Tami's Way

[RobertJasiek]

Tami, you use observe for what is analysis + reading.

There is no strict separation between understanding and overlooking because understanding can include a description of what is being overlooked. Therefore, it is not an illusion of understanding, but it is an incomplete understanding.

[Tami]

Anyway, I`ll continue trying my best to improve. You have to make some decisions along the way, and I choose to work on my powers of observation. Putting all the hyperbole and arguments to one side, I`m sure that if I train myself in vigilance then it will be pay off in many ways. I put that first, because its primacy seems obvious (not to mention that there is theoretical support for it), but I fully accept that others may not share my view. It doesn`t matter - it`s only a game, after all.

[Bill Spight]

On observation:

I know I have written about this before, but from the standpoint of playing the whole board. It was worth 4 stones to me, from 11 kyu to 7 kyu, to take a second or two before making my play, to just look at the whole board.

[John Fairbairn]

Maybe observation is not the best word. In "The Seven Deadly Chess Sins" (Thinking, Blinking, Wanting, Materialism, Egoism, Perfectionism, Looseness), Jonathan Rowson talks about "sensitivity" in the sense of being alert to signs and signals in a game. The equivalent of this word in Japanese (kankaku) is used a lot in go texts but has been rendered in so many different ways in English that its importance has been diluted. Yet, for example, in a single phrase to describe the suitability of a player to pronounce on joseki evaluation, Kajiwara Takeo was once described as "being supreme among his generation as regards local sensitivity".

The point about being sensitive to a situation in this sense is that one becomes aware of the existence of transformations. Rowson invokes Zhuang Zi but there is no need to be mystical to see that an insight into when and how things are changing will provide vital information.

Tami: is insisting that observation is primus inter pares not a little like the assertiveness of the weak player who says "White is winning"? Rowson just lists it as an aspect of his seven sins. After all, insisting on one standpoint is surely a good way to miss many of the "signs and signals".

[Tami]

Tami: is insisting that observation is primus inter pares not a little like the assertiveness of the weak player who says "White is winning"? Rowson just lists it as an aspect of his seven sins. After all, insisting on one standpoint is surely a good way to miss many of the "signs and signals".

Yes, it does seem a lot like that, and I don`t want to be like that weak player. It troubles me to think that I could have been behaving like that. I`m excited because I do believe I`m on to to something, and its correctness appears obvious, but at the same time I feel a bit deflated because you rightly remind me that I`m both weak and being assertive.

All I can say is that observation is very difficult to do well consistently, and that stronger players than me seem to notice much more than I do, and this seems from my worm`s eye to be a mixture of both looking more carefully and knowing what to look for. I suppose you`ve got to put something first in your thinking, just to get some sense of direction, and I`ve decided to prioritise observation.

Probably it was a misjudgement to indulge in a bit of teasing. At the time it seemed a fun way to share my idea, but I`m starting to feel a bit silly.

Perhaps training and sustaining observation is a way toward acquiring better kankaku.

I also wonder just how useful it is to keep a journal like this. As can be seen, I change my mind frequently, I get excited a bit too easily, and it`s not like I`m going to be so much as in the strong amateurs` section of a tournament in the near future. I suppose it is just a place to record ideas and small accomplishments, and just to talk about something I love. The comments you all make inspire me a lot and cause me to think, and I enjoy it greatly. So perhaps it`s worthwhile, after all.

[Bill Spight]

On assertiveness:

"De l'audace, encore de l'audace, et toujours de l'audace!"

-- Danton

[Tami]

Just thought I`d cheer myself up with a reflection on guitar playing and how it might offer hope for my go.

I`ve been playing three years, and I`ve bought a lot of guitar books, read a lot of online lessons and taken lessons. That was all very interesting and fun, but the dividends have really come from practicing what I have learned every day, trying to play more cleanly and accurately - always raising the bar. I`m still far off professional standard, but I have hope that I can achieve it because I have already been a professional musician in another discipline, and there are a lot of transferable skills.

So, for go, I read a lot of books. But if my guitar experience is any guide, the true value of the books will be gained as I practice my go, putting theory into practice. I`ve taken to reviewing my games, especially defeats, and what has been surprising me is that it is quite enjoyable, because every time you find a mistake and better way to play, there is a feeling of growth. And again, if the guitar is comparable, then you have to patient. It's going to take a long while to read and absorb the books I have, and longer still to practice it, so I must try my best to focus on enjoying my go and less on getting a higher rank. Just as I have been gradually becoming a better guitarist, I should become a better go player if I stick at it.

Another thing to work on will be learning to recognise when my "buffer" is full. Even though I recognise the need to put in 1000s of hours of practice, there's also a big difference between quality and quantity. Pushing on when your brain is protesting about information overload is not going to help nearly as much as taking a break, and doing less but better practice. When it`s time to chill, it`s time to chill.

[Tami]

So, to date, it seems to me that the best way to improve at go is to concentrate on training one`s skill. For years, I`ve been looking a specific idea or way of thinking that would do the job, but now it looks like the method of training itself does not matter so much provided that it really is training - i.e., actively challenging and stretching the student. Another way of putting it is "effortful practice" - and by now everybody here will have heard all about that. Passive memorisation is probably only about as effective in improving go as memorising a chord book is for improving guitar or swallowing a dictionary is for learning a language...in other words, not very.

Indeed, if the research on stroke victims I mentioned in the Off-Topic thread is any indicator, there`s no need to memorise joseki and other things. Simply being exposed to enough material enough times will cause it to stick. That`s certainly how I`ve found my memory to work with other things, so I don`t suppose go knowledge will turn out very much differently.


Therefore, this is how I plan to go forward:

Books - read lots and lots, and try to apply the ideas in my games. I favour the MyCom series especially because they offer a lot of practice material. They teach you principles, and give you interesting and realistic problems to train with.
Games - play as much as I can, and review the games carefully
L&D - read as deeply and broadly as possible
Pro Games - go through slowly, trying to predict future developments and trying to figure out why things turned out differently from my expectations
Thought Process - start from observation -> If a position is like a problem to be tackled, then I think the first thing to do is to try to weigh up the situation, and that starts with observing.
Practicals - hand off mouse/out of bowl/arms crossed, take breaks frequently, free games when tired

John recommended focussing on the games of one pro, as a way of providing a stable and predictable learning environment, but as yet I don`t know who to choose. I guess there really is not a "best" choice, as all pros play go very well indeed!

However, I have a shortlist:

O Meien - I find his style beautiful and futuristic
Yamashita - influence and power
Takemiya - but of course!
Lee Chang Ho - normal and simple, but wins anyway -> therefore he must be doing something right
Otake - the epitome of good style
Fujisawa - but of course!
Takagawa - again, his merits are known to all
Dosaku - an automatic choice, except I might not see enough "modern" lines in his games
Shusaku - ditto
Shuei - ditto
Go Seigen - do you need any justification??

I feel I`ve finally sorted out the main learning issues to a reasonable extent, and need to get on with it instead of thinking aloud here so much. It is interesting that, to my knowledge, people like Ilya Shikshin and Artem the Superboy don`t appear to keep online go blogs...it could be something to do with their simply getting on with studying and playing the game.

[Bonobo]

[..] need to get on with it instead of thinking aloud here so much. [..]

I’d prefer you keeping to think aloud here

[oren]

I prefer modern players. Yamashita is my favorite, but he definitely has a different style than other professionals. If you want a more solid player to study who is certainly the best in that area right now, study Iyama Yuta. I got a couple of his game books and you can also get books that cover the Meijin matches.

Lee Sedol's Commented Games have been released complete in Japanese and the first volume in English. Even if he may be one of the hardest players in the world to emulate, the detail of his commentaries are excellent. I highly recommend it.

[Tami]

Lee Sedol's Commented Games have been released complete in Japanese and the first volume in English. Even if he may be one of the hardest players in the world to emulate, the detail of his commentaries are excellent. I highly recommend it.

Yes, I have seen glowing reviews of that book. Perhaps I will get the English version for Christmas..it'd be nice to read a go book in English, too.

Actually, I`d like to note that I`m not into "emulation". I`ve made that mistake before, and trying consciously to copy your hero is a good way to get weaker. It's better, imo, just to play the best you can and let your very own style emerge from the mist. That said, it`s reasonable to expect there to be some influence from whomever you like to study.

Ideas about skill acquisition that people might enjoy reading up on wikipedia include the Dreyfuss Model, The Four Stages of Competence and Shu Ha Ri. The common thread would be that conscious, effortful practice leads to greater "unconscious" ability, i.e., intuition. Robert ain`t going to like that, but that`s what the psychologists and hundreds of years` of Martial Arts experts appear to agree on, and it would explain very well why Lee Chang Ho should be able to beat Robert at a handicap without even thinking (just as Robert could probably beat me at this time).

[RobertJasiek]

why Lee Chang Ho should be able to beat Robert at a handicap without even thinking

Uh, Lee thinks a lot, as you must notice when studying his games! Not thinking would be a significant handicap.

[Tami]

Tami wrote:
why Lee Chang Ho should be able to beat Robert at a handicap without even thinking


Uh, Lee thinks a lot, as you must notice when studying his games! Not thinking would be a significant handicap.

It was a bit mean of me to say he wouldn`t need to think if you had a handicap. Sorry!

But if you were to play an even game, I`m almost certain a top pro would be able to win just by playing reflexively. Have you ever seen any of the games Cho Chikun played on IGS (I think he used the account "pineapple") quite a few years ago - he was able to knock off all comers playing all his moves in under a minute.

Just about any other skill activity you could name has examples of top performers being able to perform intuitively and effortlessly, so I really don`t see why it should be different for go. I wonder if you confuse awareness with consciousness?

I would agree that it's necessary to apply principles consciously in order to practice them - I do it all the time as I am probably somewhere between Stages 2 and 3 in Dreyfus`s Model - but would argue that the better you get, the more automatic their application should become. Definitely I doubt that Lee or Cho actually need to remind themselves consciously to hit the head of two stones, avoid premature boundary plays or what have you. Maybe I`ll ask Mr Cho if I ever meet him. After all, everybody likes to surmise about what pros do or don`t think, but why not just ask one when you meet him?

[RobertJasiek]

a top pro would be able to win [an even game] just by playing reflexively.

Sure. (Reflexively does not imply a requirement for intuition or subconsciousness.)

playing all his moves in under a minute.

Some players are able to play very fast online. For a real world game, the lower bound is about 110s per player, IF he has piled all the stones in front of his board before the game start, the players must press the clock and may not move while the opponent's clock is still running. I know, I tested it.

Just about any other skill activity you could name has examples of top performers being able to perform intuitively and effortlessly,

If you drop "intuitively", ok. If you insist on it, then prove its existence or define it.

if you confuse awareness with consciousness?

No.

Definitely I doubt that Lee or Cho actually need to remind themselves consciously to hit the head of two stones, avoid premature boundary plays or what have you.

I doubt the opposite, emphasis is on "consciously".

why not just ask one when you meet him?

Standard answer was: "I do not know. I cannot explain my thinking."

[Tami]

Hmmm, the more we talk, the more I begin to believe we have generally been talking at cross purposes. Intuition does not have to mean untrained. Yes, there is instinct, and intuition can cover that too; but in English we also use intuition to mean a kind of heightened sensitivity that comes with years of experience.

Do you know the expression "to have a gut feeling"? It means the same kind of thing - you couldn't say why something seems right or wrong, but it does. I`ve read that many top business people rely on gut feeling above all else when making decisions about huge amounts of money. Sometimes the reasoning that goes on behind the scenes of the conscious mind is better than that the conscious mind can produce.

Standard answer was: "I do not know. I cannot explain my thinking."

If that's what you were told by pros, then it seems to run against your whole, highly logical approach.

Oh well, it`s interesting, but I think we`ll have to agree to have different opinions.