A 1 Dan's Half Understanding of Fundamentals

[Kirby]

My point is, if you're going to study fuseki, restricting your study only to the fuseki you play is going to be problematic when you get to higher levels.

Restricting your study only to {fill in the blank} is problematic.

This idea kind of makes sense, but I wonder about efficiency. For example, is it possible that you get more bang for your buck studying tsumego for an hour than studying joseki for the same time?

If so, it would still be ideal to study everything wothout restriction, but given a finite amount of time to study in life, why not focus on areas that are more efficient for helping you to achieve your goals (eg. getting stronger)?

[Bantari]

My point is, if you're going to study fuseki, restricting your study only to the fuseki you play is going to be problematic when you get to higher levels.

Restricting your study only to {fill in the blank} is problematic.

This idea kind of makes sense, but I wonder about efficiency. For example, is it possible that you get more bang for your buck studying tsumego for an hour than studying joseki for the same time?

I think it depends. Since we can't possibly study everything all the time, choices have to be made.
If you lose your games because of your weak reading - study tsumego, its more efficient.
If you lose your games because of opening blunders - study joseki and fuseki, its more efficient.
Rinse, repeat.

[SmoothOper]

My point is, if you're going to study fuseki, restricting your study only to the fuseki you play is going to be problematic when you get to higher levels.

Restricting your study only to {fill in the blank} is problematic.

This idea kind of makes sense, but I wonder about efficiency. For example, is it possible that you get more bang for your buck studying tsumego for an hour than studying joseki for the same time?

If so, it would still be ideal to study everything without restriction, but given a finite amount of time to study in life, why not focus on areas that are more efficient for helping you to achieve your goals (eg. getting stronger)?

Cho Chikun's "All About Life and Death" has some tsumego application problems, I wish there were more books like that, where you can work at solving the problem, but then it is also serves a useful strategic purpose. There could be a large number of standard side L&D situations, but he left those for the student to solve. I suspect that much of the text in Chinese and Japanese books discusses context of the problems, however that is lost on me.

[tchan001]

Cho Chikun's "All About Life and Death" has some tsumego application problems, I wish there were more books like that, where you can work at solving the problem, but then it is also serves a useful strategic purpose.

You need a larger collection of Asian go books which includes such problem books
Have you read Tami's review here?

[tapir]

People can study different things and can't study all things at the same time. I believe it is best to study what is the weakest link in your Go, but regardless...

When someone announces he studies fuseki to avoid the study of joseki this is akin to someone studying the endgame to avoid counting. This sounds stupid, but how about: "By studying shuban I could avoid over-reliance on moku-san." It is wrong in so many ways, but while it is rare someone so stubbornly exposes himself and his wrong attitude, I believe, this attitude in particular is fairly common among half-understanding shodans and other players.

[Bill Spight]

My point is, if you're going to study fuseki, restricting your study only to the fuseki you play is going to be problematic when you get to higher levels.

Restricting your study only to {fill in the blank} is problematic.

This idea kind of makes sense, but I wonder about efficiency. For example, is it possible that you get more bang for your buck studying tsumego for an hour than studying joseki for the same time?

Generally, that is true, which is why the saying about studying joseki and losing two stones in strength. I got a couple of joseki books when I was 4 kyu - 2 kyu, but I did not seriously study joseki until I was 2 dan, and I have no regrets about that.

If so, it would still be ideal to study everything wothout restriction, but given a finite amount of time to study in life, why not focus on areas that are more efficient for helping you to achieve your goals (eg. getting stronger)?

I think it depends. Since we can't possibly study everything all the time, choices have to be made.
If you lose your games because of your weak reading - study tsumego, its more efficient.
If you lose your games because of opening blunders - study joseki and fuseki, its more efficient.
Rinse, repeat.

A major problem with focusing your study on what you need to most, or where you are weak, is how do you know? Very often in the Big Question Mark section on Sensei's Library someone will ask, What do I do in this situation? Very often the answer is, Don't get into that situation. The important errors came earlier. Left to their own devices, the players who ask those questions would study the wrong things, because they do not know where their problems lie.

Now it is possible to become a high level amateur dan player with glaring weaknesses, because you have other strengths. There are many examples, both in the East and West. So if you want to concentrate your study on one area or a few, why not?

But if you think, as I do, that having glaring weaknesses is not so good, then study everything. For one thing, doing so will help you to identify where you need to concentrate your efforts.

Bantari's point about studying what causes you to lose games is a good one. Something that I repeatedly advise is trying to determine the last game losing play. Not so easy, but it is a good exercise.

[Bantari]

A major problem with focusing your study on what you need to most, or where you are weak, is how do you know? Very often in the Big Question Mark section on Sensei's Library someone will ask, What do I do in this situation? Very often the answer is, Don't get into that situation. The important errors came earlier. Left to their own devices, the players who ask those questions would study the wrong things, because they do not know where their problems lie.

A very good point.

But I think there must be some kind of a solution or at least a clue somewhere there. Ask stronger player, submit your game to GTL, show it here, analyze it yourself, something...

From experience, in my particular case, I could always tell what part of the game caused me the most trouble - reading, strategy, knowledge (joseki, etc.) - sometimes very particular, like I should read up how to deal with a particular joseki or fuseki, for example. It was a feeling that I have hard time to cope with a specific thing. And then you study that for a while until the feeling goes away. It might not always be the absolutely most appropriate thing to study, but you have to start somewhere.

The alternative, by and large, would be to say that it does not really matter and you need to study everything. In the long run - this is certainly true, but at a particular moment - not even the pros can study everything all the time. You need to make a choice, and the question is: how?

Some people just study what they feel like at the moment, what gives them the most pleasure. And this is a good approach as well.

[skydyr]

I agree, however I may never have to consider a 3-5 vs. a 5-4, since I won't(in the near future) play either of those as white or black, however if a player is interested in a 3-5 opening they may want to consider the ramifications of a 5-4 or 3-4 in different configurations, these strategies may indeed depend on some very specific joseki knowledge, which may not be considered basic. In my or others cases, an approach move joseki may not be the appropriate response to any of these openings. The biggest problem I have is finding the players to hone these openings. I can study the takamoku, but I only play one once every 10 to 20 games, so working out the details for these openings is difficult. I think people who have more time to spend would switch Fuseki from time to time to get an idea about how they work, but you need to start somewhere, and many Fuseki ideas generalize pretty well, unlike joseki. For example shimari is a shimari and a moyo is a moyo, there are many ways build them, and they are likely to arise out of many Fuseki, for example both the 3-5 3-4 and 3-4 5-4 enclosures can be built multiple ways.

How do you expect to be able to deal with an opponent who plays those if you never see them as worth looking at?

[SmoothOper]

I agree, however I may never have to consider a 3-5 vs. a 5-4, since I won't(in the near future) play either of those as white or black, however if a player is interested in a 3-5 opening they may want to consider the ramifications of a 5-4 or 3-4 in different configurations, these strategies may indeed depend on some very specific joseki knowledge, which may not be considered basic. In my or others cases, an approach move joseki may not be the appropriate response to any of these openings. The biggest problem I have is finding the players to hone these openings. I can study the takamoku, but I only play one once every 10 to 20 games, so working out the details for these openings is difficult. I think people who have more time to spend would switch Fuseki from time to time to get an idea about how they work, but you need to start somewhere, and many Fuseki ideas generalize pretty well, unlike joseki. For example shimari is a shimari and a moyo is a moyo, there are many ways build them, and they are likely to arise out of many Fuseki, for example both the 3-5 3-4 and 3-4 5-4 enclosures can be built multiple ways.

How do you expect to be able to deal with an opponent who plays those if you never see them as worth looking at?

You're a real winner aren't you. Did you even read my post?

[skydyr]

I agree, however I may never have to consider a 3-5 vs. a 5-4, since I won't(in the near future) play either of those as white or black, however if a player is interested in a 3-5 opening they may want to consider the ramifications of a 5-4 or 3-4 in different configurations, these strategies may indeed depend on some very specific joseki knowledge, which may not be considered basic. In my or others cases, an approach move joseki may not be the appropriate response to any of these openings. The biggest problem I have is finding the players to hone these openings. I can study the takamoku, but I only play one once every 10 to 20 games, so working out the details for these openings is difficult. I think people who have more time to spend would switch Fuseki from time to time to get an idea about how they work, but you need to start somewhere, and many Fuseki ideas generalize pretty well, unlike joseki. For example shimari is a shimari and a moyo is a moyo, there are many ways build them, and they are likely to arise out of many Fuseki, for example both the 3-5 3-4 and 3-4 5-4 enclosures can be built multiple ways.

How do you expect to be able to deal with an opponent who plays those if you never see them as worth looking at?

You're a real winner aren't you. Did you even read my post?

Insults aside, you can learn about them by playing them yourself instead of waiting for that 1 in 20 games.

[snorri]

This idea kind of makes sense, but I wonder about efficiency. For example, is it possible that you get more bang for your buck studying tsumego for an hour than studying joseki for the same time?

If so, it would still be ideal to study everything wothout restriction, but given a finite amount of time to study in life, why not focus on areas that are more efficient for helping you to achieve your goals (eg. getting stronger)?

IMHO, this is the $100,000 question. It's hard because the answer almost certainly depends on the individual. What works for a 10-year-old insei who is already high dan amateur strength may not work (or even be possible) for a 50 year-old 10 kyu with a demanding job.

In software performance, you fix the biggest bottlenecks first. Then, you reach the stage of death by 1000 cuts because everything has close the same effect. Then you sigh, bite the bullet and re-architect. What is the equivalent in go? Emptying the cup as the Bruce Lee quote suggests? I'm not sure.

I read something---I think in one of John Fairbairn's books---that Kitani was often a slow player because he would evaluate the worst moves first, then systematically work up to the better ones. This seems kind of unnatural, but it might be the right medicine for some players. Think about it. If solving a constrained go problem, does it matter which variations you read first if you are determined to evaluate exhaustively? No. Blitz teaches us to go the other direction and pick the best looking move that we haven't had time to refute. But maybe this conditioning is damaging if taken to the extreme. Kitani's approach may seem crazy, but there may be something useful there.

For me, I think the answer is not on the board. It is in my head. What is going on in my head? Is it wrong thinking? Is it inefficient thinking? Is there a skill, which, through practice, can be refined to a higher degree and if so, how and with what threshold of effort? Am I stopping 5% before I reach a beneficial level of effort?

[Kirby]

...

A major problem with focusing your study on what you need to most, or where you are weak, is how do you know? Very often in the Big Question Mark section on Sensei's Library someone will ask, What do I do in this situation? Very often the answer is, Don't get into that situation. The important errors came earlier. Left to their own devices, the players who ask those questions would study the wrong things, because they do not know where their problems lie.
...

This makes sense - it's likely that I don't know where my problems lie. As a side note, do you (or anyone else) have an idea where my problems lie?

Studying everything is certainly a solution to addressing any of your problems, but perhaps some insight can be gained from a third-party perspective.

[oren]

This makes sense - it's likely that I don't know where my problems lie. As a side note, do you (or anyone else) have an idea where my problems lie?

That's what a teacher is useful for.

[Kirby]

This makes sense - it's likely that I don't know where my problems lie. As a side note, do you (or anyone else) have an idea where my problems lie?

That's what a teacher is useful for.

I suppose so! I was hoping to get some free advice, since I'm pretty open with my games around here. Maybe that's a bit too greedy of me

[SoDesuNe]

This makes sense - it's likely that I don't know where my problems lie. As a side note, do you (or anyone else) have an idea where my problems lie?

Studying everything is certainly a solution to addressing any of your problems, but perhaps some insight can be gained from a third-party perspective.

Although I'm in no position to teach you, I reviewed the last game you posted in your study journal.
When I had to summarize my points into one or two focus areas, I'd say:

• 1. Judgement of the whole board. This is arguably a pretty worthless advice in itself but in my opinion you could have chosen a better whole-board-suited Joseki in the bottom left corner and I woudn't judge the outcome of the variation you gave for it that badly. That Q10 was missed for so long seems to be an underappreciation of the whole board as well. Move falls into the same category, I think.
  I always recommend replaying professional games to get a feel for their judgment and constant reviews by preferably stronger players of your lost games.
• 2. Follow-Ups / Multi-Purpose-Moves. Moves like , , , , seem to me lacking a follow-up and often serve only one purpose.
  A useful question to ask is: When I don't play here, will my opponent immediately seize the initiative or will he play somewhere else (bigger/more urgent points)?
  Another recommendation would be - again - to replay professional games and solving Tesuji problems can also help because you will learn moves which threaten or exploit weaknesses in certain shapes and thus you can try to put your opponent into such situations with your moves. Of course following a plan with your moves is helpful as well but since I'm mostly lacking the skill to develop a plan in the first place, I can add no more to that : )

Then again, my review could be a total mess with very wrong comments showing that it's rather me who lacks judgement of the whole board. Since nobody called me out until now, I though it won't be too bold to post this : )