A 1 Dan's Half Understanding of Fundamentals

[SmoothOper]

I fail

That's OK, I don't think there are really all that many "Advanced Joseki". Maybe a handful, and your basic 1-Dan probably does't recommend studying those either.

[tchan001]

What his teacher suggests seems to be that he first acquaints himself with a few basic josekis before starting the subject of fuseki. Nowhere does it say that he needs to learn a comprehensive overview of ALL the various josekis before he can start learning fuseki. Your interpretation seems to suggest that he had been advised to have a complete understanding of ALL of the joseki before he is allowed to learn fuseki. Perhaps you fail to understand this difference.

[wineandgolover]

That's OK, I don't think there are really all that many "Advanced Joseki". Maybe a handful, and your basic 1-Dan probably does't recommend studying those either.

So rather than admitting your error, you will just have a snark-fest. Okay, thanks for demonstrating your character.

[SmoothOper]

That's OK, I don't think there are really all that many "Advanced Joseki". Maybe a handful, and your basic 1-Dan probably does't recommend studying those either.

So rather than admitting your error, you will just have a snark-fest. Okay, thanks for demonstrating your character.

I just don't think the definition of "basic" joseki is relevant to the main points of my post, and quite frankly I consider the term "basic" denigrating, which is why I omitted it, especially considering most "basic" joseki will be seen at all levels of play. Maybe what the teacher meant was, "They recommend learning simple joseki, before learning complicated Fuseki." However, I don't see why simple Fuseki shouldn't be learned in conjunction with simple Joseki, it just doesn't make sense.

[tchan001]

quite frankly I consider the term "basic" denigrating

Sounds like the type of person who would prefer memorizing all the different sets of go rules first before playing go rather than just learning the "basic" rules of go because that would be so denigrating.

By the way, if you have doubts about what the teacher meant, maybe it's not quite "a prime example of poor teaching, and a poor understanding of fundamentals" as you thought it might be.

[kex]

I just don't think the definition of "basic" joseki is relevant to the main points of my post, and quite frankly I consider the term "basic" denigrating, which is why I omitted it, especially considering most "basic" joseki will be seen at all levels of play. Maybe what the teacher meant was, "They recommend learning simple joseki, before learning complicated Fuseki." However, I don't see why simple Fuseki shouldn't be learned in conjunction with simple Joseki, it just doesn't make sense.

I don't understand, why "basic" is bad. Normally, one must know basic things before learning advanced things, be the basics simple or complicated. Is this valuation a normal phenomenon of the postmodern society?

[wineandgolover]

I just don't think the definition of "basic" joseki is relevant to the main points of my post, and quite frankly I consider the term "basic" denigrating, which is why I omitted it, especially considering most "basic" joseki will be seen at all levels of play. Maybe what the teacher meant was, "They recommend learning simple joseki, before learning complicated Fuseki." However, I don't see why simple Fuseki shouldn't be learned in conjunction with simple Joseki, it just doesn't make sense.

often's thesis, as I understand it, is pretty simple. Learn the fundamentals before worrying too much about advanced concepts. You can play the greatest fuseki ever and it means nothing if you hane where you should have extended, resulting in a big death.

You seem to discuss anything but this, raging at teachers you don't know, and now taking exception about a word, "basic," that is actually used in the title of what is probably the best-selling English language joseki book.

Personally, I doubt one can reach 1d without a reasonable (or half according to RJ) understanding of the fundamentals. I don't have advanced fuseki skills, but fortunately, that hasn't been required to get to 1d.

Perhaps often's teacher wasn't a compete idiot after all.

[RobertJasiek]

Normally, one must know basic things before learning advanced things

Normally indeed. The problem is: it is pretty hard to identify the basic things of go theory well. It took me many years to get a clear view on at least part of the basic things. Now I am impressed just how useful they are. However, without easy access to all the basic things, one needs to proceed to more advanced things, while using somewhat complicated and dubious approximations of the basic things.

[kex]

Learn the fundamentals before worrying too much about advanced concepts.

To me, this sounds a tall order. I'd say: learn first basics, then advanced stuff, then fundamentals. For example; many people are skilled in using real numbers long before taking the course on Fundamentals of Real Analysis.

[EdLee]

I'd say: learn first basics, then advanced stuff, then fundamentals.

Basics and fundamentals are the same thing, I assume, for often and wineandgolover (and for me).
They are the foundation. The former is just easier to say and to type.

For example; many people are skilled in using real numbers long before taking the course on Fundamentals of Real Analysis.

In your example, you are comparing real numbers to real analysis, which are quite different.

If you compare fundamentals of real analysis to advanced real analysis, then we are on the same page again.

[SmoothOper]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=basic

See basic is denigrating.

Basic joseki pretty much sums it up.

[wineandgolover]

Denigrating? So only losers would read this?

Seriously, try to deal with the real conversation at hand rather than debating tangential crap. Of course, you don't want to address the real topic, because you would have to backtrack on your accusations against often's teacher.

Shall we just let it go, then?

[Boidhre]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=basic

See basic is denigrating.

Basic joseki pretty much sums it up.

Basic has multiple meanings and even more connotations in common speech. As with many words in English you derive the meaning from the way the sentence is phrased in text and tone in speech. Rigidly applying one connotation or meaning to all usages is very, very odd. It would be extremely difficult to live life through most languages if you approached them this way.

[speedchase]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=basic

See basic is denigrating.

Basic joseki pretty much sums it up.

Basic has multiple meanings and even more connotations in common speech. As with many words in English you derive the meaning from the way the sentence is phrased in text and tone in speech. Rigidly applying one connotation or meaning to all usages is very, very odd. It would be extremely difficult to live life through most languages if you approached them this way.

Agreed especially if the single meaning you choose to apply rigidly is one you found on urban dictionary of all places.

[SmoothOper]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=basic

See basic is denigrating.

Basic joseki pretty much sums it up.

Basic has multiple meanings and even more connotations in common speech. As with many words in English you derive the meaning from the way the sentence is phrased in text and tone in speech. Rigidly applying one connotation or meaning to all usages is very, very odd. It would be extremely difficult to live life through most languages if you approached them this way.

Agreed especially if the single meaning you choose to apply rigidly is one you found on urban dictionary of all places.

In any case I would think twice about going to a teacher that thinks you need 38 joseki before you learn Fuseki, or is unwilling or unable to explain the relevant joseki to the Fuseki that interests you.