Too many go books sinking the game boat.

[daal]

Recently, I just bought about a bunch of used go books and I've been digging into a few with fervor, and so far the only result is that my go has gotten ridiculously bad. I'm not saying that it was much better before, but suddenly I am making randombot-style moves. Go always seems easy when it's explained in a book, but then in a game, in the absence of someone telling me why moves make sense, my go-sense goes completely astray. Have you had this experience after reading go books? Should I put them to better use, such as propping up a broken table?

[Bonobo]

[..] Have you had this experience after reading go books?

Not quite, but I’ve read about this phenomenon a few times (I think in this forum). What I have experienced is a slight confusion after reading books, superficially knowing less how to play my moves than I knew before. But then realizing that I really didn’t know before, but only thought I knew, and now I know better how little I know.

Perhaps comparable with the “initial aggravation” (“Erstverschlimmerung” in German) in homeopathic therapy? (No discussion of homeopathy here, please I know too little about this to have any beliefs regarding this.)

Should I put them to better use, such as propping up a broken table?

I don’t think so, this would lock them in place there. Better put ’em someplace where you can access them easily. Perhaps 1/3 of my Go books is in a shelf in my bathroom and I currently only read in homeopathic doses, i.e. perhaps a page or a half in a month. Can’t take more, given that I have a life and lots of work.

Greetings, Tom

[tchan001]

haha, and you guys think you have too many. lol

[daal]

haha, and you guys think you have too many. lol

Do you read yours?

[hyperpape]

I think it's common to struggle with new ideas before they sink in. An example for me are Submarines and other probes/invasions that aren't just 3-3 points under a 4-4. When I first played them, I got a lot of bad results, but slowly developed a bit better sense of timing.

[RobertJasiek]

There can never be too many go books, but there can be too little learning from one's books. If the taught contents does not sink in immediately, try to apply it for 3 months, until you regularly apply it. If you cannot recall all at once from your many go books, read fewer per time, but ensure that you do learn the contents of those you read.

Go books have extremely different qualities of contents. Throw away those teaching partial falsehoods (such as 50% applicable proverbs) and concentrate on those teaching mostly or exclusively correct contents. Read the books teaching very little new contents lightly; find their few new facts and forget the useless rest immediately, except that each (uncommented) move in each diagram might be an additional source of inspiration. Obviously, books teaching much contents must be taken much more seriously. If necessary, read them several times; start with the easier contents and proceed to the more difficult contents.

[Bill Spight]

Hmmm. It sounds like you may be doing some unlearning. Unlearning is necessary in any rich field. You probably have weakened some of your preconceptions or misapprehensions, which has put you temporarily at a loss. This kind of thing is normal.

[tchan001]

I do read a small selection of my books, and the material doesn't sink in quickly unfortunately.

[jts]

I agree with everyone else - it's hard to graft new things that you've learned into your old bedrock. For example, maybe you were very good at playing a certain kind of endgame - but now you're playing a different kind of opening, and the endgame maneuvers you were comfortable with don't show up anymore. Or maybe you were terrorizing your opponents with a tricky joseki, but now that you are trying not to use that joseki when it faces the wrong direction, they aren't tripping up any more. Or maybe your strategy has been KILL-KILL-KILL, and now that you're trying to count and be reasonable you're flubbing games where you miscounted. Right? These things happen to everyone.

Also, you must not forget that as you improve, your own evaluation of your mental processes changes. The average 20k thinks he is Hikaru, the average 2k is thinking "I have no idea where to play, this is a clown show." If you're very self-conscious, you might notice an increasingly melancholy thought-process before you notice that you're posting better results.

Just to dilate - 20ks think they are going to win. They look at the board, and everything looks golden and shiny, and everything makes perfect sense, and unless their opponents are sandbaggers they are going to win big. Suddenly when they realize they're losing, they're shocked, they become frustrated and angry - "My play was perfect!" A less weak kyu player is much more aware of the limits of his play, the threats facing him on every side, all the things that could go wrong.

I wouldn't completely dismiss the possibility that your books are wrong/ poorly written/ aimed at the wrong level of play, though.

[Bill Spight]

Suddenly when they realize they're losing, they're shocked, they become frustrated and angry - "My play was perfect!"

[Kirby]

I don't think it can hurt in the long run to read more books.

Plus, you said you were reading them with fervor. That seems like reason enough to keep at it to me. Even if the effects were negative, you clearly seem interested in the books... So read them. You only live once!

[daal]

If it was just unlearning, I wouldn't be worried - but I think what's happening is that I'm seeing how far away I am from good go, and although some of my moves are based on sound principles and such, whether an idea of mine turns out well or not seems to be a matter of luck.

What I seem to be realizing is that pro moves are so good because they really give so much consideration into each move, and this consideration is supported by first, a wealth of knowledge, and second, the ability to read out long sequences and subsequently compare and evaluate their subtle differences.

I don't do that, and basically, it's because I can't. I can't remember any but the simplest positions accurately, and I am lousy at visualizing a sequence - let alone judging the result before it's on the board. On the contrary, I can hardly distinguish the good results from the bad when I look at them in the diagrams in the books I'm reading.

I think that what I'm realizing is that although the game I'm playing is called go, it's not really, because the game I'm playing is a game of chance. The joke of course is that even thinking this makes my game worse. I imagine I'll snap out of it soon enough and get back to trying to make moves that make sense.

[quantumf]

I think that what I'm realizing is that although the game I'm playing is called go, it's not really, because the game I'm playing is a game of chance.

And yet, I'll wager that as a 5k, if you play a few games against a 10k, you'll win every single one of those "random" encounters. You'll be amazingly lucky.

[tchan001]

I think that what I'm realizing is that although the game I'm playing is called go, it's not really, because the game I'm playing is a game of chance.

And yet, I'll wager that as a 5k, if you play a few games against a 10k, you'll win every single one of those "random" encounters. You'll be amazingly lucky.

If he plays a random 10k on Tygem, he will likely lose those "random" encounters to a sandbagger but the sandbagger might then resign near the end of the game to maintain his status

[Bill Spight]

I think what's happening is that I'm seeing how far away I am from good go, and although some of my moves are based on sound principles and such, whether an idea of mine turns out well or not seems to be a matter of luck.

The beginning of wisdom. It may be painful, but it shows that you are ripe for learning.

What I seem to be realizing is that pro moves are so good because they really give so much consideration into each move, and this consideration is supported by first, a wealth of knowledge, and second, the ability to read out long sequences and subsequently compare and evaluate their subtle differences.

I don't do that, and basically, it's because I can't. I can't remember any but the simplest positions accurately, and I am lousy at visualizing a sequence - let alone judging the result before it's on the board. On the contrary, I can hardly distinguish the good results from the bad when I look at them in the diagrams in the books I'm reading.

Conscious visualization is not necessary. Though it is nice, and it can be trained. I remember when I was learning go how different the board could look after playing one more stone. Over time I lost that feeling, because I developed a better sense of the possibilities of a position, even without consciously visualizing them.

As for distinguishing good results from bad, it is important to develop your judgement. That comes with experience and practice exercising it. I bought my first go books when my Japanese reading skills were rudimentary. A few years later, looking at one of those books, I was amused to see that I had thought that some results were the opposite of what the book said. When you are learning, it is not so important whether you are right or wrong.

I think that what I'm realizing is that although the game I'm playing is called go, it's not really, because the game I'm playing is a game of chance. The joke of course is that even thinking this makes my game worse. I imagine I'll snap out of it soon enough and get back to trying to make moves that make sense.

To some degree you have wiped the slate clean. That's good. It enables you to look at things without some of your previous preconceptions. A fresh start.