A beginner's journal of little interest

[EdLee]

I could read book after book on how to play guitar but until I pick up a guitar and start trying to play it I won't have any "knowledge how."

Sounds like "experience" to me.

Knowledge how seems to be equated to skill for him, but I may be misrepresenting him here.

Perhaps he means "different levels of understanding".

[Boidhre]

I could read book after book on how to play guitar but until I pick up a guitar and start trying to play it I won't have any "knowledge how."

Sounds like "experience" to me.

Knowledge how seems to be equated to skill for him, but I may be misrepresenting him here.

Perhaps he means "different levels of understanding".

It's not really experience. The term comes from philosophy of mind, in go terms it'd be the distinction between having seen a particular move in a particular fuseki many times before (experience) and (to some extent) knowing that move, its implications, intention, threats, possibilities etc and how to respond to it in order to further various aims (knowledge how). In guitar terms it's the difference between playing a C chord a thousand times and just knowing how to play a C chord. Experience is crucial in gaining "knowledge how" but it is not in and of itself the same thing.


He differentiates between knowledge and skill thusly: Player A won the game not because the fuseki that was played was decent for black (knowledge) but because he knew how to handle the game position coming out of that fuseki (skill).


Edit: Maybe a better go example for the first one would be in life and death: having seen similar situations before (experience) versus, say, being able to spot it's a shortage of liberties problem on sight (knowledge how). Experience is how you get to the latter but it isn't the latter, a player could have seen dozens or hundreds of shortage of liberties problems before but still not spot them on sight all of the time.

[EdLee]

In guitar terms it's the difference between playing a C chord a thousand times and just knowing how to play a C chord.

That depends on what you mean by "knowing." (*)
Certainly, if you've never even played a C chord once, you have zero experience of it.
If you play it once, that's a level of experience.
If you play it 1,000 times, that's another level of experience.
5,000 times, another level.
100,000 times, yet another level.

Experience is definitely part of it. Experience is not digital.
There are different levels of experience, as there are different levels of understanding.
We are talking about the same thing.

------------
(*) I don't know how to play a C chord on a guitar (or on any other instrument, for that matter. )
If I search online and read that, oh, you put these particular fingers
at these particular positions, then you move your fingers a certain way,
"that's how you play a C chord" -- after I read that, if someone asks me
whether I "know" how to play a C chord, I'd say no.
If I've played a C chord 5,000 times, and asked the same question, I say "I know a little."
After 100,000 times, same question, I still say, "I know a little."
It depends on what you mean by "knowing."

[Boidhre]

In guitar terms it's the difference between playing a C chord a thousand times and just knowing how to play a C chord.

That depends on what you mean by "knowing".
Certainly, if you've never even played a C chord once, you have zero experience of it.
If you play it once, that's a level of experience.
If you play it 1,000 times, that's another level of experience.

Experience is definitely part of it. Experience is not digital.
There are different levels of experience, as there are different levels of understanding.
We are talking about the same thing.

Experience is knowledge gained from doing something.
Knowledge how is the knowledge as to how to do something.

They're different.

[EdLee]

Experience is knowledge gained from doing something.
Knowledge how is the knowledge as to how to do something.

They're different.

Yes, and no. They are on a continuum.
That's what I meant by experience (different levels of it); and understanding (different levels of it).

[Boidhre]

Experience is knowledge gained from doing something.
Knowledge how is the knowledge as to how to do something.

They're different.

Yes, and no. They are on a continuum.
That's what I meant by experience (different levels of it); and understanding (different levels of it).

Understanding is comprehension of something though it's different again to know-how. I disagree they're on a continuum, I think experience and know-how while linked are distinct and separate things.

[topazg]

Understanding is comprehension of something though it's different again to know-how. I disagree they're on a continuum, I think experience and know-how while linked are distinct and separate things.

I agree with this. Experience is the accumulation of "seen-before"-ness, whereas know-how is the accumulation of "I-know-how-to-do-this"-ness.

[tomukaze]

Understanding is comprehension of something though it's different again to know-how. I disagree they're on a continuum, I think experience and know-how while linked are distinct and separate things.

I agree with this. Experience is the accumulation of "seen-before"-ness, whereas know-how is the accumulation of "I-know-how-to-do-this"-ness.

I suppose in this sense they are on a continuum, the accumulation thereof.

This book sounds quite interesting.

[Boidhre]

Understanding is comprehension of something though it's different again to know-how. I disagree they're on a continuum, I think experience and know-how while linked are distinct and separate things.

I agree with this. Experience is the accumulation of "seen-before"-ness, whereas know-how is the accumulation of "I-know-how-to-do-this"-ness.

I suppose in this sense they are on a continuum, the accumulation thereof.

This book sounds quite interesting.

Free today? I could show it to you if you let me beat you again.

[Tami]

Just my two cents: as you know, I like reading books very, very much. But I no longer expect to get substantially wiser, smarter or stronger immediately after reading one. Rather, it feels like books give you the raw material to go out and learn. They give you lots of ideas, facts and methods, but to make them your own you have to try them out for yourself.

I like the guitar analogy, because I can relate to it easily: it`s one thing to learn a new chord or scale from a book, but it takes a lot of practicing before that information becomes natural to me.

Books are great and studying is both fun and rewarding, but there`s no escaping the necessity of having to experience the learning

[Boidhre]

Just my two cents: as you know, I like reading books very, very much. But I no longer expect to get substantially wiser, smarter or stronger immediately after reading one. Rather, it feels like books give you the raw material to go out and learn. They give you lots of ideas, facts and methods, but to make them your own you have to try them out for yourself.

I like the guitar analogy, because I can relate to it easily: it`s one thing to learn a new chord or scale from a book, but it takes a lot of practicing before that information becomes natural to me.

Books are great and studying is both fun and rewarding, but there`s no escaping the necessity of having to experience the learning

Oh I just read for pleasure rather than an expectation of much immediate improvement. My improvement has come from doing problems and playing games and things clicking in my own head long after being exposed to them be it through books or reviews on here. The "Aha" moments.

What's more important than new knowledge I think is getting rid of the bad habits found in reviews. This can only be done through play as far as I can see.

Edit: (More important for me! I'm not speaking generally)

[Boidhre]

Actually Tami another thing from the book that you might like (i.e. that you pretty much said in your post):

Knowledge only becomes useful when it becomes a habit. Reading Tesuji by Davies is all well and good but until you can see those tesuji in games etc. So how do we go from the latter to the former? Well, the most efficient way is through problem sets and drilling them until you can solve them on sight. A less efficient, but by far more fun for some, way would be to play games and review them looking for missed tesujis. So for tesuji we have the wonderful combination of Tesuji and Get Strong at Tesuji/501 Tesuji Problems, but for fuseki I think playing games is the only way to "drill" the ideas, 501 Opening Problems being marginally useful at best I think.

So we're pretty much on the same page when it comes to books and their point/purpose/usefulness.

[Boidhre]

Tom gave me a thrashing as always.

W+20.5

http://lifein19x19.com/forum/download/file.php?id=2204

[Tami]

Knowledge only becomes useful when it becomes a habit. Reading Tesuji by Davies is all well and good but until you can see those tesuji in games etc. So how do we go from the latter to the former?

Hmm, but I`d say you have to be a bit careful here. If you simply turn book shapes and patterns into reflexes, you could be creating problems for yourself further down the line. I suppose that the value of putting what you learn to the test is that you can find out when it works and when it doesn`t, and all about the in-between areas too.

Take the Davies Tesuji book, for instance. You`ll probably get a lot stronger after the ideas in it have had time to "kick in", but maybe there is a danger of thinking of tesuji as "special" moves. The new Yamashita tesuji dictionary (which you will enjoy when you`re approaching shodan), might give you a different perspective. For me, it shows that just about any kind of move can be tesuji if it happens to be effective at the task.

So it might be a case of progressing through stages. First, get to recognise and be comfortable with some frequent and basic shapes and patterns. Second, learn to put all of that to one side and start tackling each situation on its own terms. I would like to know what the next stage might be...I`ve only just reached the second.

[Boidhre]

Knowledge only becomes useful when it becomes a habit. Reading Tesuji by Davies is all well and good but until you can see those tesuji in games etc. So how do we go from the latter to the former?

Hmm, but I`d say you have to be a bit careful here. If you simply turn book shapes and patterns into reflexes, you could be creating problems for yourself further down the line. I suppose that the value of putting what you learn to the test is that you can find out when it works and when it doesn`t, and all about the in-between areas too.

Take the Davies Tesuji book, for instance. You`ll probably get a lot stronger after the ideas in it have had time to "kick in", but maybe there is a danger of thinking of tesuji as "special" moves. The new Yamashita tesuji dictionary (which you will enjoy when you`re approaching shodan), might give you a different perspective. For me, it shows that just about any kind of move can be tesuji if it happens to be effective at the task.

So it might be a case of progressing through stages. First, get to recognise and be comfortable with some frequent and basic shapes and patterns. Second, learn to put all of that to one side and start tackling each situation on its own terms. I would like to know what the next stage might be...I`ve only just reached the second.

Do you mean the danger is limiting your view that the tesuji in the book are the only tesuji? If so, I agree completely.