Suji wrote:All in all, I think that both Araban and GoCat have good ideas. When I actually do tsumego, I'm going to somewhat blend their ideas. Though I think that Araban is right, with the idea that we all need to stretch our abilities. I'm going to start by never looking at the answers, because to improve I need to stretch, and later when pattern recognition becomes key, I'll start doing problems repetitively, maybe 3 out of 10 max, I'll look at the answer and focus on those.
Also, the point of Tsumego, IMO, is to learn something. As with all puzzles, if you're not learning anything you're not stretching enough since they're too easy or you're giving up too easily, again IMHO.
IMO, for DDKs pattern recognition is the most important thing. You need to build a go vocabulary. Reading is important, but you need to know the words.
OC, not everybody learns best the same way. However, I expect that there are ways of study that are generally effective. I think that the questions are empirical, and I do not know of any research directly applicable to tsumego.
But I would venture a guess. Let two groups of DDKs (not complete novices) study the same set of level appropriate tsumego problems for the same length of time (like one hour), without playing through them, except mentally. One group gets the problems without solutions, the other gets the problems with solutions on the same page. Wait one week to let memory fade. Then test them on a different set of problems. My guess is that the group that gets the solutions scores better on the test. At the dan level you might get the reverse.
I see your point, though I do have a tendency to jump the gun at looking at the solutions. What would you say is an appropriate amount of time per problem?
HKA wrote:
Harleqin wrote:I think that doing problems is mostly underrated.
Well, I agree with Harleqin's post, but I disagree with this initial premise.
I think we all know how important doing problems is, however, most of us do not enjoy the work, we would rather play, so this part of our go journey is underUSED.
Having seen young players progress in this game over my years of play, I can say without doubt, the ones that have improved the fastest are the ones who were always studying problems.
And of course, you must train yourself to do them in your head. Personally, I think a nice mix of rapid problems you can solve fairly easily, and challenging problems that may stump you is best.
I can see the point of "never" looking at the answers as building discipline, but I think strides can be made by simply not giving up too soon.
Suji wrote:I see your point, though I do have a tendency to jump the gun at looking at the solutions. What would you say is an appropriate amount of time per problem?
Interesting question. Lin Haifeng (Rin Kaiho) suggests taking up to 10 min. on a single crucial move in a game, assuming that the game lasts 1 hour. I. e., up to 1/3 of your time on a single move! When I was in training as a dan player I allotted myself 15 min. for a problem. (I spent 1 hr. on 4 problems. ) Now that I do problems for fun, it's more like 15 sec.
Here is a thought: If you have game records that show how much time you spend on a move, see what the longest time is that you take for a single play. Obviously you are willing to spend that much time figuring out where to play. Double it.
The Adkins Principle: At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Suji wrote:I see your point, though I do have a tendency to jump the gun at looking at the solutions. What would you say is an appropriate amount of time per problem?
Interesting question. Lin Haifeng (Rin Kaiho) suggests taking up to 10 min. on a single crucial move in a game, assuming that the game lasts 1 hour. I. e., up to 1/3 of your time on a single move! When I was in training as a dan player I allotted myself 15 min. for a problem. (I spent 1 hr. on 4 problems. ) Now that I do problems for fun, it's more like 15 sec.
Here is a thought: If you have game records that show how much time you spend on a move, see what the longest time is that you take for a single play. Obviously you are willing to spend that much time figuring out where to play. Double it.
Longest, in one 1 hour tournament, i spent 20 minutes on one move, trying to kill, and 15 minutes on the following move. So on that local problem i spend 35 minutes for two moves, double it would be 1 hour and 10 mintues.
Suji wrote:I see your point, though I do have a tendency to jump the gun at looking at the solutions. What would you say is an appropriate amount of time per problem?
Interesting question. Lin Haifeng (Rin Kaiho) suggests taking up to 10 min. on a single crucial move in a game, assuming that the game lasts 1 hour. I. e., up to 1/3 of your time on a single move! When I was in training as a dan player I allotted myself 15 min. for a problem. (I spent 1 hr. on 4 problems. ) Now that I do problems for fun, it's more like 15 sec.
Here is a thought: If you have game records that show how much time you spend on a move, see what the longest time is that you take for a single play. Obviously you are willing to spend that much time figuring out where to play. Double it.
Longest, in one 1 hour tournament, i spent 20 minutes on one move, trying to kill, and 15 minutes on the following move. So on that local problem i spend 35 minutes for two moves, double it would be 1 hour and 10 mintues.
Well, if you are willing to spend 20 min. on a move, then don't let me discourage you. Doubling that gives 40 min., but if you want to take longer, feel free.
I do have a couple of suggestions. If you are going to take that much time, give some thought to organizing your reading. There is more than one way to do it, find what works for you.
As for the level of problem, the best level is one where you can solve half the problems in the time you give yourself.
Good luck!
The Adkins Principle: At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Suji wrote:I see your point, though I do have a tendency to jump the gun at looking at the solutions. What would you say is an appropriate amount of time per problem?
Interesting question. Lin Haifeng (Rin Kaiho) suggests taking up to 10 min. on a single crucial move in a game, assuming that the game lasts 1 hour. I. e., up to 1/3 of your time on a single move! When I was in training as a dan player I allotted myself 15 min. for a problem. (I spent 1 hr. on 4 problems. ) Now that I do problems for fun, it's more like 15 sec.
Here is a thought: If you have game records that show how much time you spend on a move, see what the longest time is that you take for a single play. Obviously you are willing to spend that much time figuring out where to play. Double it.
Ok, looks like I'm going to have to pay attention to the clock since I don't know if glgo (IGS), or CGoban3 (KGS) does timestamps.
Bill Spight wrote: Well, if you are willing to spend 20 min. on a move, then don't let me discourage you. Doubling that gives 40 min., but if you want to take longer, feel free.
I do have a couple of suggestions. If you are going to take that much time, give some thought to organizing your reading. There is more than one way to do it, find what works for you.
As for the level of problem, the best level is one where you can solve half the problems in the time you give yourself.
Good luck!
How to organize reading? Is there a way to train it other than doing L&D?
Well I do a lot of problems, but I never look at the answers . Even if i can't solve a problem I save it for other time and skip to the next one. To be honest, these problems are really very difficult, and are not for people with weak hearts
Stefany93 wrote:Well I do a lot of problems, but I never look at the answers . Even if i can't solve a problem I save it for other time and skip to the next one. To be honest, these problems are really very difficult, and are not for people with weak hearts
You should probably start looking at the answers to make sure you're getting it right.
Stefany93 wrote:Well I do a lot of problems, but I never look at the answers . Even if i can't solve a problem I save it for other time and skip to the next one. To be honest, these problems are really very difficult, and are not for people with weak hearts
You should probably start looking at the answers to make sure you're getting it right.
Yes, if you learn what you did was wrong in real game, that would be too bloody.
So on that local problem i spend 35 minutes for two moves, double it would be 1 hour and 10 mintues. 
