strength of teacher vs student ?

[Unusedname]

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.

I like this.

Someone could teach you something just by giving you tsumego problems to complete and help you go over them.

A good teacher is someone who can identify your common errors and give you tsumego that help you become more familiar with that problem.

So I suppose a teacher could be at any rank as long as they have more understanding in one area than you do, even if overall they aren't better than you.

[often]

alright, i'm going to make one last post on this and let you guys squabble amongst yourselves

to date, i've yet to see a good "amateur" teacher
by amateur i mean someone who did not formally learn go and instead was self taught (so someone who was an insei or maybe studied under a pro for a good 5+ years wouldn't be an amateur really)

does this mean they can't teach beginners? no
it just means that if you want to learn and get better, i would not recommend you just ask help from someone who is ranked higher
a higher rank might mean they play better, but it doesn't mean they'll give good advice. if they're good at fighting and horrible at the opening, they're not going to give you good advice as to what you did wrong in the opening
you need a pro who knows the correct move and can properly explain why it's good (if need be)
too many times i've seen people ask a higher dan what they think about a move and the higher dan chokes as to finding a good refutation

the reason i mentioned good shape is because it is the most obvious deficient example within most players (and stronger players) where they pass down faulty knowledge to their "students"
this is also ignoring the fact that some of them have no clue how to properly play the opening or well, any part of the game

but hey, if you think a 6k getting help from a 3d will help him get strong enough to 3d, go ahead and think so
i've yet to see it happen and don't think it ever will

[wineandgolover]

only pros can effectively teach

If "effectively" means "with little effort, make the Western pupil stronger quickly", IMX and on average, those amateur players that are effective teachers, teach more effectively than professional players. The latter are catching up though, because part of them has been realising the didactic needs of Western pupils.

This is a joke, right? You are claiming that Asian professional go teachers are just now catching up with their Western counterparts? I guess this explains why Asian players are just now catching up to the west in tournaments such as the WAGC.

Seriously Robert, I guess it's okay to promote yourself, but to do so by constantly knocking the opposition (professional teachers and other authors) is off-putting.

[RobertJasiek]

i've yet to see a good "amateur" teacher

Which amateur players have you or have you not seen teaching seriously thus far? Of whom have you not read books yet?

a higher rank might mean they play better, but it doesn't mean they'll give good advice. if they're good at fighting and horrible at the opening, they're not going to give you good advice as to what you did wrong in the opening
you need a pro who knows the correct move and can properly explain why it's good

This applies to both amateurs and professionals. Everybody has his knowledge gaps.

too many times i've seen people ask a higher dan what they think about a move and the higher dan chokes as to finding a good refutation

Professionals tend to be stronger than most amateurs at two aspects: 1) speed of tactical reading, 2) speed of almost-correct endgame reading / value of endgame move calculation. Therefore, usually your observation for high dan amateurs confronted with a tactically complex problem makes sense.

[RobertJasiek]

This is a joke, right?

No. It is my observation since ca. 1991 of hundreds of professionals teaching live or in books. (There are exceptions of good Asian pro teachers or books.)

You are claiming that Asian professional go teachers are just now catching up with their Western counterparts?

Exactly. (With the following exceptions: 1) complex tactical reading, 2) fast endgame move choice, 3) a professional's strong teaching points.)

In particular, during the recent European Go Congress a young Chinese(?) female professional gave good lectures by providing reasons and principles (even written) and proceeding methodically. This has been the first time I have seen such a level of quality from a professional player while teaching live.

Just a few years ago, teaching was often similar to Kobayashi Chizu 6p(?)'s "In a life and death problem, first reduce, then occupy the vital point" and otherwise teaching only by examples. (This is a fake principle, which can be wrong.) Weak teaching from a pretty strong player and particularly active sensei.

I guess this explains why Asian players are just now catching up to the west in tournaments such as the WAGC.

I have said NOTHING about playing strength. To clarify, the playing strength of Asian professionals tends to be (much) greater than that of Western amateurs. However, playing strength and teaching skill are two very different things.

Seriously Robert, I guess it's okay to promote yourself, but to do so by constantly knocking the opposition (professional teachers and other authors) is off-putting.

Instead of misinterpreting me, please notice that I have praised also other specific teachers, amateurs and authors, such as Elwyn Berlekamp 10 kyu, Andre Engels (then ca. 1 dan) or James Davies (ca. 4 dan?).

[oren]

Just a few years ago, teaching was often similar to Kobayashi Chizu 6p(?)'s "In a life and death problem, first reduce, then occupy the vital point" and otherwise teaching only by examples. (This is a fake principle, which can be wrong.) Weak teaching from a pretty strong player and particularly active sensei.

I'm guessing for the level of class, it wasn't a bad example. Many 4d who go to US Go Congress lectures can be bored by the lectures, but this kind of teaching is useful for the weaker players who do attend. One on one lessons to a 4d, she won't teach that to you.

[Kirby]

...

Just a few years ago, teaching was often similar to Kobayashi Chizu 6p(?)'s "In a life and death problem, first reduce, then occupy the vital point" and otherwise teaching only by examples. (This is a fake principle, which can be wrong.)
...

But it's OK if the principle is sometimes wrong, is it not? Go is a complex game, and to try to capture its entire essence in a set of universal principles seems more difficult than acquiring knowledge of the game through experience and examples.

When a pro says "first reduce, then occupy the vital point", it doesn't mean that the student should be a robot and always follow this advice. Students still need to think for themselves, and such sayings should be used as starting points - not laws that cannot be broken. Takemiya 9p has time and time again stressed the importance of playing your own moves and learning from failure. When you reduce the game of go to a set of principles that cannot be broken, it hinders students from progressing. The purpose of examples and principles is to point a general direction and to give students something to think about - not to say, "when intersection X and intersection Y are present, you must play intersection Z".

You seem to define the quality of a teacher by their adherence to truthful and universal principles. This is one way of teaching, but it's not the only path toward helping students. People are different, and some may very well learn better from examples and "semi-truths" than from a set of laws that should not be violated.

[RobertJasiek]

I'm guessing for the level of class

It was for an audience from ca. 15k - 6d with a majority of 5k - 5d.

But it's OK if the principle is sometimes wrong, is it not? [...]
When a pro says "first reduce, then occupy the vital point", it doesn't mean that the student should be a robot and always follow this advice.

A principle, unless designed to be 100% correct, may sometimes be wrong, say in the 5% range of being wrong. However, 1) the specific "principle" in question is wrong much more often in practice and 2) the teacher of a principle must explain the (low degree of) reliability of a principle.

Students still need to think for themselves, and such sayings should be used as starting points

The result of thinking for myself is: there are ca. 200 (if not more) instead of 2 (reduction, vital point) techniques for local life and death problems; the appropriate principle about reductions and vital points is "It is more often correct to use reductions before occupying vital points, but the converse order must be considered as an alternative. This has to be applied in the context of many possible other techniques.".

When you reduce the game of go to a set of principles that cannot be broken,

Uh, I expect this not earlier than 400 years later...

The purpose of examples and principles is to point a general direction

In case of examples: if only this were always so...

and to give students something to think about

Exactly. Therefore, proverbs must not be called principles and must not be misleading.

You seem to define the quality of a teacher by their adherence to truthful and universal principles.

No. (E.g., principles are only one aspect of teaching. An important aspect of teaching is identification of the pupil's systematic mistakes.)

some may very well learn better from examples and "semi-truths"

IMO, even they can learn better with the accompanying characterisation, that a statement is just more frequently correct than wrong, instead of giving the false impression of being a truth. Even more important, also they can learn more if they are told about more techniques than always only reductions versus vital points. (I have seen several such professionals teaching only the reductions before vital points idea and otherwise only examples. Needless to say, the literature and go theory about life and death need a revolution, so that teaching on the topic can become better than "Take that pile of problem books and solve them!".)

[Kirby]

Nothing more to say on this for me, really. My conclusion remains that people are different, and some people may very well learn best from a pro. Based on the discussion so far, I have no reason to believe that pros, in general, are bad teachers compared to more principled amateurs.