We are all Rumbolds

[moyoaji]

I, personally, learn pretty well from books when it comes to higher level concepts. In the opening of the game, for example, I was going nowhere fast. I studied pro game records and examined fusekis and played games but my opening was always a failure. I then read The Direction of Play and now my opening is one of the strongest parts of my game when facing players of a similar rank.

Another example is shape. How am I supposed to figure out that the table shape is good on my own? And even if I realize in a game that a move leading the the table shape is good in one position, how am I going to figure out that the shape is good in a lot of situations? Learning about shapes and when they are used and what they are good at has improved my game tremendously.

The double hane is something that I never used until I learned how to use it from books and videos. I thought being cuttable, with an instant atari forcing move no less, made the move fundamentally bad. When I saw it used in books and then watched video lectures where it was featured I started to see the potential power of this move. On my own I never read deeply enough to play it and was always satisfied to simply hane at the head of two stones. No one at my club played it either so there was no way I would have learned it without study beyond playing go. Now, I suppose I could have learned this in game if other players used it against me, so I guess if I'd hopped on the KGS I could have learned it pretty fast, but I didn't.

Now, when it comes to learning in-game reading, that is strictly a repetition thing for me. A great example of this is how I learned to deal with this common position:

$$ Save the cutting stones, a or b?
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . a b . .
$$ . . . . O .
$$ . O X X O O
$$ . . O O X X
$$ . . . . X .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ Save the cutting stones, a or b?
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . a b . .
$$ . . . . O .
$$ . O X X O O
$$ . . O O X X
$$ . . . . X .[/go]

I could never understand, from a conceptual level, why b was correct. I thought: "I'm trying to run away, I need to put my stones farther from my opponents. So a must be correct!" After I was punished about 6 times in games, I learned and started playing the correct move. This, however, I could have learned from a book if I just tried to memorize it, but no book ever taught me this.

And when it comes to building walls I learned about what not to do from having my position cut apart. I got so good at defending my own walls that I learned how to cut apart my opponent's walls when I saw the mistakes I used to make (and that is why my screen name is moyoaji). This now, I could never see learning from a book. There would be so much memorization involved that it would take probably thousands of pages of diagrams to match the 100+ games I've learned from.

[oren]

just that go and chess aren't the kind of things that you can sum up in a small number (10 or so) of books for most players.

For go and up to EGF 5k, it is possible. Above 5k: no.

I see no evidence for this statement.

[RobertJasiek]

how to cut apart my opponent's walls [...] This now, I could never see learning from a book. There would be so much memorization involved that it would take probably thousands of pages of diagrams to match the 100+ games I've learned from.

Why? Cutting apart walls is just a matter of connection, life and whether the result of a cut made at a particular moment is favourable for the attacker. Why would a book need 100s or 1000s of diagrams? A book should explain this much faster than your 100+ games.

[Bill Spight]

Bill Spight said

It seems to me that grind and repetition vs. general principles is a false dichotomy

It may be but it's not the dichotomy I referred to. I used the phrase "understanding general principles".

Sorry, John. I was using a shorthand style. I actually meant the dichotomy you referred to.

I accept that may be as woolly as "grind and repetition" but I think this forum by now is aware of the references. There are some people who believe they have to understand something before they find it useful. Others pick up the concepts subconsciously through grind and repetition. Both sets of people can end up with the general concepts embedded. The former may find it easier to pass on those concepts to other people but will probably not be as fluent in using them in their own games. The latter type may not be able to explain to others how they know what they know but will be able to use it in game situations faster and more creatively.

There is an analogy between being a native speaker and someone who learns a foreign language as an adult. The native speaker will in nearly all cases be more fluent than the adult learner. That does not mean, however, that the adult learner should try to pick up the language in the same manner as a child does.

[Polama]

Another example is shape. How am I supposed to figure out that the table shape is good on my own? And even if I realize in a game that a move leading the the table shape is good in one position, how am I going to figure out that the shape is good in a lot of situations? Learning about shapes and when they are used and what they are good at has improved my game tremendously.

My wife plays Go for fun, with no interest in tsumego or studying or reading books. Last night during a game she exclaimed "ugh! Stop it! You keep putting me in tacos!" By which, it turns out, she meant:

$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . O X X O .
$$ . . O O . .
$$ . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . O X X O .
$$ . . O O . .
$$ . . . . . .[/go]

Hane on both sides of 2 stones. She figured out on her own that was a bad enough shape that it needed a name. It certainly helps to have people point out strong shapes, especially unusual ones you might not have come up with, but a sense of shape does arise naturally just playing lots of games. I learned a lot about good shapes just through endgame play: it's satisfying when your opponent pushes as hard as they can at the gaps in your position, and wherever a cut might have been problematic a stone is already in place protecting that.

Now, when it comes to learning in-game reading, that is strictly a repetition thing for me. A great example of this is how I learned to deal with this common position:

$$ Save the cutting stones, a or b?
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . a b . .
$$ . . c . O .
$$ . O X X O O
$$ . . O O X X
$$ . . . . X .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ Save the cutting stones, a or b?
$$ . . . . . .
$$ . . a b . .
$$ . . c . O .
$$ . O X X O O
$$ . . O O X X
$$ . . . . X .[/go]

I could never understand, from a conceptual level, why b was correct. I thought: "I'm trying to run away, I need to put my stones farther from my opponents. So a must be correct!" After I was punished about 6 times in games, I learned and started playing the correct move. This, however, I could have learned from a book if I just tried to memorize it, but no book ever taught me this.

C (I added it) is sometimes the correct move (I lost a game last week playing b). But the black stones are captured almost immediately after a: this strikes me as an example where being able to visualize continuations is far more important then either memorizing the position or having a conceptual theory for why b must be right.

[moyoaji]

Why? Cutting apart walls is just a matter of connection, life and whether the result of a cut made at a particular moment is favourable for the attacker. Why would a book need 100s or 1000s of diagrams? A book should explain this much faster than your 100+ games.

Yes, it may be faster, but it will not stick as well.

If you tell me that this shape is bad for a wall because of a double atari, I can look for this shape.

$$ What white wall?
$$ . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . .
$$ . X X X X X . .
$$ X O O X O O X X
$$ O . a O b . O X
$$ . . . . . . O X

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ What white wall?
$$ . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . .
$$ . X X X X X . .
$$ X O O X O O X X
$$ O . a O b . O X
$$ . . . . . . O X[/go]

And you can say that this wall is also bad for white.

$$ Please tell me I'm black to play?
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . X X X X X X X .
$$ X O O O X O O O X
$$ O . . a O b . . O
$$ . . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ Please tell me I'm black to play?
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . .
$$ . X X X X X X X .
$$ X O O O X O O O X
$$ O . . a O b . . O
$$ . . . . . . . . .[/go]

But these are nice book examples. Such positions rarely come up in games (and, if they do, it doesn't look as clean).

$$ What about this one?
$$ . . . . O . . . . . .
$$ . . . . O X X X X . .
$$ . . . X X O O O X . .
$$ . X . X O , . O X X .
$$ O X X X O . . . O O X
$$ X X O O . . . . O O X
$$ O O . . . . O . . X .
$$ . . . . . . O X X X .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ What about this one?
$$ . . . . O . . . . . .
$$ . . . . O X X X X . .
$$ . . . X X O O O X . .
$$ . X . X O , . O X X .
$$ O X X X O . . . O O X
$$ X X O O . . . . O O X
$$ O O . . . . O . . X .
$$ . . . . . . O X X X .[/go]

Obviously white has options, but something is captured.

$$ This could happen.
$$ . . . . O . . . . . .
$$ . . . . O X X X X . .
$$ . . . X X O O O X . .
$$ . X . X O 4 . O X X .
$$ O X X X O . 7 5 O O X
$$ X X O O 1 3 . 6 O O X
$$ O O . . 2 . O . . X .
$$ . . . . . . O X X X .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ This could happen.
$$ . . . . O . . . . . .
$$ . . . . O X X X X . .
$$ . . . X X O O O X . .
$$ . X . X O 4 . O X X .
$$ O X X X O . 7 5 O O X
$$ X X O O 1 3 . 6 O O X
$$ O O . . 2 . O . . X .
$$ . . . . . . O X X X .[/go]

What about this from one of my games? The white stone has enough aji to take the two black stones at any time.

$$ Goodbye black stones...
$$ . . . . . O O X X |
$$ . . . . . O X W . |
$$ . . . O O O X . . |
$$ . O O X X X . . . |
$$ . O B . . . . . . |
$$ . O . B . . . . . |
$$ ------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$ Goodbye black stones...
$$ . . . . . O O X X |
$$ . . . . . O X W . |
$$ . . . O O O X . . |
$$ . O O X X X . . . |
$$ . O B . . . . . . |
$$ . O . B . . . . . |
$$ ------------------[/go]

If black tries to save them

$$W The wall is dead...
$$ . . . . . O O X X |
$$ . . . . . O X O . |
$$ . . . O O O X 4 . |
$$ . O O X X X 3 . . |
$$ . O X 2 . . 5 . . |
$$ . O 1 X . . . . . |
$$ ------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$W The wall is dead...
$$ . . . . . O O X X |
$$ . . . . . O X O . |
$$ . . . O O O X 4 . |
$$ . O O X X X 3 . . |
$$ . O X 2 . . 5 . . |
$$ . O 1 X . . . . . |
$$ ------------------[/go]

Black has to give up the two stones on the bottom to save the rest of his stones one white ataris.

I was black and I read this out almost instantly because my game experience has made me acutely aware of these types of vulnerabilities. Instead, thankfully, I played at .

How would the concepts involved in this situation be explained in a book? I simply know from games that anything that can be put in atari in a wall is a glaring weakness that needs to be read out. I suppose a book could say that and then give a bunch of examples. James Davies' Elementary Go Series does this type of teaching quite well. But will it get hammered into my head as well as losing dozens and dozens of games to being cut apart?

Don't get me wrong, I love go books (and books in general) but I know that, for me, learning this from experience was more valuable than being told about it from a book. Either way I would need to apply it to my games, but this way the learning occurred naturally and made me fluent in wall weaknesses. It isn't a matter of speed in learning it's a matter of how well the learning has taken root. I can read these types of situations very quickly, but it takes me a while to figure out if I can use one of the Elementary Go tesujis still. I know that, in time, they'll come quickly to me, but it is going to take a few dozen games where those tesujis are relevant for it to sink in as deeply as my game experience learning. (I now am pretty good at the "Nose Tesuji" but that is only because it comes up so often.)

I think game experience and book learning need to go hand-in-hand. You will never have a true grasp of go without being taught somehow (either in books or videos or someone explaining it to you) but you also will never be able to use the knowledge without applying it in your own games. Both are needed to really learn.

She figured out on her own that was a bad enough shape that it needed a name. It certainly helps to have people point out strong shapes, especially unusual ones you might not have come up with, but a sense of shape does arise naturally just playing lots of games.

Shape is not impossible to learn, but it is very difficult to make if you don't know what you are looking for. Obviously someone figured out about the table shape without being taught, but it was probably someone who had been playing for decades. It is much nicer to just be given some good shapes in a book and told when they are applicable so I have something of a tool kit in my games.

C (I added it) is sometimes the correct move (I lost a game last week playing b). But the black stones are captured almost immediately after a: this strikes me as an example where being able to visualize continuations is far more important then either memorizing the position or having a conceptual theory for why b must be right.

Yes, but extra stones are needed for c to be correct. It is true, though, that the basic "taco with a thick side" shape often leads me to automatically want to play b, but, if my opponent knows the "bamboo joint tesuji" and the situation calls for it then I can end up in trouble by playing b. This exact situation is actually discussed in Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go's first chapter.

[Boidhre]

There is an analogy between being a native speaker and someone who learns a foreign language as an adult. The native speaker will in nearly all cases be more fluent than the adult learner. That does not mean, however, that the adult learner should try to pick up the language in the same manner as a child does.

Or another way to look at it. The adult learner may have learned why the e in words like "hope" is silent and how it affects how the "o" is pronounced. For the native speaker it doesn't matter, you just pronounce "rope" like "rope" whenever you see an e in a word like "hope." Learning the why isn't really that useful or necessary for them and the way they do it is faster than looking at the word and figuring out the e is silent and that the preceding broad vowel is long, they just know when they see that pattern of letters in a native word. Of course it causes all kinds of problems when you try to learn another language with similar looking orthography.

[Bill Spight]

There is an analogy between being a native speaker and someone who learns a foreign language as an adult. The native speaker will in nearly all cases be more fluent than the adult learner. That does not mean, however, that the adult learner should try to pick up the language in the same manner as a child does.

Or another way to look at it. The adult learner may have learned why the e in words like "hope" is silent and how it affects how the "o" is pronounced. For the native speaker it doesn't matter, you just pronounce "rope" like "rope" whenever you see an e in a word like "hope." Learning the why isn't really that useful or necessary for them and the way they do it is faster than looking at the word and figuring out the e is silent and that the preceding broad vowel is long, they just know when they see that pattern of letters in a native word. Of course it causes all kinds of problems when you try to learn another language with similar looking orthography.

When I was living in Hawai'i a friend who was a relative newcomer asked me how to pronounce the name of a famous surfing spot, which he spelled for me. I -- of course!-- pronounced it PEE-PEH LEE-NEH. It is spelled Pipeline.

[Bill Spight]

Some thoughts.

(;AP[GOWrite:2.2.21]ST[2]SZ[19]GM[1]FF[4]CA[ISO8859-1]PB[ ]AB[el][fl][fk][fj][gk][hk][hj][hi][ii][jh][kh][lh][mh][mi][mj][nj][ok][ol][nm][nn][mn][ln]FG[259:]PM[2]AW[ji][ih][ig][ij][ik][hl][gl][fm][em][ek][ki][li][lj][mk][nk][nl][ml][km][kn]GN[ ]PW[ ]
(
;B[il]
;W[kk]
;B[im]
;W[hn]
)
(
;B[jj]
;W[kk]
)

(
;B[lk]
(
;W[kk]
;B[ll]
;W[kl]
;B[lm]
)
(
;W[ll]
;B[kk]
(
;W[jl]
;B[jj]
)
(
;W[jj]
;B[il]
(
;W[jl]
;B[im]
(
;W[kl]
;B[gm]
)
(
;W[hn]
;B[jk]
)

)
(
;W[im]
;B[jl]
)

)

)

)

)

(;AP[GOWrite:2.2.21]ST[2]SZ[19]GM[1]FF[4]CA[ISO8859-1]PB[ ]AB[pq][oq][nq][mr][ns][qp][qo][rn][sn][qm][rl]FG[259:]PM[2]AW[qn][pn][po][pp][op][np][mq][lq][lr][ls][ro]GN[ ]PW[ ]
;W[qq]
(
;B[rp]
;W[rq]
;B[so]
;W[pr]
(
;B[or]
;W[ps]
(
;B[rr]
;W[os]
)
(
;B[qr]
;W[rr]
;B[sq]
;W[sr]
)

)
(
;B[qr]
;W[rr]
(
;B[ps]
;W[or]
)
(
;B[or]
;W[ps]
)

)

)
(
;B[qr]
;W[rq]
(
;B[rr]
;W[sr]
(
;B[ps]
;W[or]
(
;B[rs]
;W[nr]
)
(
;B[nr]
;W[rs]
)

)
(
;B[rs]
;W[ps]
)

(
;B[or]
;W[ps]
)

)
(
;B[or]
;W[ps]
;B[rr]
;W[sr]
)

)

)

[rhubarb]

When I was living in Hawai'i a friend who was a relative newcomer asked me how to pronounce the name of a famous surfing spot, which he spelled for me. I -- of course!-- pronounced it PEE-PEH LEE-NEH. It is spelled Pipeline.

There's a sushi place here called "One More". I know exactly enough about Japanese to have no idea whether the name is English. I usually just describe its location if I have to refer to it out loud. Unfortunately, this is Vancouver, so it's one of four sushi places in the same building complex.