What are "the Basics"?

[RobertJasiek]

is it possible that it might be better to simply respond to the original post directly, and indicate what you personally feel constitute "the basics"?

Yes, if I don't make a mistake of misinterpretation.

Is it possible that you stick to factual discussion instead of making very long meta-discussion including mistakes of misinterpretation?

[Kirby]

is it possible that it might be better to simply respond to the original post directly, and indicate what you personally feel constitute "the basics"?

Yes, if I don't make a mistake of misinterpretation.

Is it possible that you stick to factual discussion instead of making very long meta-discussion including mistakes of misinterpretation?

Well, pretty much everything I say you count toward meta-discussion, so probably not. Maybe if I were to cite my own personal website...

[Koroviev]

It would be a good to have a thread about the basics of go...

[Kirby]

It would be a good to have a thread about the basics of go...

Hehe. Good point. I won't respond to this thread again unless it's directly about that topic.

[xed_over]

Well, I actually expected this kind of off topic discussion -- I just hope you guys don't lock my thread

For myself, I don't really find much distinction between "basics" and "fundamentals". From the comments I see from more experienced players to beginners, the usage seems almost interchangeable.

On the other hand, I can see daal's and HKA's distinction between basics and fundamentals.

Joking aside, black and white taking turns sounds like Bonobo's "bloody beginner" category, and not really the kind of basics/fundamentals we're missing or that's holding us back from improving.

I'm surprised EdLee hasn't chimed in with his "broken shape" mantra

I agree, nets and ladders should probably be considered part of "the basics". I really suck at nets (and probably not so good with ladders either).

I really like emeraldemon's link to the BasicInstinct list. I think these must be fundamental. I'm surprised I didn't find them when I did a quick perusal of Sensei's Beginner pages. I think they should be easier to find.

Yeah, I know... everyone seems to really like Kageyama's book. I just can't stand it. But the Chapter titles do seem to suggest some very fundamental concepts. (I really should force myself to read it -- yes, I do own a copy)

So when I read reviewer comments that vaguely say, "go learn the fundamentals/basics", are these the specific concepts they are talking about? Because I just get the impression that there are still additional concepts that Asian pros think Western amateurs still aren't grasping yet.

It just bothers me when I read reviewer comments that mention learning the basics or fundamentals without saying specifically which ones they are talking about. Its like when I'm reading a book on System Administration and it says "if you don't know how to do this step, then go ask your system administrator". I just start yelling at the book, "but I am the system administrator, and I bought this book to learn how to do this and you're not telling me how!".

[jts]

Basics and bloody beginner are very tightly tied together in my mind. I wasn't joking when I said that it's hard to explain basics without sounding condescending, because they generally sound like something that "everyone" knows. Kageyama's chapter on ladders is a perfect example of that.

[Tami]

Yeah, I know... everyone seems to really like Kageyama's book. I just can't stand it. But the Chapter titles do seem to suggest some very fundamental concepts. (I really should force myself to read it -- yes, I do own a copy)

I`ve been thinking about this book. Unfortunately, my own copy is back in England, but on review of the SL page concerning it, here`s my tentative take on it: the fundamentals are not stated explicitly, but are revealed as a subtext.

For example, you could take the chapter on ladders at face value; or, you could take it to mean "read".

Again, you might simply read the game commentary as an interesting account of his victory over Rin in an important match. But, you might also take the fundamental lesson that anybody can beat anybody else, and so you should not fear a stronger opponent.

Maybe that's what is brilliant and original about this book. Instead of telling you what to think, it helps you to find it for yourself. Like all such works, there is room for misunderstanding and opinion; but does learning always proceed in a straight line?

I`ll leave you with this: if beginner books and second-stage texts tell you much the same things (see my earlier post in this thread), and Kageyama`s book guides you to find the same things for yourself, without stating them in so many words, then what is the most basic basic that it brings to you?

"Think!"

[xed_over]

...

...

I think I said that, not Kirby

[EdLee]

xed_over, actually I thought you asked a very good question.
I've been following this thread from your very first post, have been
thinking about it, and of course have some ideas, ranging from
one-liners, to bullet lists, to longer texts. Very interesting.

Some thoughts:

- Compare and contrast the "basics" in other fields, such as music (say, piano skills),
math, drawing, languages, fishing, driving, swimming, tennis, dancing, golf, etc.

- Sometimes, just because we can define something does not necessarily make it
easier to understand, to teach, or to learn. Not to mention things that are impossible to define.
Sometimes, examples (a few or a lot) are much more powerful (than any definition).
(Corollary: limitations in languages/words/texts, vs. experiences.)
(Related: teaching by general ideas, vs. by examples, vs. by experience.)
(Related: learning from general ideas, vs. from examples, vs. from experience.)

- Even pros (in any fields) are still (always) working on their basics.
- Often applicable (in any fields): when stuck, go back to the basics.

PS. Funny thing is I actually did not think about broken shapes in particular
as related to your question, thought of course they are very basic.

[Tami]

...

...

I think I said that, not Kirby

Sorry!

[RobertJasiek]

the fundamentals are not stated explicitly, but are revealed as a subtext.

The Kageyama does not teach [all] the fundamentals but teaches a small PART of the fundamentals.

if beginner books and second-stage texts tell you much the same things (see my earlier post in this thread), and Kageyama`s book guides you to find the same things for yourself, without stating them in so many words

It is not correct. After reading the Kageyama and books for a similar level, I needed 19 years to find all the fundamentals needed for DDK level and I will need more study for later books to find all for SDK level. Books like the Kageyama do NOT enable players to find all fundamentals by themselves within a reasonable amount of time. At best, they enable players to find relatively small parts with imprecision. Contrarily, books stating fundamentals explicitly releave learners from having to research and find everything by themselves. Such books save the learners about 2 decades of extra effort for becoming explicitly aware of every necessary fundamental for surpassing their level.

[John Fairbairn]

I think it may be worth pointing out that Kageyama did not write a book with called Fundamentals of Go, or even one with fundamentals in the title. His book was called Ama to Puro (Amateurs and Professionals. The English title is due to James Davies, and even that is not quite the same as is often made out (it was Lessons in the Fundmantals of Go, which implies a snapshot rather than a comprehensive survey).

Further, I don't thnk Kageyama specifically claimed to be teaching the fundamentals in his book. Hs concern, he said, was to teach the importance of fundamentals, the philospohy of go and how to study. And he does that very entertainingly, both in the original and in a very good translation.

I'd say we need more stuff like Kageyama's rather than a Basic Fundamentals for Dummies (or Fundamental Basics for Dummies). Kageyama also said there is no progress without effort. In the case of go that surely means thinking for yourself (though that surely includes being stimulated to think for yourself by books such as his) rather than expecting to be served up with a plateful of dodgy formulas that have been filtered through somebody else's brain and so may not resonate accurately with what is already in your own brain, or stick there - after all, easy come, easy go.

[RobertJasiek]

I'd say we need more stuff like Kageyama's

Why? One book for the importance of studying the opening, another book for the importance of studying life and death etc.?? Already the Kageyama does that.

rather than a Basic Fundamentals for Dummies

Why "rather"? Why compare several books with only one book? Both the Kageyama (for its function of stating the importance of studying the fundamentals) and the for-Dummies-style books are important.

[Bonobo]

(I wish there were a function to like just parts of a post )

[oren]

Meta discussion activate...

It is not correct.

Try adding "in my opinion" or "in my experience". A statement that says someone else is not correct in this instance can only be an opinion and not fact. This will help you in your communication with others in the future I hope.