ideas on teaching

[Bantari]

My shared experience question is: have you, in Go or elsewhere in life,
ever had a good teacher who successfully taught you with this method ?
Corollary: have you met other people (students), children or adults, who have successfully learned from this method ?
I don't mean just exclusively with this method. I include all kinds: from exclusively, to often,
to sometimes, to occasionally using this method.

Which method you mean?
We seem to have two methods here:
1. teacher shows one-move and walk away, students accepts adjectives like 'good' or 'better' on faith
2. teacher shows a move but then tries to give at least some reasoning for his evaluation

I have seen both methods being successfully applied, both to kids and adults. What's more, I have myself applied them both. But the methods #1 showed to often produce more bad habits as well as more 'stoppages' or 'barriers' in further development. Therefore, once I realized that, I much prefer method #2. I also think that method #2 is faster in the short term, and certainly causes less trouble in the long term. This goes for teaching by amateurs and professionals, both.

I am not sure if this answers your question, but this is what my experience shows.

My experience: Yes, I have met multiple teachers who successfully teach with this method.
I have met many people (both children and adults) who have successfully learned from this method.
Including me, in more than one field.

I have no problem with the fact that the method you describe works.
But is that an argument? I mean - I can teach a dog to sit by beating him each time he does not. He will learn successfully. Does that mean this is the best, or even good, method?

So sure - the method you propose works, I never said it does not.
All I am saying is that, from my experience, the method I advocate for works better.

So let me ask you a counter-question:
Have you seen the method I speak of applied and *not* producing results?
Have you tried to ask for (or give) some more reasoning behind moves, and did that knowledge ever hurt you in your learning? Or hurt anybody else?

In my experience:

Good moves usually imply good reasons, so in this case both methods might be equivalent, although I would still prefer to know some reasoning about *why* i play the way I do. Bad moves imply bad reasoning, and in this case - taking them on faith is bad, while learning the reasoning gives you a much better chance to avoid forming bad habits. So teaching including reasoning is superior in such cases.

Since when we, weak amateurs, try to teach, many of our moves are not good, even when we try to sell them as holy gospel. And when we go into reasoning two things happen: 1) the student has a much better chance to not form a bad habit, and 2) we ourselves have a chance to realize our error and thus become better players and better teachers. So its a win-win scenario for me.

This is why I am strongly against the 'show move and walk away, take it on faith' method.

On a personal level:

I bet that if the bad teacher you used to have tried to actually explain what he was teaching you, you would have had a much better chance of seeing that it was garbage and not form that many bad habits. But when, instead, you just follow moves you teacher tells you are 'good' without giving any reason - you have very little chance, and you get in trouble. This is what I think. I have met your old teacher, and even played him, and he indeed had some whacked-out ideas about Go. I am sure that if he tried to explain himself more, you would have seen past his lack of logic and a lot of the subsequent trouble would have been avoided.

[Bantari]

Now its time to get to the meat of the issue, and I hope I can make myself clear in what I say.

Disclaimer:
In any of what I say - no offense intended, no 'putting words in mouth' intended, and if I misunderstand you, please explain rather than getting all huffy and puffy. I am not a kid, I have an open mind, and I look forward to good, mature arguments for a change.

Based on our previous forum and PM discussions, I assume (but I could be wrong)
that like most people here, we are passionate about Go and want to do nice things for Go.
Thus, sometimes heated discussions happen. That's OK.

However, I also have a feeling while you and I probably share some common experience (at least in Go),
we also had some other vastly different experiences (in Go and elsewhere).
As you said, we are all looking at the world "through the prism of many years of experience".
This we agree.

Sometimes, for effective communication and mutual understanding, certain shared experiences are crucial, or at least very helpful.
Which brings us to the next part, about certain experiences, whether they are shared, or not ?...

Someone is debating between (a) or (b) for and asks your opinion, between (a) and (b) -- what is your reply?

$$
$$ ----------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . b , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 4 . . . |
$$ | . . . 3 . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ -----------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$
$$ ----------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . 1 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . b , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 4 . . . |
$$ | . . . 3 . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ -----------------------------------------[/go]

Is your reply...
- (a);
- (b);
- "I have no idea";
- "I would play (a), but I have no idea why";
- "I would play (b), but I have no idea why";
- "I would play (a), and I can give you some quasi-logic explanation, but you're not going to be satisfied";
- "I would play (b), and I can give you some quasi-logic explanation, but you're not going to be satisfied";
- None of the above (something else -- please explain.) ?

Depends on the person. For some (beginners or otherwise), maybe I would say either one is OK. For some, I would say (a) -- and we're back to the same earlier discussion as in this thread -- What is the "direction of play?"I know from past forum and PM discussions that you are not a fan of "this is a better move," by example method,
(with little or no explanation.) If I could find the exact quote I would, so correct me if I've misrepresented you here.

My reply:
Personally - if these were the only choices I was given, I would play (a) because of what I know about direction of play and because experience taught me that this formation works better than (b).

I am not completely sure on why, in terms of pure logic, some of my reasoning is based on intuition, experience, and feeling for shape. This is why it is interesting to me to see what others think the logical reasons for that should be. An answer of the type: draw a triangle and if it is too squished its no good - its not really saying much other than giving a rule-of-thumb for making (better) decisions without understanding anything, and I already know how to do that.

My thoughts about about teaching:

You misrepresented/misunderstand me here a little, I think. But that's ok, I probably did not make myself clear.

What I am not a fan of is "This is a better move, period!" method.
Which means - you show better move and give no explanation and no follow-ups, no sequences, just point out a move and walk away. I think that in 90% of the cases we can do *much* better than that, even if we are not completely clear about why this move is better, we certainly have *some* validation - in form of a few-move sequence, if nothing else, or a few extra words, like "this leaves bad aji" or whatever.

And here is the basis of my conviction, why I think going this one step further is so very important:

We are all here amateurs, most of us probably not really qualified to teach anybody above beginner level. So, it stands to reason that some, or even many/all, of our 'suggestions' are wrong. You told me about the time you had to unlearn bad habits you acquired due to bad teacher. And even pros can make mistakes. So - if you just tell a student "this is good" et cathedra - he can either accept it as gospel or look for a new teacher. This is how you got into the bad habits, I bet.

On the other hand, when you also give your reasoning, at least some of it, the student can start thinking for him/herself, and judge the *reasons* for the value of the move, not just blindly taking it on faith and parrot the move itself. Then, down the road, its not moves which will become habits but reasons, and those are usually much easier to adjust, and certainly much easier to filter out to begin with. Rejecting bad ideas, or not making suspicious ideas into habits - this is much easier than moves you don't understand but have been told by authority they are 'good' to become habits.

As a matter of fact - I would bet that 90%+ of all the bad habits were acquired because of taking things on blind faith rather than by accepting possibly faulty reasoning.

So, in principle, I am great proponent of learning by example - but this example simply *has* to be supported by some kind of reasoning, even if incomplete, and even if false. Especially if false - because this then gives the student a tool to discern bad ideas from good ones, and so he/she has a fighting chance to avoid at least some of the bad habits. When you only show a one-mover and all you say is 'that's better" - the student has very little to go on.

To support my position here- you just need to follow some of my discussion with RJ - where it is *me* who argues for the traditional, 'by example' methods of teaching/learning and against his new-age 'everything reasoned on conscious level' stuff.

[Bantari]

What I said was in my experience, and in many people I've met, in certain fields,
I have seen success in this method. This in no way means I advocate it.
I am merely sharing my experience, and I want to see if Bantari also has had
this experience, or not. Because a shared experience is important.

Yes, I have had this experience as well. The method you describe works.

My position (to make it absolutely clear):
Examples alone = works well, student learns.
Examples + some reasoning = works better, student learns faster, less chance of bad habits.

As for advocating:

I think you do, somewhat. Most times I see you give advice or comments on moves, this is pretty much what you do: "this move is better, period" or "learn this move" or something like that, hardly ever any kind of reasoning or explanation, just a move. It stresses (single and local) moves, not ideas, while I think ideas are at least as important, possibly more so. As a matter of fact - I think ideas are much more important than moves.

From the descriptions you give - this is also my understanding of the method you talk about - just give an example and that's it, then maybe give another example. Since you seem to object to my idea of asking for more reasoning behind the moves and examples, I would very much say that you 'advocate' for the no-reasoning method, at least - you hold it above the also-reasoning method I describe.

The examples of conversation you gave seem to point in that direction as well. Whats more, to me they also seem to indicate that not asking questions is more efficient or better, which I really disagree with. If I understood you incorrectly, please correct me and explain what it is you meant.

[Bantari]

I said "I have seen success in this method"; I did not mean "I recommend people try this method."
I would've said the latter if that was my intention. I hope this is more clear now.

Hmm.... so all this talk about nothing? We are actually in agreement? What a day...

Anyways - we are still stuck at your 'just because' type of answer to my question 'why?' and on the many comments I have seen you give of the same type. If you do not advocate this method, and not recommend it, it certainly seems to me that you are practicing it. But while I do not think this is a good use of your knowledge and skill, if you are determined to do it, I won't stop you.

For the record:
I still found your answers highly unsatisfactory in this case, but I will get over it.
Peace out, dude.

[jts]

So Ed, is it your considered opinion that the best way to maximize the efficiency of any three stones on the go board is to maximize the area of the triangle they describe?

Because the diagrams you were showing seem like a reasonable answer to one very specific question - "I understand why I should make a boxy framework rather than a squashed framework, but how do I recognize whether my framework is boxy or squashed?"

If you found someone had this problem, then it seems reasonable to say, "Well, of two moves that seem equally good to you on other grounds, the one that makes a bigger triangle is boxy and the one that makes a smaller triangle is squashed." That's a good heuristic. You could recognize that it works as a heuristic for recognizing boxy frameworks without having, or wanting, any real understanding of of why it's a good heuristic. Or, if your student knew more geometry, you could say, "The move that makes a scalene triangle is squashed and the one that makes a more orthogonal triangle is boxy." That is also a good heuristic. Or, you could say "If you're making an extension from A towards B, you're making a boxier position if there is a jump from A which is more perpendicular to A>B". Now, it's not to hard to see that these three heuristics are all describing the same thing - triangles whose legs are further from perpendicular are also more scalene and have a smaller area. For some people one heuristic will be easier to remember and apply, for others another.

But whereas all three heuristics are fine answers to the somewhat unusual question about recognizing that a framework is a boxy one, only the third is close to an answer to more common questions like "Why should I make a boxy framework, anyway?" or "What do I need to know to use a boxy framework effectively?"

[schawipp]

Sometimes, it is enough for me, that someone points out an alternative superior move. If I see that move, I am also able to see, why it's better (maybe it takes some time...). The problem is rather how to find this move on the board than to explain it lateron (and this is where intuition might play an important role). Thus, a favorable variation of the teacher's vs student's discussion might go as follows:

T: I would prefer this move here
S: ok, but wait...
S: ...
S: It is because it allows to XXX while putting pressure on YYY?
T: You are almost right

[EdLee]

Bantari (topazg, too), First off, peace out is good.
I'm all for having a mature discussion. Many good and interesting points to go over.
Have to start somewhere, so how about these two parts:

What seems to follow from all this is that, if you are in fact one of the exceptional adults who really do just want to become super-strong...,
forget the intellectual understanding side of things, become a drudge, and let your unconscious brain make sense of it all.

(Emphasis added) I like the highlighted part a lot. To be clear: I'm not saying we should all suddenly drop all reasoning
and intellectual thinking. I'm saying intellectual reasoning and thinking has its time and place,
but so does sub-conscious non-intellectual processing. (Naturally, more on this later.)

To support my position here- you just need to follow some of my discussion with RJ - where it is *me* who argues for the traditional,
'by example' methods of teaching/learning and against his new-age 'everything reasoned on conscious level' stuff.

Just so you know how I feel -- during this whole time in Daal's thread and the discussions here so far,
I feel I am up against your (and topaz's) "everything reasoned on conscious level". (Of course, more on this, too.)

[EdLee]

I also like to get the unpleasantness out of the way first. I gave two scenarios ("by examples").
In each case, I did not say whether it's good or bad, whether P is good or bad,
whether X or Y is good or bad, or whether the method is good or bad.
They are snapshots of what I've seen, from my experience. Other people may or may not have such experiences.

Here are two styles to continue the discussion:

To me it looks like you are contrasting an obstinate adult interesting primarily in arguing with a reasonable child interested primarily in improving.
While you don't imply that the child is not interested in understanding, you do imply that for someone interested in improving, it is better to listen than to argue.

1) You are recognising from experience that teaching types case 1 and 2 both exist, and have demonstrated value.
2) You have provided context and explanation for what case 2 tuition is, on the offchance it will spark recognition from others (particularly bantari)
3) The goal is to demonstrate there is more than one effective teaching style, without any form of merit comparison between them.
Is that close?

The following is another style:

In other words: we have no clue why we do what we do, we just follow what the pros do or say - like a mantra, and who cares about understanding?
And out teaching method is: do what I say, it is correct, and if you want to try something else - its your problem?
And good student is one who does not ask questions we cannot answer, he just follows?

I grant you that children have more intuitive approach to things than adults, but you are not talking to children here,
and is certainly not a child which asked this question.

Ok... so what is it you are saying? Since I cannot repeat what I understand you say in my own words,
and the understanding I have of what you say is unclear or contrary to my beliefs, how are we to have a conversation?

you are neither my teacher nor am I a kid, so lets drop that and lets have an adult conversation, please.

And I assure you - I am *not* a child. And in the context of this particular question - the issue of how to teach kids is waaaay of topic.

...please explain rather than getting all huffy and puffy.
I am not a kid, I have an open mind, and I look forward to good, mature arguments for a change.

I have no problem with the fact that the method you describe works.
But is that an argument? I mean - I can teach a dog to sit by beating him each time he does not.
He will learn successfully. Does that mean this is the best, or even good, method?

I find your style (above, at least in this case) annoying and immature.
In our previous PM chats, you were not like this. Here -- the two scenarios; a method --
you find them unclear or contrary to your understanding.
Instead of asking me about what I meant with the examples or my thoughts on them,
or rephrasing them neutrally like styles 1 and 2 above,
you immediately cast them in very negative light --
"who cares about understanding?", "it's your problem", "teach a dog to sit by beating him," etc.

I find styles 1 and 2 much more mature, and easier for me to continue a discussion with.

And maybe something struck a nerve, because you found it necessary to proclaim
four times that you are not a child. I found it very odd. I never suggested you were. Nobody else did, either.
In fact, from our previous PM and other forum posts I always guessed you are older than me.
So the entire notion never even crossed my mind, until you emphasized it multiple times.

Also, comparing how adults and children learn is not off topic;
it's very much on topic -- more on this later.

[Bantari]

Bantari (topazg, too), First off, peace out is good.
I'm all for having a mature discussion. Many good and interesting points to go over.
Have to start somewhere, so how about these two parts:

What seems to follow from all this is that, if you are in fact one of the exceptional adults who really do just want to become super-strong...,
forget the intellectual understanding side of things, become a drudge, and let your unconscious brain make sense of it all.

(Emphasis added) I like the highlighted part a lot. To be clear: I'm not saying we should all suddenly drop all reasoning
and intellectual thinking. I'm saying intellectual reasoning and thinking has its time and place,
but so does sub-conscious non-intellectual processing. (Naturally, more on this later.)

Consider a following example:

A position calls for a specific move which removes bad aji. The student fails to make this move, loses the game, and asks you for review. You can do the following:

1. point out the move and say 'this is better' and move on to the next move, or
2. point out the move and explain that it is better because it removes the bad aji, then you can show the aji and why is it bad

In both cases, something will be learned, and when this position next appears on the board, the student will not make the same mistake again. So far so good, right?

But how about the almost-the-same position, when a better move would be to leave the bad aji as it is and grab something else instead? In case #1 the student will still most likely play the aji-removing move (which is not so good in *this* position.) In case #2 the student will have some understanding, some tools to make the decision. He might still play the aji-removing move, but then he might not - he might be able to weight out the reasons and realize that in *this* position the aji is less important than something else. But to do that, he first has to *know* the reasons for the move in question.

Now, it is true that eventually both students will converge, and along both paths the knowledge will eventually be acquired and even used sub-consciously. However, it is my strong conviction that path #2 is much faster and more satisfactory for the student and leads to much less misunderstanding.

For the student to gather the same knowledge along path #1 - he and his teacher will have to look at many more examples, hopefully some that discern the difference between leaving the aji and removing it... and only after that - and a long dragged-out sequence of comments like 'good' and 'better' or 'bad' - does the student has a chance of making progress.

This does not really have anything to do with drudging or not drudging, as John describes it. It has to do with the simple fact that: if you can give your student a leg up, why don't you? Unless you can demonstrate that there is harm to the student involved in explaining at least a little, I believe this to be a much better approach.

To support my position here- you just need to follow some of my discussion with RJ - where it is *me* who argues for the traditional,
'by example' methods of teaching/learning and against his new-age 'everything reasoned on conscious level' stuff.

Just so you know how I feel -- during this whole time in Daal's thread and the discussions here so far,
I feel I am up against your (and topaz's) "everything reasoned on conscious level". (Of course, more on this, too.)

Oh, no, absolutely not!!!
I believe very strongly in the subconscious learning, and this is the base of my argument with RJ! I also believe very strongly in learning/teaching by example and by problem. Its just that I also believe that some, even minimal explanation can not only speed things up greatly, but also help avoiding issues down the line. This is why I dislike when I see moves commented as 'A is better'... such comments have their value, but its like 10% of the value the teacher could give if he spent a few extra seconds.

To me, the subconscious understanding and application, in sporting terms, is the Holy Grail. But - and here is where our issue lies, I guess - I see absolutely no harm in supplementing any subconscious learning/teaching with conscious reasoning as well. What's more - I see a lot of value and a lot of advantages in such supplement.

Thus I argue against the dry 'this move is better, learn it, period!' method.

So my fundamental approach is as follows:

• If I know some reasoning, why not share it, at least as much as is appropriate to the student's level, but I make the best effort I can to explain
• If I don't know any good reasons, I share it too, so the student can be more suspicious of my advice and think more for him/herself.
• And if my reason is only 'experience shows' or 'pros do it' - then I share it too... it all can help the student in not forming bad habits and it fosters independent thinking instead of blind parroting until the lights go on.

[Bantari]

Bantari (topazg, too), First off, peace out is good.
I'm all for having a mature discussion. Many good and interesting points to go over.
Have to start somewhere, so how about these two parts:

What seems to follow from all this is that, if you are in fact one of the exceptional adults who really do just want to become super-strong...,
forget the intellectual understanding side of things, become a drudge, and let your unconscious brain make sense of it all.

I think it might be that John takes his advice from a different environment where the expectations placed on the student are much much higher. For example - the student might be expected to work most of his waking time on Go and nothing else. The student might also be expected to have a very strong competition handy, as well as very strong players to discuss ideas with and test moves against. And so on... different world. Not to mention that the student might already be a dan-level player or better...

In our every-day wester Go life, faced with a beginner walking into a club or a DDK asking for comment on L19 - such expectations are unrealistic, mostly. We simply do not have the luxury to go the 'drudge' way, and in most cases we do not have the luxury to expect to become super-strong. We work with different material in a different conditions, so drudging it out might not be the most efficient approach.

[EdLee]

.
.
.
.
Time Lapse | Earth

[daal]

As for advocating:

I think you do, somewhat. Most times I see you give advice or comments on moves, this is pretty much what you do: "this move is better, period" or "learn this move" or something like that, hardly ever any kind of reasoning or explanation, just a move. It stresses (single and local) moves, not ideas, while I think ideas are at least as important, possibly more so. As a matter of fact - I think ideas are much more important than moves.

I also notice that when you (Ed) give reviews, what you often do is point out a (bad) move and write: "see var," and the variation shows a different move without saying why it's better. This leads me to think that either you don't feel like writing a long explanation, or you think that it's better for the reviewee to consider the reasons himself. My impression is that you do in fact consider this to be a preferable method. Do you not?

I'm not sure if I consider this better or worse than explaining your reasoning, but I can say from the learner's standpoint that I appreciate anything that helps me remember the better move. What I consciously remember best are moves that illustrate an idea. On the occasion that you have reviewed my games, I have certainly spent time trying to figure out the reasoning for the variations you've presented, but in some cases I've just found myself scratching my head.

I must also say, that while I find a good explanation of a principle illustrated by a good example particularly enjoyable, my "professional advice" thread is all about an extremely tight-lipped teacher presenting better moves. In this case though, the sheer quantity and quality of the variations presented outweighs the lack of explicit instruction, and although I don't consider this a drudge method, I am banking on my unconscious to do some work.

[EdLee]

Bantari, and Daal. I just re-read Daal's original thread What is "the direction of play?"
and this spin-off thread. There is a huge amount of misunderstanding. There's also some
shared experience, some common ground (which is nice).

I'll try my best to eventually answer all your questions, but I cannot guarantee
that I can do it in a very short time -- with a few sentences, with a few posts,
very concisely, etc. -- I may need help with some Q&A (like my "shared experiences"
questions for Bantari earlier) -- this discussion may take some time. I'm OK with it --
taking the time, going back and forth -- if that's OK with you.

First, when I review games on KGS and in real life, when I suggest
a different move/variation than in the real game,
I think in most cases, I give an explanation (which could be
very brief, or longer, depending on the situation).
This may come as a surprise to you.

(In some cases, I will try to explain why I think another
move is better. And they would have no idea what I'm talking about.
In those cases, after some trials, I may give up and say
"Hmm, this is difficult to explain more. Maybe you'll understand this
later, with more experience.") -- (More on this, later.)

Also, when I think of good pro (Go) teachers that I've seen,
when they suggest a move, they also almost always have
an explanation. I also don't know if this experience of mine
comes as a surprise to you.

There are some differences among in-person reviews,
KGS reviews, and forum reviews -- one difference is real-time vs. forum-time.

For in-person reviews, 99.99% of the time I'm referring
to people in our local club. (I very seldom travel to other
tourneys, like the US Open, where there may be in-person
reviews with my opponents.) For our local club members,
we all know each other, our levels, our personalities,
years of history. So I have a good idea what is appropriate
in a review.

For KGS reviews, there are 2 main groups: KGS friends who
I review regularly with, and "strangers". For the regulars,
it is similar to our local club people: we already know
each others' levels, so I know what is appropriate in
a review. For a KGS "stranger", in a review, I have the
luxury of real-time interaction: I can ask questions.
They can ask questions. If I give an explanation, and it is
not clear, I can find out quickly.

On a forum, things can be different. In the past, I've had
some experience where I put in some time in a review,
with some explanation, variations, etc. And afterwards,
there was absolutely no response. In some cases, the user
never even came back to visit the forum. In some other cases,
the user was still active, but there was no feedback on the review.
In some cases, there was a nice "Thanks for the review,"
but no more feedback.

Yes, Bantari noted, most of us here are amateurs. This is all just
"for fun." We volunteer our time and efforts here because we are
passionate about Go. (Otherwise if we don't give a damn, then we
wouldn't even be having these long heated discussions to begin with.)
So requesting a review (on KGS or here or elsewhere) is "free" --
this cuts both ways. If the poster is serious about their game
and about improving, and the reviewer gives some nice comments,
and the poster benefits as a result, this is a very good scenario.
But it's not always so good. Some posters are serious, and
the reviewer is serious, but alas, as Bantari noted, most of our
"low-level" amateur moves and understanding have lots of problems,
and even when we try our best, sometimes (often?) we still give out
bad advice (more on this later.) Sometimes, the reviewer is serious
but the poster is not. "You get what you pay for," -- this is true sometimes.

[snorri]

Having an explanation, in particular an intellectual one, is neither always possible, nor always better.

Quite true. We usually view this is a problem with computer go, in the sense that the explanation of a computer's move is not particularly useful to a student: "well I read a bazillion senseless variations and this move leads to more wins..." Since the student can't do the same thing, the advise can be no better than received wisdom that comes without digestible explanation.

Human experience is slightly better than that, but sometimes not much. Some josekis are just josekis because they have survived lots of trial and error. Attempts to explain them from first principles can sometimes be misguided. Many moves be excused by attaching a proverb or principle to them, but it is not always possible to derive the move that way. It is these ex post facto excuses that pose as derivations that are confusing.

[Bantari]

Having an explanation, in particular an intellectual one, is neither always possible, nor always better.

Quite true. We usually view this is a problem with computer go, in the sense that the explanation of a computer's move is not particularly useful to a student: "well I read a bazillion senseless variations and this move leads to more wins..." Since the student can't do the same thing, the advise can be no better than received wisdom that comes without digestible explanation.

Human experience is slightly better than that, but sometimes not much. Some josekis are just josekis because they have survived lots of trial and error. Attempts to explain them from first principles can sometimes be misguided. Many moves be excused by attaching a proverb or principle to them, but it is not always possible to derive the move that way. It is these ex-post-facto excuses that pose as derivations that are confusing.

I agree with the above, sort of.

But, in my opinion, it might also be beneficial, in such cases, to give that as 'explanation'. Say: this move is played because it survived tons of trial and error, and I don't know any other reason, but its good enough for me. This 'explanation' by itself conveys a lot of useful information, and certainly gets the mental juices flowing. It certainly has a different flavor than just saying 'this is best move, learn it' with the implied 'i might know the reasons, but not gonna tell you, nyah nyah nyah.' Part of it is about respect, but part is about getting maximum effect from the small amount of time we spend teaching or learning.

If all you have about a move is that 'I saw a pro play like that once, but I don't understand why' - then say so. Presenting instead that 'this is the best move, period!' and walking away is not good teaching, I think, and nothing more than ego boosting at the expense of the student.

But, of course, my main concern here is moves which *can* be explained, for better or worse, with human-friendly reasoning. My position is that I consider not giving such explanation, if you have it, a sub-par teaching.