strength of teacher vs student ?

[otenki]

Maybe this question has been asked before but I could not find it.

What do you guys think the rank difference should be of teacher vs student ?

Do you think only pro's can effectively teach ?

Also I'm talking about really "technic teaching" not just telling your student to focus more or so

Cheers,
Otenki

[judicata]

It depends. (Satisfying answer, right?)

Teachers don't need to be "pros" or even "pro-strength" unless they're teaching, say, 7 dan players. To teach absolute beginners, you can be 15 kyu.

As for me, I'm not comfortable reviewing games for someone (as opposed to "with" someone) unless they are at least 4 stones weaker than me. On the other hand, I have friends 1-3 stones stronger than I am that continue to teach me things. And I can learn from people even slightly weaker than I am while reviewing games.

[Polama]

I've learned quite a bit from thunkd, and I usually give him 3 stones. I can't speak for dan players, but through the kyus it seems like we each have different weaknesses, and a weaker player can certainly know joseki you don't, or have a particular aspect of their game that's stronger than yours. Sometimes you just need an external set of eyes to see your blindspots for you.

Review and discuss games with everybody, and you'll be surprised how much you can learn.

(for a traditional teacher-student relationship, 5 stones or so seems like a good indication the other player knows more about every aspect of the game than you)

[walpurgis]

There's a difference in who you can learn from and who makes a good teacher. In a go teacher who I would pay to give me lessons regularly, I wouldn't go any lower than a high-dan amateur (think of KGS 7D+). Then there's also the question of pedagogical skills and pure teaching ability, which is not (directly) related to one's strength in go.

So again, it depends on what the OP is looking for. An actual teacher or just someone to improve your game with.

[SmoothOper]

Its kind of like college. A wet behind the ear TA can teach the weed out courses, and for the most part they don't do anything except grade the problems and make sure you spelled everything correctly. If you want to learn anything worth while you need the more experienced professors with a record of peer reviewed publication in small courses. In this case professional accreditation serves in the place of peer reviewed publications, and signifies that teacher's ideas are broad enough to be teachable.

[often]

i think only pros can effectively teach

anybody else might give you a general idea, but it might not be completely useful or correct

especially for technical teaching. some higher dans still have no clue what "good shape" is

[Dokuganryu]

It is more less "common knowledge" that many older pros would have no chance to pass the pro exam nowadays. Yet they are pros, and people who have the skill to pass these exams don't because there is also the factor that no matter how strong they are, there are only few slots available. This alone is enough to show, that "only pro can teach" is lacking in thought process.

[guest14679]

Gorim are you serious in what you just said? I have never heard anyone ever make such a ridiculous claim that older pros would not pass the pro exam now-a-days (And I have been in the go community for almost ten years now).



Back on subject my view is about the same as judicata

[oren]

Do you think only pro's can effectively teach ?

No, but they are often very very good.

Many pros in Japan learned from very strong amateurs, Kikuchi Yasuro and Hon Seisen(who was later promoted to a pro).

There are many pros who now focus on teaching and would be the best you can get I think.

[moyoaji]

It is more less "common knowledge" that many older pros would have no chance to pass the pro exam nowadays.

What "many older pros" are you referring to?

I have a feeling that Masaki Takemiya, Yoshio Ishida, Akira Ishida, O Meien, and pretty much any 50-70 year old 9 dans would absolutely destroy any up and coming pros during the exams. I cannot believe that Cho Chikun would be unnable to pass the pro exam today.

Now, what about players like Go Seigen who have retired and are much older? Maybe. I'm not saying he would lose for sure, though. Even at 99 I have a feeling he's not totally incapable of playing a strong game, but is that really fair to insult someone past their prime by saying they couldn't beat younger players?

Are you referring to really old players like Nakamura Doseki, Honinbo Jowa, Ota Yuzo, and Shusaku? They technically weren't pros in the modern sense, but that issue has been debated. I again have a hard time believing that such players would lose to students and high level amateurs today. Their opening might be outdated, but all they have to do is start a fight and their opponent would crumble from an inability to read as deeply.

So are you referring to older pros that have remained at low dan levels for a while? (James Kerwin for example) Then you might have a case. But other than those players I doubt high ranking pros would fail today's exam.

As for the topic at hand - I feel like anyone can learn from anyone that is stronger in an area they are weaker in, but if you want a good overall teacher I feel like they should be at least a few ranks above you. If you are a high dan amateur, then that would mean having a pro teacher, but if you are an SDK player a dan amateur should still be able to teach you a lot.

[Dokuganryu]

Gosh, it is obvious that I am not talking about players that were the top of the go world. There are many players that stayed "in the low dans" forever after being pro. Even on this forum there were many discussions concerning the "problem", tons of insei/Korea/China equivalent can't pass the exam, because there are not enough spots, but they are stronger than many unknown pros that passed the exam a decade or few decades before. Just ask a pro when You will be able and You will get that answer, it is a no-brainer.

EDIT: even today the same FACT was mentioned by a kgs player gobugobu, who knows many pros, and just to add to his awesomeness (especially in the eyes of pro-nerds) was taught by Sakata Eio (on daily basis).

[guest14679]

I acutally have talked to many professional and high amatuer go player over my many years. And none of them would make such a claim. Perhaps they would say that "some older pros may have difficulty passing". Saying they stand no chance is an outlandish exaggeration.

Also please do not deem something as a "fact" when you have nothing to prove it is indeed a fact, which means its absolute.
On a personal note: I have also taken a few lessons in the past from pros and will again begin taking lessons this coming Fall aside from talking to a few in person at tournaments or on kgs. And I have never heard a single one make such a claim.

I apologize for derailing this topic a little but this really set me off, I shall stop replying after this, if you wish to discuss with me further leave me a message on KGS

[Boidhre]

I was reminded of something attributed to Seo Bong Su 9p in Benjamin Teuber's blog: (http://senseis.xmp.net/?InAKoreanBadukSchool)

Everyone agrees that this is not enough (current number of new pros made) - but currently the older professional players get a steady income from the Hankuk Kiwon, regardless of their strength (which can be very modest in comparison to younger professionals or even Yeonguseng players)

I've read somewhere else another older high dan pro (but not top flight) saying that he had a lot of trouble winning even games against the top class of Yeonguseng nowadays.



I don't know about passing exams, but I have seen in many places that a new 1p now is stronger than the average new 1p 50 years ago (not considering the Lee Sedols of the world here etc).

[jts]

I think 5 to 9 stones stronger hits the sweet spot. (I'm talking about mid-amateur ranks, of course.) If the gap is larger than nine stones, it's often hard to get a handle on what the student is thinking. Lots of miscommunication. If the gap is 3 stones or so, then you sometimes get the teacher expecting too much of the student, trying to analyze every move with no perspective on the biggest errors, and being over-sensitive about making mistakes.

Not that people close in rank can't learn from each other - of course - but they would probably do better to think of each other as study partners, or sparring partners. Or perhaps, at most, as trainer and trainee.

[Magicwand]

Confucius said “If I am walking with two other men, each of them I will serve as my teacher. I will pick out the good points of the one and imitate them, and the bad points of the other and correct them in myself.”