A 1 Dan's Half Understanding of Fundamentals

[RobertJasiek]

Look up what anecdote means in the evidence sense.

"not based on facts and proper study"

I see. If you wait one or a few years, I will base also this on facts and proper study of 1d games. Until then, how about publishing your related proper study? Have you found counter-evidence?

EDIT typo: insert "not"

[Boidhre]

Look up what anecdote means in the evidence sense.

"based on facts and proper study"

I see. If you wait one or a few years, I will base also this on facts and proper study of 1d games. Until then, how about publishing your related proper study? Have you found counter-evidence?

Why would I do that? I'm not making any claims of fact about the go games of 1d players now am I? I'm merely objecting to you phrasing your personal observations (which are interesting!) as statements of fact more suitable for the outcome of a careful review of many, many 1d games. All I'm asking is to preface something that is your personal observation with "In my experience," or similar to flag it as opinion rather than the result of careful meticulous scientific study precisely because you are involved in careful study of the game of go.

[Bantari]

I think RJ might be right here.
The trick to realizing it is that he talks about:

• '1d' as he defines it himself (wrt the other definitions he defined for himself)
• 'fundamentals' as he defines them himself (wrt the other definitions he defined for himself)
• 'blunders' as he defines them himself (wrt the other definitions he defined for himself)
• 'concepts' as he defines them himself (wrt the other definitions he defined for himself)
• and so on... (wrt the other definitions he defined for himself)

It is a closed system, in which each part fits perfectly like a pretty pre-arranged puzzle piece with all other parts.
And it is all painstakingly defined by none other than RJ himself with the purpose to fit together just like that.
This is why in his little world - it all makes sense, and it all fits. Always!
And this is why it is so hard and frustrating to have a discussion.

The fact that some/most of it is at odds with what the rest of the world is talking about does not change the fact that - within this hermetically closed system, all pieces fit together perfectly. And since RJ usually refuses to change his frame of reference, to address issues outside his closed system, and often even acknowledge that other systems might (or even have the right to) exist, it is very hard to convince him that he might be off, even so slightly.

If you talking 'common sense' or 'generally accepted meaning' or 'what everybody knows' or something like that - you often might as well be talking in a foreign language. It simply does not fit, so it is rejected.

He is a frustrating odd-ball, a sometimes-annoying trail-blazer, and possibly a visionary.

So Robert - no disrespect intended - but honestly, this is how I see it. It took me years to figure it out, and even longer to get over my own limitation and surpress (most of) my frustration. And I understand why you do that, and your reasons are good. But you have to realize that this is one of the main things that puts you so often at odds with so many other people and often leads to them rejecting your otherwise good ideas. Think about it.

[tchan001]

Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/definition

def·i·ni·tion (df-nshn)
n.
1.
a. A statement conveying fundamental character.
b. A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.
2. The act or process of stating a precise meaning or significance; formulation of a meaning.
3.
a. The act of making clear and distinct: a definition of one's intentions.
b. The state of being closely outlined or determined: "With the drizzle, the trees in the little clearing had lost definition" (Anthony Hyde).
c. A determination of outline, extent, or limits: the definition of a President's authority.
4.
a. The clarity of detail in an optically produced image, such as a photograph, effected by a combination of resolution and contrast.
b. The degree of clarity with which a televised image or broadcast signal is received.

When RJ defines something, it is a formulation of a meaning. It's not theory. How can you argue with RJ over something he has just given meaning to? The act of arguing over what RJ has defined will always in his mind be an act of wrongness. You may however discuss what RJ theorizes as such is still open to further investigations.

[RobertJasiek]

[*] '1d' as he defines it himself

I do not state it each time, but usually I rely on European self-declared ranks. Everybody (in Europe) can observe what those ranks are worth. Such observation does not depend on my definition, but is open.

[*] 'fundamentals' as he defines them himself

Sorry, but (unfortunately) I have NOT defined "fundamentals" yet. It is open to discussion what that is for us go players. OTOH, different authors speaking about "the fundamentals" seem to have a pretty similar conceptual understanding of the term.

[*] 'blunders' as he defines them himself

It is an exaggeration that I would have defined it. I have just provided informal descriptions here and elsewhere. When the word is used, it pretty much means the same everywhere, except when the game is "prove Robert wrong no matter what".

EDIT: Cambridge International Dictionary of English:

"blunder v, n (to make) a big mistake, especially as a result of lack of care or thought"

[*] 'concepts' as he defines them himself

Why do you even bring this up? In this thread, snorri has introduced the word as if I had meant to speak in terms of concepts in the first message. I have not tried to define "concepts". (I defined "strategic concept" elsewhere, but this is off-topic.)

It is a closed system

No, it is still open, see above.

And this is why it is so hard and frustrating to have a discussion.

You construct something not existing, see above.

since RJ usually refuses [...]

Wrong.

Think about it.

Done: you confuse the closed system of well defined go terms by me with the open discussion in this thread.

The act of arguing over what RJ has defined will always in his mind be an act of wrongness.

No. I might err in a definition, this could be pointed out and I would be convinced. What you mean is maybe something different: When I consider a definition of a term useful and somebody else considers a different meaning for the name of the term useful, then my definition in its intended meaning is not proven wrong by the other's preference for the different meaning.

[Fedya]

Bantari wrote:

It is a closed system, in which each part fits perfectly like a pretty pre-arranged puzzle piece with all other parts.
And it is all painstakingly defined by none other than RJ himself with the purpose to fit together just like that.

When I read Robert's posts, I'm reminded of this bit from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

[zaqxswcde]

I think the issue behind this debate is that the subject matter at hand is extremely fuzzy and, as pointed out earlier, ill-defined. It seems too hard to make sweeping generalizations that can accurately characterize the nature of "1-dan level" play. Robert's ideas are more or less right (some are righter than others) but ultimately we have to take them as abstractions, rather than as scientifically-rigorous principles.

[often]

since the energy was put into a reply i suppose i should put the energy in to retort

of course, i disagree
simply put, not all ___d/___k's are created equal
i've said it on here before, but your "rank" is an average of your strengths across the board. you can be a 3d in the opening but a 2k in fighting. this is why people can be inconsistent in playing other ranks that are higher or lower than them
typically "fundamentals" in the asian sense is a knowledge of basic shape and fighting, which is why in the chinese learning system they let kids get good at that before bothering with opening concepts

but i've said all that before, let's get to the amusing point and counterpoints

- They know that they should avoid blunders, but their blunder rate is ca. 2 or 3 per game on average.
if they were smart enough to avoid the blunder, they wouldn't make it. it's a classical thing of "you don't know what makes you incompetent"
sometimes it's not even the player making the blunder, but being able to take advantage of the opponents blunders
to simply put a "number" on the number of blunders they make is also misleading and incorrect
i know i make more than 2-3 blunders per game (thanks to my teacher)

- They know that there can be different answers to a corner approach, but they do not always decide among tenuki, extension, pincer or blocking the corner. Instead they sometimes consider only part of these choices.
see above, but this is everybody, not just a "half understanding of fundamentals"
nobody really has a good grasp of joseki at the amateur level
i'd put this as a thought process thing and not really a "fundamental" problem based on the definition that i've given in the asian sense
if they were aware of what a joseki was capable of, they'd be able to play it. but simply saying "DID YOU LOOK HARDER?" isn't the problem

- They sometimes construct a moyo of intermediate size along an edge, thinking it would be territory and so omitting a reinforcement. Their strategy is spoiled when the opponent simply invades.
this is fighting strength sometimes and sometimes this is just overambitiousness
this is everybody and not really a 1d problem, hell pros can make this mistake too
i once asked a pro what a difference between a moyo that was "big" and a moyo that was "too big"
the pro answered that the difference lies in whether or not i am confident or strong enough to defend what i mark out as mine
so this again, really isn't a half understanding of fundamentals. it's more you imposing that they don't play the same way as you
a proper teacher is able to realize a player's style and teach them things to supplement that
a person who is always used to making moyos won't suddenly change around and become a territory focused safe player.

- They do not always do proper local move selection.
basic shape
so, yea. i guess i agree?
but i wouldn't say shape is purely a 1d problem or is something different than basic shape

- They often rely on a proverb for choosing extensions, instead of verifying their connections tactically.

yea umm... ok
i'll just say that this is the same as the whole "not knowing what makes you incompetent"
if you say this is a problem of not thinking through, that's valid. but you're imposing a trait on too broad a type of people

- They are sometimes unaware of endgame aspects relevant during opening and middle game. (Don't play just some move, but a move fulfilling a major purpose with also the best impact on the endgame later.)

shape again. and the "not knowing"
but that's everybody and not just a "1d" thing

- They sometimes choose strategies purely for fun, instead of verifying whether they can also be justified.

i don't see what the problem of playing what you want is and how this is a lack of fundamentals
the famous takemiya quote is "play the move you want to play" instead of striving for victory

- In a tournament game, they spend 5 minutes on a life and death problem to verify death, but sometimes overlook ko.

broad generalization, not useful
and sometimes even pros can make huge blunders and overlook things

- They are occasionally completely surprised by stronger players' sacrifice strategies, which they overlooked completely.
i'm sure you have the same with players' stronger than you, so i mean...



in conclusion
i think most of the things you've listed applies to everybody and not just 1ds
some of them make no sense so you'll have to clarify

again, the concept of asian teachers thinking 1d as a grasp of fundamentals
there are times even now with basic shape moves that my teacher says "even a 5k wouldn't do this"
so another way of defining fundamentals is understanding and playing correctly most of the common board situations and positions. as time goes by there are more uncommon ones until you get to higher ranks where they come up with crazy new ones (hurrah hurrah)
but only after grasping these fundamentals can you really start learning and using concepts (for most westerners its the other way around)
the easiest analogue is joseki and fuseki. since they're so tightly linked, you need to know and grasp most joseki before you start really learning and playing fusekis.
the story i had with an old teacher was when i was deciding which books to buy, i asked my teacher whether or not i should buy a big fuseki book. to which my teacher said "you don't even know the basic josekis yet, what are you doing bothering with fuseki?"

[RobertJasiek]

often, IMO fundamentals is about more than shapes and fighting. In fact, every topic has its fundamentals and advanced knowledge.

The stated principle for answers to a corner approach is not meant to require advanced joseki understanding, but is simply matter of reminding oneself to check every basic initial option and of doing that check.

Concerning the defense of a side moyo, I have not meant it to be a matter of judging by reading. It is a matter of simply considering the simplest first defense move versus first easy reduction move at all. To consider a first move versus not even to consider it at all is a matter of fundamentals. This has nothing to do with style.

Local move selection is not just a matter of basic shape. Basic shape can be correct, or there can be a better move.

Early endgame considerations can, but need not, be a shape issue.

Takemiya does not apply his own quote to play what one wants without reading (except maybe for early opening moves): he verifies moves by reading.

The overlooking ko aspect is useful, because it is useful to check every possible result in an LD situation.

i think most of the things you've listed applies to everybody and not just 1ds

The principles should be applied by everybody. They are applied by strong dans, they are not always applied by 1d, they are not known by too many weak kyus.

some of them make no sense so you'll have to clarify

Understanding will be easier, if you do not try to overload them with your (often good, but for the purpose) too advanced ideas, such as reading, when only a first move consideration is referred.

but only after grasping these fundamentals can you really start learning and using concepts (for most westerners its the other way around)

I do not buy it that Asian teachers would postpone concepts. Should Kageyama (teaching more than only shapes and fighting) be a rare exception?

i asked my teacher whether or not i should buy a big fuseki book. to which my teacher said "you don't even know the basic josekis yet, what are you doing bothering with fuseki?"

It depends on your actual rank and what he meant by "the basic josekis".

[SmoothOper]

I think it is worth pointing out that the 1-Dan fundamental understandings probably don't subsume a 2-3 kyu's understandings of fundamentals, though many players seem to feel this way.

[SmoothOper]

i asked my teacher whether or not i should buy a big fuseki book. to which my teacher said "you don't even know the basic josekis yet, what are you doing bothering with fuseki?"

It depends on your actual rank and what he meant by "the basic josekis".

I think this a prime example of poor teaching, and a poor understanding of fundamentals. Firstly, your teacher expects you to learn all of the joseki before learning Fuseki, even the joseki you won't use. What your teacher is missing is that a selection of fuseki can minimize the number of joseki you need to learn, furthermore many of the Fuseki require non-joseki approaches and invasions, the literature are littered with phrases like "we can't just play joseki because it is one." Thirdly if you are interested in Fuseki why discourage it? I suspect the teacher does not know Fuseki very well.

[wineandgolover]

I suspect the teacher does not know fuseki very well.

Do you really think that often's 2p teacher doesn't understand fuseki? Could it be that she knew/knows his weaknesses and wants him to focus on them?

Perhaps you should reconsider your post?

[tchan001]

I fail to see how knowing the "basic josekis" is equivalent to learning "all of the joseki".

[uPWarrior]

What I think is funny is that we all know that the title would be "A 5 Dan's Half Understanding of Fundamentals" were RJ 8 dan.
I would very much like to find a pro to comment on the number of blunders Robert makes in his games to see if they are below 1 or 2. Of course, using Robert's definition of blunder, whatever that is.

[RobertJasiek]

uPWarrior, there can be different "definition" of fundamentals, so that a 5d only half understands them etc., but then it becomes 1/10 understanding of a 1d.

5d still blunder a lot in blitz / byoyomi-only games, so it is easy enough to identify blunders there. When I speak of fewer than 1 blunder per game on average, it is for games with much thinking time.

Definition of blunder: see the dictionary citation further above. Of course, it is still necessary to agree on where "big" starts and how to measure it (miai value?), and what exactly qualifies as a "lack" of thought. Here is a suggestion: at least 10 points miai value; a lack of thought can be assessed in contrast to avoiding it for sure with another 10 seconds of careful thought to recall something at all plus the reasonable time needed to verify it by reading or calculation. (For an atari, no additional time is needed. For having forgotten to determine LD of a group at all, 10 seconds are allowed to recall that it must be determined, then additional time is allowed to do the reading.)