Raising the Standard of Western Go

[RobertJasiek]

Reference: viewtopic.php?p=132869#p132869

The books that would really raise the standard of Western go weren't what the publishers were concerned with

I agree, but would appreciate further input from you: which kinds of books, do you think, can really raise the standard of Western go? Would they be the same players want to buy? Are you concerned with spreading intermediate and advanced knowledge or spreading go to as many newbies as possible, then let more strong players automatically improve simply due to the then greater population?

I think go material has still not yet been fully "localised" for the Western market.

Please explain! (What is properly localised material?)

[Charles Matthews]

Reference: viewtopic.php?p=132869#p132869

The books that would really raise the standard of Western go weren't what the publishers were concerned with

I agree, but would appreciate further input from you: which kinds of books, do you think, can really raise the standard of Western go? Would they be the same players want to buy? Are you concerned with spreading intermediate and advanced knowledge or spreading go to as many newbies as possible, then let more strong players automatically improve simply due to the then greater population?

Basic model: one book to reach 10 kyu, three books to reach 4/5 kyu (5 kyu these days, I think - ranks have deflated). So 10 books to reach 1 dan, 100 books to reach 5 dan ...

The first obvious weakness is that the set of three books to reach 5 kyu has typically not existed in Western go literature. What has existed is a broad collection of books for players 2 kyu to 2 dan. The scope of those books is really too narrow for the typical club player. I don't say the content is wrong.

[Charles Matthews]

Reference: viewtopic.php?p=132869#p132869

I think go material has still not yet been fully "localised" for the Western market.

Please explain! (What is properly localised material?)

This is to do with different ways Europeans habitually learn, compared with Asians. When I was writing a book with Seong-June Kim, we discussed this issue. One thing I remember very well: he said that from his point of view, giving someone a complete explanation was treating them as if they were stupid! It has often been noted that go material from Asia is "elliptical" - leaves out things we might wish to have included. I'm not sure Seong-June's explanation is correct, but it has some value here, I think.

I recently found out something about "learning styles", and this is also helpful here. Learning from basic "proverbs" or "heuristics" is a traditional way to absorb concepts, but really quite tricky (strategy proverbs tend to explain concepts in terms of harder concepts, not easier ones). How about learning from "shapes"? I was recently given the point of view that a shape is really a _cue for discussion_ taking in various learning styles. My own style is theoretical (perhaps you are the same, Robert). You probably need a balance. The expected balance for Europeans is not the same as Asians, it seems.

One piece of feedback from "Shape Up!": you shouldn't have examples of where a shape is "good" and "bad" on the same page! This was very strange to me. It seems there are basic questions to answer, before we decide on a pedagogic style.

[RobertJasiek]

To some extent, I agree to message #2 and will write more books in that direction. However, books written mainly for a particular small rank range and suitable also for an extended range can be similarly useful, IMO.

You are a bit too optimistic. It is more like three books until 10k:
- some introduction first-book-of-go (In the Beginning contains also too much "advanced" theory, many newbie books are too basic only, something in between would be right),
- First Fundamentals for the theory between a first-book-of-go and to 9k (EGF)
- a reading book combining the function of Graded Go Problems 1 + 2, similar problems for life-and-death, theory of how to read and choose variations explained for DDK, but also clearly beyond first-book-of-go "Do not extend string in atari to first line." level.

Not everybody needs three books. Club players can easily do without a first-book-of-go. Players having the ability to read right from the beginning can do without the DDK level reading book. There are players making it to 9k without a book. I am such an example, but it was the reason why I needed too long to reach 9k, and the side effect was not quite abandoned beginner mistakes. E.g., as 9k, I still let escape each monkey jump. So, in retrospect, I would have very much wished to get the advice to start reading books as DDK. As an initial club player with some born reading ability, one book would have sufficed for me. However, there are also beginners starting with reading difficulties.

In conclusion, one to three books seems about good for DDK to reach 10k.

[jts]

...he said that from his point of view, giving someone a complete explanation was treating them as if they were stupid! It has often been noted that go material from Asia is "elliptical" - leaves out things we might wish to have included.

Can you give an example of this? I've noticed a strain in the way players review games with beginners that could be described as either "completeness" or "pettiness", depending on one's point of view - you know, the kind of player who can't criticize a bad shape around move 50 without giving a complete explanation of the Chinese fuseki first. Is this what you're referring to, or something else?

The first obvious weakness is that the set of three books to reach 5 kyu has typically not existed in Western go literature. What has existed is a broad collection of books for players 2 kyu to 2 dan. The scope of those books is really too narrow for the typical club player. I don't say the content is wrong.

So if I were to tell someone that, beyond playing lots of games and doing tsumego, the only book he needs to read to get to 10k is "Opening Theory Made Easy", and if he also reads "Tesuji," "Attack and Defense", and "Life and Death," he can get to 5k -- what exactly would you say is wrong with that advice?

(Not that it's great advice - I'm just not sure from which angle you want to criticize it. The books are too hard? The books are too easy? They don't cover some topics a 5k would want to know; they do cover some topics a 5 doesn't have to know?)

[Charles Matthews]

...he said that from his point of view, giving someone a complete explanation was treating them as if they were stupid! It has often been noted that go material from Asia is "elliptical" - leaves out things we might wish to have included.

Can you give an example of this? I've noticed a strain in the way players review games with beginners that could be described as either "completeness" or "pettiness", depending on one's point of view - you know, the kind of player who can't criticize a bad shape around move 50 without giving a complete explanation of the Chinese fuseki first. Is this what you're referring to, or something else?

There is the coaching issue: the coach should concentrate on saying the single most helpful thing to the player, not proving that the coach knows more (which should be a given). I don't think he meant that. Something like this: how to reduce a framework? You can show the best play, from the pro point of view, and let people look at that. Or you can give variations for points A, B, C, ..., H.

The first obvious weakness is that the set of three books to reach 5 kyu has typically not existed in Western go literature. What has existed is a broad collection of books for players 2 kyu to 2 dan. The scope of those books is really too narrow for the typical club player. I don't say the content is wrong.

So if I were to tell someone that, beyond playing lots of games and doing tsumego, the only book he needs to read to get to 10k is "Opening Theory Made Easy", and if he also reads "Tesuji," "Attack and Defense", and "Life and Death," he can get to 5k -- what exactly would you say is wrong with that advice?

(Not that it's great advice - I'm just not sure from which angle you want to criticize it. The books are too hard? The books are too easy? They don't cover some topics a 5k would want to know; they do cover some topics a 5 doesn't have to know?)

Those are all good books. The student can do without about half of "Life and Death", a third anyway of "Tesuji", and the pro game examples in "Attack and Defense", mostly. There is a three-volume set by Kato in Japanese that also covers the endgame to some extent.

[jts]

You can show the best play, from the pro point of view, and let people look at that. Or you can give variations for points A, B, C, ...,

Ah, okay. I think I see what you mean. So I guess you could say that there is a continuum between "Go Proverbs, illustrated" and "Joseki dictionary"; and while your co-author was drawn towards illustrating proverbs, your were more fond of the dictionary tack?

Those are all good books. The student can do without about half of "Life and Death", a third anyway of "Tesuji", and the pro game examples in "Attack and Defense", mostly. There is a three-volume set by Kato in Japanese that also covers the endgame to some extent.

Would it be fair to say your position is something like this? "If you took the easiest bits of the best volumes of the Elementary Go Series, they would fit into two volumes, and then you would have a volume left over to treat miscellaneous topics like ko or probes or whatever else a 5k should know."

I think I'm beginning to see the logic of your position now - something along the lines of, only a hardened bibliophile will buy more than four books despite being only a weak amateur. But I think adult players are quite willing either to buy more books than they can afford, or to swap with members of their club for things they haven't read; whereas the real potential for Western Go lies in 10 years olds, who are not ever going to buy as many as three $25 books.

[SoDesuNe]

This is to do with different ways Europeans habitually learn, compared with Asians. When I was writing a book with Seong-June Kim, we discussed this issue. One thing I remember very well: he said that from his point of view, giving someone a complete explanation was treating them as if they were stupid! It has often been noted that go material from Asia is "elliptical" - leaves out things we might wish to have included. I'm not sure Seong-June's explanation is correct, but it has some value here, I think.

I wouldn't generally say "Europeans" because I like the "asian approach" somewhat more despite being European.
What personally hindered me a lot in the beginning was knowing too many proverbs and theory. I read "In the Beginning", "Opening Theory Made Easy", "Second Book of Go", "Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go" and a couple of others I can't remember right now before I was 15k. Then I discovered the Graded Go Problems for Beginners series and goproblems.com and I credit these for bringing me in the SDK ranks.
Sadly I had a relapse and read Kageyama's "Secret Chronicles of Handicap Go" and "Handicap Go" from the Elementary series because back then I had to play a lot of games against a handicap. Furthermore "Breakthrough to Shodan", "Basic Techniques of Go", "38 Basic Josekis", "Reducing Territorial Frameworks" (because I sucked against Moyos), "Strategic Concepts of Go", "The Direction of Play" and I guess even a couple more like "River Mountain Go". I can't really track my progress while or after reading all these books but I know that I improved around two stones in one month (6k->4k) by mainly doing Tsumegos and Tesuji problems in this time (http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... f=12&t=670).

I won't say that all these books were a waste of time (though stronger players often laughed about me, saying, with my theoretical knowledge I ought to give them two stones next time ^^) but I definitely improved faster and more consistentely when I just solved problems. So my wish would be to have more books with (whole board) problems like "501 Opening Problems", "Get Strong at the Opening" and Go/Segeo's Tesuji Dictionairy. Just educational positions (best case: variations from or actual professional games) where you have to find the best move in the given context. I don't care if the correct sequence is not thoroughly explained (as long as there are at least some variations). In my experience it is more important to get a "feel" for the right moves, strangely that is also something Magicwand often says in his Malkovich games.
Of course this ends up being a question of your learning style but I personally really like "stupid" problem drilling way more than reading theory which tries to come up with a general rule for the game of Go.

[Boidhre]

But I think adult players are quite willing either to buy more books than they can afford, or to swap with members of their club for things they haven't read; whereas the real potential for Western Go lies in 10 years olds, who are not ever going to buy as many as three $25 books.

10 year olds don't buy anything, their parents do, the problem is convincing them go is as worthy as chess as an intellectual pursuit for their offspring.

[oren]

Then I discovered the Graded Go Problems for Beginners series and goproblems.com and I credit these for bringing me in the SDK ranks.

I was just commenting over the weekend as to how much better the selection is of go problem books in comparison to theory books exists in Asia. Too much focus here is on theory and not on the problems I think.

[daal]

While we're talking about types of books to raise the standard of Western go, I'd like to remind you potential authors of a type of book largely missing in Western go literature. John Fairbairn wrote about it here. The basic idea is full board problems with a set of ranked answers.

[RobertJasiek]

Too much focus here is on theory and not on the problems I think.

I think the opposite, but I am curious: What is the problem? For problem book lovers, the Western and Asian books are the heaven. Just ignore any theory they might contain. Treat any example not described as a problem nevertheless as a problem. Think about each move in each diagram as a problem. And you have any number of problem books! So why worry about "too much theory"? It does not matter, if only you ignore it.

[oren]

Robert, just for you I'll say it again. I think there is a comparative lack of good problem books. Theory books out there are fine but more easily available quality problem books would be better.

[Bartleby]

I am curious about what type or level of problem books we need more of? It woud be helpful for people to be more specific because there are already a lot of problem books out there already that are accessible to English speakers. If there are specific areas where good problems are lacking, it would be nice to know.

I count over 40 English-language books on my bookshelf that consist entirely of problems and answers or have a large number of problems and answers in them. (And that's not counting some children's series such as the Level Up! and Speed Baduk books.) Most of these books are still in print or available at a reasonable price.

All of the CJK problem books on life and death and many of the CJK problem books on tesujis are accessible to anyone who is willing to learn the symbols for "correct" and "failure." I have some CJK endgame problem books that I can almost always understand the answers to.

So what is it that English speakers need in terms of problem books?

[oren]

I am curious about what type or level of problem books we need more of?

I think the easy availability of various levels of problems and high quality books.

One thing I find annoying for easy availability is that Kiseido sells a translation of Nihon Kiin dan level problems for three times the cost of the Japanese. Sure, you can argue anyone can books from China, Japan, or Korea but that doesn't make these easily available. There are plenty of good English theory and game commentary books, but I'd like to see more problem sets easily available for purchase.