Tami's Way

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:54 am

As much as it is your choice which contents you want to discuss, it is my (not your!) choice which contents I want to discuss. It is, of course, possible that you discuss something about my opinions I do not continue to discuss and possible that I discuss something about your opinions you do not continue to discuss.

Ortho · Post by **Ortho** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:05 am

But it might be the (I know there is no objective reason for this) polite thing to do to limit our discussion to things Tami wants to talk about _in her Study Journal_. :tmbup:

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 10:04 am

Tami wrote:...
For now, I`d like to toot my horn just a little and say that I believe I do have one crucial talent, which may help me for years to come:
I may be 40, but I can still change my mind.

When I read your journal, I am impressed about your open-mindedness, and your fun with what you are doing. So, you own two basic, and very important, requirements for steady progress already.

I'm afraid that you will not reach professional level, but I think that this does not really matter. If you keep on, and work hard, and steadily, you will be able -- may be in a very small, very special field -- to gain insights in the game that are (far) beyond your rank (seen overall). And these insights will give you great personal satisfaction, independent of what your environment thinks (or says) about, especially about the "value" of what you are doing, or have found.

With over 10 years work, three amateurs (average 2 Kyu) passed beyond what is known as professional knowledge about Igo Hatsuyoron's problem 120 (= the most difficult problem ever). But we are still amateur players (average 2 Kyu).

Let me give you a Japan-related allegory, which you hopefully will enjoy.

In April this year, during a trip to Japan (a once-in-a-lifetime event), I was so very happy to visit the classical Japanese landscape garden at Katsura Imperial Villa in Kyoto, where even one lifespan does not seem to be sufficient to explore all of its beauty (by the way: Japanese people seemed to rush through). Igo Hatsuyoron 120 seems to me to resemble such a typical Japanese garden. Nothing can be added, nothing can be changed, and nothing can be taken away, without destroying the harmony of the garden (i.e. the solution).

No one but a genius will be able to construct such a garden and to find the primary path for walking through it. However, after enjoying the garden for several years, and walking on the pre-given path, we simply asked “Has this very special viewing line here ever been recognized before?” And, surprisingly enough, apparently nobody had seen it before.

PS: Please excuse the level of my German English, it's often not sooo understandable for native speakers.

Post by **Joaz Banbeck** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 1:58 pm

Ortho wrote:But it might be the ...polite thing to do to limit our discussion to things Tami wants to talk about _in her Study Journal_....

I think that phpbb has an option for giving the first poster in all threads 'ownership' of the thread. IOW, he/she would have moderator powers in that thread.

Oh, dear, now I'm going off-topic in Tami's thread. :oops:

See the corresponding thread appearing soon in the 'suggestions and bugs' forum. If you want to reply to this idea, please do it there.

Tami · Post by **Tami** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 10:51 pm

I`m pretty tolerant, to be honest. If Robert and others want to discuss some topics at depth, even here, I don`t mind in principle. The problem for me is that I find it difficult to ignore a sincere post, because it feels rude to do so if somebody has queries. So, when somebody like Robert queries just about everything, and perhaps overlooks things that I`ve already attempted to explain, or does not seem to get the main point, it becomes a little bit frustrating and exasperating. I really don`t want to turn my back, but at the same time I simply cannot spend hour after hour debating.

Again, I wish Robert would not describe the principles taught by top professionals as "weak" and his own as "mighty". Granted, many of the principles he has published look very useful, but it would not be difficult to quote some of them, and to find instances of "begging the question" and of being vague. I feel, however, no need to attack his work, because I am already satisfied with what the top professionals teach.

cassandra: I'm afraid that you will not reach professional level, but I think that this does not really matter. If you keep on, and work hard, and steadily, you will be able -- may be in a very small, very special field -- to gain insights in the game that are (far) beyond your rank (seen overall). And these insights will give you great personal satisfaction, independent of what your environment thinks (or says) about, especially about the "value" of what you are doing, or have found.

I`m not aiming at professional strength. I will become high dan. However, if you intend to provoke me into proving you wrong, you`re pressing the right buttons! :lol:

My insight, I believe, is to realise that an attempt to improve at go could be based on cognitive pyschology. I would like to research this more, and write seriously about it, but at the moment I do not have credibility.

If learning depends on brain plasticity, then there is still hope for people of any age, provided they are not suffering from a terrible degenerative condition. After all, there are reports of people who have suffered terrible injuries and gone on to achieve great things. The brain can change and adapt if the will and effort are present. After all, there are people who have had up to 50% of their brains destroyed by bullet wounds who have gone on to live full and successful lives, people who have lost limbs who have worked out new ways to perform tasks (there are several guitarists who play at a professional standard, despite having only one hand).

The trouble is, changing your mind requires effort, and the older you become, the harder it can be to tear down what you have constructed and to build again. But if somebody can commit to that effort, or is committed to that effort (by a horrific injury that compels them to change in order to function and succeed), then who knows what heights are possible?

Strangely, my suspicion is that among the people who will find it hardest to learn will be people who are already ackowledged for their expertise or their intelligence. When I was awarded the title "Doctor" over ten years ago, I became arrogant and convinced that I was naturally more expert than others about just about everything. I must have been a real bore. Circumstances have forced me to change over the years, and while it has not exactly been enjoyable, I am truly grateful.

Without naming names, I note that some of the most stubborn people are those who have gained high achievments, in go or other fields, and they will not be persuaded, no matter what. If only they could accept the possibility of being wrong, they might unlock the doors to much better things. The need to be right, the need to be the cleverest person, is the very thing that turns a person`s mind into cast iron, rigid and easy to break.

Anyway, all I can say is that I`m gaining pleasure from my go studies, and that my methods have worked well for other pursuits. Moreover, my methods have worked very well for my language students - lots of exams passed and obvious improvements in listening and fluency.

So, if I have an insight, it is that there is a body of research into how skills are learned, and it could well be worth taking some hours to understand the main points, and to base your go studies on that, rather than common sense.

I have just noticed lemmata`s question. At the moment, I don`t have a go teacher. There is, however, a top amateur living in Hiroshima (his name is Mr Yomo), and he owns a go salon and gives lessons. The only snags are that the location is a bit awkward, and at the moment I`m very busy. Maybe I shall see what he can teach me during my "hardcore" period, if I do decide to do that.

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:35 am

Tami wrote:I wish Robert would not describe the principles taught by top professionals as "weak" and his own as "mighty".

Not all principles taught by (top) professionals are weak and not all principles taught by me are mighty. For principles for that I make related claims, I can provide, IMO, convincing justification.

I am already satisfied with what the top professionals teach.

I recommend: become aware of the possibility of their partially insufficient or weak teaching. Example: Takagawa 9p wrote that corner moves were 100% moves, side extensions 80% moves, extensions towards the center 50% moves. These are random percentages without justification. The figures pretend non-existing precision of typical relative move values.

Tami · Post by **Tami** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:23 am

RobertJasiek wrote:
Tami wrote:I wish Robert would not describe the principles taught by top professionals as "weak" and his own as "mighty".

Not all principles taught by (top) professionals are weak and not all principles taught by me are mighty. For principles for that I make related claims, I can provide, IMO, convincing justification.

I am already satisfied with what the top professionals teach.

I recommend: become aware of the possibility of their partially insufficient or weak teaching. Example: Takagawa 9p wrote that corner moves were 100% moves, side extensions 80% moves, extensions towards the center 50% moves. These are random percentages without justification. The figures pretend non-existing precision of typical relative move values.

FWIW, IMO you are now being much more reasonable. :bow:

As you may be aware, Awaji Shuzo also uses percentage figures in a similar fashion in one of his books (Countermeasures to Invasions that Amateurs Don`t Know, which John reviewed in the reviews section). The only quibble, though, is that possibly neither Takagawa nor Awaji intended the figures to be taken literally.

If somebody said to me, for example, "I think there`s an 85% chance of rain tomorrow", I would not take that as meaning precisely that, but rather that they thought there was a strong chance of rain, while allowing for a fair possibility of being wrong.

Still, even if the great Takagawa said such and such a move was a 100% I would have to doubt him just a little bit, because that is being exceptionally assertive, and anybody can be wrong sometimes.

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:20 am

Tami wrote:Awaji Shuzo also uses percentage figures in a similar fashion in one of his books (Countermeasures to Invasions that Amateurs Don`t Know, which John reviewed

I have criticised also those symbolic figures (and suggested a better alternative) and van Zeijst's QARTS. Symbolic figures are not bad per se; I suggest some in my unrest model. The figures must be reliable though. By keeping my numbers small (distinguishing the values 0, 1 or 2+ when making decisions), the risk of bad design is kept small.

Cassandra · Post by **Cassandra** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:32 am

Tami wrote:... possibly neither Takagawa nor Awaji intended the figures to be taken literally.

I think that they never had this intention. That is because no master of an art is able to "express" all of his knowledge.

Even if they could, it would mean something like "If you encounter the following circumstances (= 87 parameters), act as follows (= 45 single actions)".

I remember a story, once read about Kendô (剣道), the "Way of the Sword".

Even someone, who never had any lesson in sword-fighting, can be a terribly dangerous opponent, even to a master Samurai. If you ask this very talented person (who fights at every given opportunity), how he is doing, he will answer "I do not know. Everything is flowing, everything happens automatically. And I am very sure that nothing bad will happen to me."

This very childish attitude will disappear soon, after he has been told by the master samurai about the most effective points to hit, to decide the fight quickly, because the opponent will become unfit for fighting immediately. However, this seemingly helpful information will proove counter-productive. Now he is very aware how dangerous his doing really is, and that there might be some probability to die.

He is no dangerous opponent any longer, his previous (let's say "intuitive") strength has gone.

However, the master Samurai will help him, giving him lessons in technique, and other relevant fields for sword-fighting, and giving him to opportunity to train his newly assembled knowledge.

After several years of practice, our candidate has become a very good fighter again, but he has not reached the top level. He still has the most difficult step to go to finish Kendô:

He must forget all of his knowledge !!!

He must regain the childish attitude, he had in the very beginning. Then, the sword will be an integral part of his flesh, blood, and mind.

If you then ask him, how he is doing, he again will answer "I do not know. Everything is flowing, everything happens automatically."

However, he has reached the higher master level, so he will continue "And I am very aware that I might die." And now will manage to "win" without really fighting.

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:43 am

Cassandra wrote:no master of an art is able to "express" all of his knowledge.

Be patient. The researchers in go theory are going to help them with expressing all their knowledge.

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:19 am

(Sorry, Tami, private message and message report to admins have not resolved it, so I need to reply in public. Ignoring Dazz's text is not an option because I cannot allow false rumours about myself to spread. Starting a new thread would be an overkill because I do not intend to start discussion; I just want to correct tone and facts.)

Dazz wrote:you are your own worst enemy when it comes to marketing your books.

With rare exceptions, calling anybody his own (worst) enemy is very impolite to the extent of being a personal attack. If your opinion were modified to a softer version (such as using "greatest obstacle" instead of "worst enemy"), it would still be factually false; the by far greatest obstacle to marketing my books is the still missing possibility to present copies of them in a few important countries.

John Fairbairn · Post by **John Fairbairn** » Tue Oct 16, 2012 8:56 am

With rare exceptions, calling anybody his own (worst) enemy is very impolite to the extent of being a personal attack

I'm sorry, Robert, but you are being your own worst enemy again by showing your ignorance of English as a non-native speaker. This phrase has cliche status in English. It is usually entirely inoffensive or, at worst, only barely offensive. It has no more nastiness to it than (or so I believe) sich selbst im Wege stehen. It could not be further from the idea of der boese Feind that you seem to imagine lurks behind it.

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:04 am

Thank you, John! I have been unaware of the "sich selbst im Wege stehen" meaning of that phrase. This meaning is not insulting, and, WRT to apparently misunderstanding the phrase's meaning, I apologise.

Tami · Post by **Tami** » Tue Oct 16, 2012 6:08 pm

Returning to the main topic... me, me, me, me, me!

* with the help of Segoe`s tesuji books, I feel my reading is becoming tangibly better. I`m seeing one or two ply farther, and that is making a difference in my games. In fact, my attitude to the Segoe books is changing. Previously, I found the A problems just too difficult and frustrating, but they`re becoming "enjoyably hard", like the Times Crossword.

* I`ve started working with pro games in a slightly different way. Instead of trying to memorise them, I`m trying to use principles to work out what`s going on and why. This is because the real skill, IMO, is thinking about positions logically and critically, and principles are tools to that end, rather than move-generating devices. A benefit of this kind of training is that you can do it in short spells, which is ideal if you`re too busy or tired to play, which is how things are for me on Monday and Tuesday. When I consider it, this reminds me of my undergraduate days analysing fugues by Bach and Buxtehude...that exercise brought my understanding of musical structure to a new level, so I hope it will accomplish the same with go.

So many books to read. I have received "Zone Press Park" in Japanese, but I`d quite like to get it in English too, as I`m very intrigued by O Meien`s ideas (which I have been reading about on NewinGo and elsewhere), and I`m particularly anxious to understand them aright.

I took this position from the website
http://gowizardry.com/?p=1962

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Zone Creation $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X , . 2 4 6 . , . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . X 3 5 . 7 . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

It seems helpful to me to think of White`s play as creating a "zone". That is, it`s overstating it to call the centre White`s sphere of influence, but as the article explains, fighting in the centre/lower left area will be tilted in White`s favour by the helpful presence of 2-6, and Black won`t be able to make a large framework. IOW, perhaps you could use "zone" as a way to describe the effect of moves that create a very large-scale, but tenuous, influence - if you like, to think of it as a precursor to a sphere of influence.

With moves 2, 4 and 6 White creates a "distance" or "width", but there`s a good chance she will discard those stones later, and it looks too early and slow for Black to attack them. Black has gained a few incontestible points on the bottom, but the creation of a huge White zone seems adequate recompense for White. Purely as a matter of taste, I find this kind of play much more appealing than the traditional corners - enclosures - approaches - extensions - zzzzz style.

Zone - area of tenuous influence, creation of "width", some assistance in fights, cramping of the opponent`s plans --> Sphere of influence - usually large-scale, quite likely to transform into real territory or thickness

This could read merely like "undergraduate bafflement", but you`ve got to try at least to digest the ideas you read about.

I don`t know if it was John or T. Mark who was responsible for all the "Rawhide" references in a recent NewinGo article, but I looked up the song and have not been able to get it out of my head since...erm, thank you (or something) :lol:

rollin`, rollin`, rollin`

RobertJasiek · Post by **RobertJasiek** » Tue Oct 16, 2012 11:07 pm

White gets two more influence stones towards the center than Black, but I wonder...

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Zone Destruction $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X , . O O . . 5 . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . X X 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

White is not guaranteed center influence.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Fight for Influence $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X , . O O O . 1 . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . X X X . X . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$c Fight for Influence $$ --------------------------------------- $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . X . . . . . 2 . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . 4 , . . . . . , . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . X , . O O O . 1 . . . . . O . . . | $$ | . . . . X X X . X . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | $$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

Is Black really too slow?

Life In 19x19

Tami's Way

Re: Tami's Way

Re: Tami's Way

Re: Tami's Way

Re: Tami's Way

Re: Tami's Way

Re: Tami's Way

Re: Tami's Way

Re: Tami's Way

Re: Tami's Way

Re: Tami's Way

Re: Tami's Way

Re: Tami's Way

Re: Tami's Way

Re: Tami's Way

Re: Tami's Way