not at all about practical knowledge of common life and death shapes.

Perhaps because strong players constantly emphasize reading above all else. If the purpose of life and death is too learn basic shapes, why do professionals create complicated and artificial life and death problems.

Read the description of this book: http://www.slateandshell.com/SSYY004.html
does this sound like a book geared towards teaching reading, or developing and intuition about common shapes?

[Lamp]

It's true that improving you intuition is important, but important =/= the main point.

I would argue that improving your intuition *is* the main point, and is more important than improving your reading ability (although both skills are still necessary). But that by solving tsumego, you are training both skills at the same time, although it may not necessarily be the fastest possible way of training your intuition.

If you were to calculate every possible variation of moves in a given tsumego there could potentially be be thousands of possibilities. If you become slightly more efficient at how quickly you can check moves, you haven't really reduced your overall solving time substantially. On the other hand, if you can immediately discredit 4 out of 5 of the possibilities without checking them at all, then you have reduced your overall solving time by many orders of magnitude.

If persons A and B can solve the same problems with A always checking fewer variations than B, then A will almost certainly solve all problems faster, as well as be able to solve problems that B can't solve at all.

[speedchase]

I mean yes, if you don't have intuition but can read, you will be much less likely to solve problems, and when you do it will take longer, however you will still know if you have the right answer or not, and what it is(assuming you have it). if you can't read and do have a your answers are little more than glorified guesses. Both are important but I still think reading is the main point, for the reasons listed in my above post.

[Lamp]

Well remember that I initially proposed only memorizing tsumego which you have already solved by your own skill. So you would still be doing all the reading that you would normally doing. But then after that you would be comitting that shape to memory. It's not like a one or the other thing where you sacrifice reading for memorizing. Let me use one of the Cho Chikun problems as an example:

http://tsumego.tasuki.org/cho-2-intermediate.pdf

Suppose you spend however much time is necessary to solve problem 1. And then you memorize it so that you instinctively know that the answer to that exact tsumego is 1-2. If you then encounter a situation similar to problem 3 in a real game, you might remember this problem and then check 1-2 before any other moves. If you hadn't, you might first check 1-5 because it's obvious, and then you might check 1-3 because it's the midpoint.

Or maybe even earlier than that, suppose 1-6 isn't on the board yet (because that's a lot more likely than seeing the position of problem 3 with black to play), but you realize the position is still similar to the tsumego you've memorized. You would have to spend way less time to realize that 1-6 is a serious ko threat. Or you simply get to problem 3 a few minutes later and you solve it instantly because you already did #1.

I think people are confusing my question with "is it ok to memorize the answers to tsumego instead of practicing my reading?". I'm only saying that I think there could be additional value in memorizing the answers to ones you've already solved.

[speedchase]

I think people are confusing my question with "is it ok to memorize the answers to tsumego instead of practicing my reading?". I'm only saying that I think there could be additional value in memorizing the answers to ones you've already solved.

Fair enough, but there is additional value in watching kibitz on KGS, but for the love of god, if you want to improve don't do that . all joking aside you do have a good point, and I did sort of put my foot in my mouth at the beginning of this thread. either way, now I mostly am just disagreeing with time's post above.

[Time]

It's true that improving you intuition is important, but important =/= the main point.

Just because something works against weaker players, doesn't mean it will work against stronger players. If a strong player sees something 10 moves in advance, it is because he read, not because he saw a shape forming.

Perhaps because strong players constantly emphasize reading above all else. If the purpose of life and death is too learn basic shapes, why do professionals create complicated and artificial life and death problems.

Read the description of this book: http://www.slateandshell.com/SSYY004.html
does this sound like a book geared towards teaching reading, or developing and intuition about common shapes?

I really don't understand your objection to the statement about knowing life and death shapes. Do you honestly believe that strong players don't immediately recognize that an L+1 group is dead, and that they are reading it out every time it may occur in one of the branches of their reading? Or, do you believe that somehow it would not make them weaker if they had to do that extra reading every time?

Yilun Yang's problem books are exactly the type of thing that some pros dislike because they show you a bunch of weird shapes that never show up in real games, and so you're training your mind to see moves that are rarely going to work. If you actually looked at the types of life and death problems that show up in life and death problem books, the vast majority of them are not "complicated and artificial"

For example, if you look at Cho Chikun's life and death dictionary, it's all basic life and death shapes, and they build upon each other. Same with Lee Chang Ho's life and death books (http://senseis.xmp.net/?LiChangHoJingjiangWeiqiSihuo), same with Graded Go Problems for Dan Players, same with http://senseis.xmp.net/?StepByStepWeiqiClassroom. Hell, even books that are known among weaker players for having bizarre problems (xuan xuan qijing, gokyo shumyo) are mostly very typical life and death situations that arise in common joseki. Also, I have yet to have a 6d+ player tell me that studying the Igo Hatsuyoron is an effective use of time for improving at go.

[daal]

Yilun Yang's problem books are exactly the type of thing that some pros dislike because they show you a bunch of weird shapes that never show up in real games, and so you're training your mind to see moves that are rarely going to work. If you actually looked at the types of life and death problems that show up in life and death problem books, the vast majority of them are not "complicated and artificial"

While he does seem to enjoy making odd probems, the last chapter of Fundamental Principles of Go is devoted to something fairly similar to the OP's plan. In it he shows a series of common corner positions, and then shows common invasions. The idea is always either to live inside the opponent's corner formation, or to make a viable shape that busts out. The idea behind this chapter, is that the reader "learn" (memorize) these ways of living and escaping so that he won't have to spend his reading energy during a game. This suggests to me that he believes that there are certain shapes worth memorizing, and in fact he also mentions that if you want to get good at go, you should learn the 300 or so common josekis.

In a similar vein, I imagine that knowing some frequent corner tsumegos would be advantageous - at some point. The question is - is this the right time to start learning this sort of thing, or would it not be better to spend one's limited time getting better at reading.