? about reading and visualization

cherryhill · Post by **cherryhill** » Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:41 pm

so in regards to reading and general and this link on sensei's that i have seen described as a kind of training for reading (http://senseis.xmp.net/?Ladder%2FReadingTechniques) i have a question about the actual process. so is the "right" way that you're actually supposed to be able to see all the stones in that ladder in your head when reading it out all at the same time? this in comparison to playing out the moves and following the line but not actually maintaining the stones in your visualization when you don't need them.

i am new to the "right" way and currently have trouble seeing the next 5-6 moves in my head after a few seconds at best before it all evaporates (even if i'm not playing more moves). i mean even 4 is hard without it coming in and out of vision. if this is actually how you're supposed to do it i'll just buckle down and assume that with practice i'll eventually be able to do it i just don't want to be wasting my time if i'm doing something really weird haha

TheBigH · Post by **TheBigH** » Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:23 pm

To be honest, I don't really see the imaginary stones when I'm reading. At least, not very well, no matter how hard I try. For instance, suppose I want to know if I can catch my opponent in a ladder, I don't really play out every stone in my mind. Instead, I trace out the path taken by my two diagonal rows of stones and see where they "hit" the supposed ladderbreaker. Then, with difficulty, I can usually visualize the situation with just those few stones and can generally judge right whether the ladder works. I suppose my difficulty in visualizing imaginary stones is why I struggle with things like under-the-stones and throw-in tesujis.

leichtloeslich · Post by **leichtloeslich** » Wed Jun 19, 2013 11:29 pm

is the "right" way that you're actually supposed to be able to see all the stones in that ladder in your head when reading it out all at the same time?

I'm fairly sure even pros "zig-zag" over the irrelevant parts of ladders quickly, without bothering to visualize the stones. (On the other hand once you've seen a ladder you've seen them all, so visualizing the stones may not even be that hard, since it's a common pattern.)

Sometimes this won't do, though. An important example are loose ladders, where your opponent has 2 (or more) liberties. Here you have to read a bit more careful and make sure you don't accumulate double atari points (or generally weaknesses) on the outside (or if you do you need to read out that your opponent can't use them to break out). But even then personally I don't visualize the stones, I just keep track of the liberties. Like, I don't "see" the stones, but I know they're there and how many libs they have.

So I'm pretty sure you're allowed to "skip" the boring part of ladders. But Kageyama's advice on reading ladders is very useful. Ladders are the easiest thing to read out (itˈs just atari-atari-atari) and you wouldn't believe how often even dan level games are decided by one player missing a ladder.

Just read out ladders and nets every day and you'll be sure to improve.

cherryhill · Post by **cherryhill** » Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:13 am

even though the link is referencing reading ladders, the way i was directed to it was as a way to practice reading in general. i do know how to do the zigzag thing to follow a ladder but i wasn't sure if the point of the exercise was, instead of learning how to simply keep track of the zigzag mentally as opposed to tracing it with your finger, or if the REAL purpose of the exercise has nothing to do with ladders in general, but rather practicing imagining all of those stones simultaneously because if you can do that you will get better at imagining many stones as you work out tsumego in your mind.

being able to imagine all those stones, whether it be reading that ladder and visualizing all of the stones, or doing a tsumego and visualizing all the stones, is something that is very difficult for me with only a few imaginary stones let alone 5+, which is why i just want to confirm if this is the proper way to read and it's something i just need to train myself to get better at or if it is impossible for an ordinary person to be able to do such a thing and a waste of time to practice.

edit: and not to irk anyone by referencing hikaru no go, but in the hikaru vs ochi match when ochi reads out a bunch of variations, the way it is animated it appears as if he is imaging the whole board as he reads out each variation. this is kind of what i mean by visualizing the stones and i don't know if this is based in reality at all and what people preach or if reading with such clarity is just dramatized for the show and that real reading is nothing like that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMujLKOsrnE&t=17m59s

daal · Post by **daal** » Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:27 am

I think that there are some individuals who actually see the stones in their mind's eye when reading, but for most of us, "I see" means "I know." In other words, when reading, what's important is that we know how many liberties each group has and whether it leaves behind cutting points etc. Sure it would be nice if you could just look at unplayed stones, but that's essentially just one way of gathering the relevant information.

On the other hand, visual memory is a valuable asset for a go player, not just for reading, but also for joseki, tesuji etc., and if you can get better at it, by all means, do so.

Dusk Eagle · Post by **Dusk Eagle** » Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:33 am

I visualize all the stones at the front of a ladder as I go, but I don't keep track of the ones I've already passed in the middle. When I was weaker and had a very difficult time visualizing both colors of a ladder, I read advice from a stronger player to concentrate when reading a ladder and actively visualize the stones rather than just drawing a quick diagonal. While it's not so important to visualize the stones for the purpose of a ladder, being able to visualize stones in general is very important, and if you choose not to visualize stones in a ladder you're cheating yourself of free and easy practice.

TIM82 · Post by **TIM82** » Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:36 am

On fuseki ladders I admit to skipping the run-through-empty-middle part: just figure out the situation, zip diagonally closer to other corner with some stones in it, and then read it there. So kind of same as Dusk Eagle?

Just tested out with some tsumego how I do it otherwise. It's kind of hard to put to words (If I can even analyze myself well enough): I imagine the stones there as I think of the flow, but I don't have a photograph-like clear image of the whole position. More like: "on this side there was this shape with 3 libs, on that side there were two liberties, and if that point is taken there is this weakness that has to be defended" - but at the same time I have a rough or "cloudy" image of the position too, and when I focus to some area (perhaps about 4x5 or so?), I can bring the stones there to my minds eye clearly - useful for confirming the solution. With smaller area tsumegos I seem have an image of the whole position.

tchan001 · Post by **tchan001** » Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:59 am

I have great problem reading and visualizing long colliding ladders.

wineandgolover · Post by **wineandgolover** » Thu Jun 20, 2013 1:32 am

I think strong players can visualize long sequences. I have great difficulty with it.

For most of us knowing common shapes helps. "Hmmm, the usual shape is here to increase liberties, and he played there, so what happens if I hane to reduce libs further?" Then plodding visualization occurs, often wrong. Or we just hane and hope.

I guess what I'm saying is part of reading is just experience. I doubt I visualize any better than the average 8k.

billywoods · Post by **billywoods** » Thu Jun 20, 2013 1:45 am

leichtloeslich wrote:
On the other hand once you've seen a ladder you've seen them all

Really? Perhaps you wouldn't call the following a ladder:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$Wc $$ . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . X . . . | $$ . . . . . . O . . | $$ X . . 1 . . . . . | $$ X W W B . O . . . | $$ . X X O . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . | $$ . . . . . . . . . | $$ ------------------[/go]

...but I would.

I tend to think of a ladder as a sequence in which all the moves by one player are ataris on a single enemy group, until that group is captured. See the marked stones here. This position - slightly modified - occurred in a game of mine a fair while back. I was weaker then, but I was strong enough to read out that :w1:

was correct. (Cherryhill, if you want reading practice, read this!)

I think most people read ladders lazily. I would call this ladder above fairly simple, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were a lot of people around mid-SDK strength who simply couldn't (or couldn't be bothered to) read it. (To cherryhill: if you can't read these sorts of things, practise - it's not beneath you to practise reading even the straightforward diagonal ladders one stone at a time until you can 'see' the stones in your head. It's best to get into good habits early, after all!)

To answer your question directly: no, 'see' is in inverted commas for a reason. I don't 'see' any new stones on the board. I can sort of picture them, but it's nothing genuinely visual. I don't really know what it means.

TheBigH · Post by **TheBigH** » Thu Jun 20, 2013 2:01 am

Good example, Billy.

I could see at a glance what I needed to do to the black snake, and where the trap was, without seeing a clear image of all the stones in my mind's eye.

wineandgolover · Post by **wineandgolover** » Thu Jun 20, 2013 2:29 am

I struggled with Billy's problem. (Got it, but not trivial for me)

leichtloeslich · Post by **leichtloeslich** » Thu Jun 20, 2013 2:31 am

billywoods wrote:Really? Perhaps you wouldn't call the following a ladder.

Perhaps I would. I use the same definition for ladder: capturing stones in a sequence of consecutive ataris.

The sentence you quoted was obviously referring to "visualizing" the typical zig-zag pattern spanning across the goban. Your example didn't even contain that pattern, so not sure what you're on about.

billywoods · Post by **billywoods** » Thu Jun 20, 2013 2:53 am

leichtloeslich wrote:Your example didn't even contain that pattern, so not sure what you're on about.

You said "once you've seen a ladder you've seen them all", and I disagree, that's all. It's not even necessarily clear that :w1:

in my diagram above works until you've determined that it is a ladder, because it doesn't superficially look like one - it just looks like an atari in a region where white is quite strong. In Nakayama Noriyuki's book "Magic on the first line", one of the problems is to determine whether a (70ish-move, heart-shaped) ladder works or not, but if he hadn't said it was a ladder and/or given the first move, I wouldn't have spotted that it was a ladder. There are some really weird, non-obvious ladders out there.

leichtloeslich · Post by **leichtloeslich** » Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:11 am

You said "once you've seen a ladder you've seen them all", and I disagree, that's all.

Yes, I did say that.

And yes, in isolation it's quite clearly a false statement. You don't even have to disagree, it's just factually wrong.

So I suppose there was a misunderstanding and bad wording on my part. What I meant to say was

"Once you have seen one repetitive diagonal zig-zag pattern spawned by a series of ataris spanning half of the board, you've seen them all."

Good we got that cleared up.

Life In 19x19

? about reading and visualization

? about reading and visualization

Re: ? about reading and visualization

Re: ? about reading and visualization

Re: ? about reading and visualization

Re: ? about reading and visualization

Re: ? about reading and visualization

Re: ? about reading and visualization

Re: ? about reading and visualization

Re: ? about reading and visualization

Re: ? about reading and visualization

Re: ? about reading and visualization

Re: ? about reading and visualization

Re: ? about reading and visualization

Re: ? about reading and visualization

Re: ? about reading and visualization