If you sit down to play a few games, you begin to realise how impractical it is attempting to use any sort of "Order" as a move generator.
Again, I made that list and looked up Yang Yilun because I`m seeking to get a better sense of structure for all the bits of advice and ideas that I have learned in recent times. However, practically speaking, such lists seem most useful for consulting away from the game (to prompt your subconscious to get busy organising), and for guidance when intuition and reading fail in a live game.
So, being a practically minded person, I will concentrate on
* getting as much experience as possible
* really getting a handle on L&D
* other forms of study, but emphasising the concrete (i.e., shapes and tactics you can use)
With respect to L&D, I used to try to learn it in a "principles and terms" fashion, but could never recall the shapes, no matter how descriptive the phrases I used. If my experience of learning kanji is a guide, then the breakthrough comes when you understand the structure of a shape, and
after that the labelling becomes helpful. My Nihon Kiin L&D "bible" is very structured and comprehensive, starting with each shape, then adding one leg, one hane etc. If you learn to solve the shape, then recalling it by name is easy; but if you try to make a short cut by learning the name and the killing/living move, then it is not easy to remember.
It is beginning to seem that reading strategy books is fun, but in terms of improvement is not as useful as it feels. The real problem seems to be
enforcement. The better you are at L&D and tactics, and the better you are at shape, the more easily you can get your way strategically. Conversely, there`s not much good in building a beautiful moyo if you don`t know how to convert it into real points.
It`s a similar phenemenon in chess - weaker players get all worked up over complex systems and positional theories, but then go and hang a knight. First you need to see what`s going on, and
then you can play positionally. (BTW, when I last took chess seriously, in 1999 my rating got close to 2000.)
There may also be an interesting illusion going on. Learning strategy may seem harder and more "advanced" because it involves abstract ideas, rather than concrete things. So, many of us study strategy because it is fun to do so, and because it feels like we`re starting to really understand go (or chess!). However, in reality, it takes a fair bit of effort
properly to learn a L&D shape (i.e., to spot it anywhere, to know the possible attacks and defences, to know why they work or fail, etc. as opposed to just being content with "yeah, L+1 is unsettled"). Not only does it take a lot of effort, but the gain seems small compared with "learning" a large-scale strategic concept. But, every L&D shape is something that crops up over and over and over again, if not on the board, then in the background. So, I think it`s worth doing all the labour, because in the end you build up knowledge that you
can apply, even if each item seems small and mean at the time.
To Bonobo
)