Training tests

[Bill Spight]

A classic series of books aimed at kyu players is Sakata's Killer of Go series, which is still in print, last I checked. It has five volumes. The first is "The Killer of Go", then Go no Tesuji to Zokusuji (Tesuji and Anti-suji), then a volume on the fuseki, then one on joseki, then one on yose and tsumego. Tsumego does not even get a whole volume.

"Killer fo Go" and "Tesuji and Anti-Suji of Go" are available through SmartGoBooks (http://gobooks.com/). Other Go books from Sakata translated to English are the two volume "Modern Joseki and Fuseki" (maybe a rearrangement of the japanese books on Fuseki and Joseki?) and "The Middle Game of Go", which is a follow-up on "Modern Joseki and Fuseki". The last three books can still be obtained through amazon.com for instance.

Modern Joseki and Fuseki and The Middle Game of Go are both harder than the Killer of Go series.

[SmoothOper]

There's a problem with this, and it is that no-one is made equal. My raw, untrained forte may be strategy (it is not, I think, but bear with me in the example) whereas yours may be tactics.

Not the strategy vs. tactics straw man again. Fundamentally, choosing what tactics to train on is a strategic decision, since if you are studying one set of tactics, you can't very well simultaneously study another set of tactics.

Now take your pick, tsumego, joseki, Fuseki, semiae,

Recently, I have been doing the at a glance series, I don't think it helps my raw reading as much as my recall.

[Monadology]

There's a problem with this, and it is that no-one is made equal. My raw, untrained forte may be strategy (it is not, I think, but bear with me in the example) whereas yours may be tactics.

Not the strategy vs. tactics straw man again. Fundamentally, choosing what tactics to train on is a strategic decision, since if you are studying one set of tactics, you can't very well simultaneously study another set of tactics.

Why are you equating strategy in selecting your training method with strategy in a game of Go? These are obviously not interchangeable. You could be good at one but not the other.

Additionally, the strategy/tactics distinction as I understand it is basically a global/local distinction. Surely, then, it takes tactics to choose which tactics to study over a short period, but strategy to coordinate which tactics you study and in what ways across a great period of time. Also it's unclear whether you are arguing that the two aren't distinct or that strategy is always more fundamental than tactics.

Finally, how is anything in RBerenguel's post a straw-man? Who is he misrepresenting?

[SmoothOper]

There's a problem with this, and it is that no-one is made equal. My raw, untrained forte may be strategy (it is not, I think, but bear with me in the example) whereas yours may be tactics.

Not the strategy vs. tactics straw man again. Fundamentally, choosing what tactics to train on is a strategic decision, since if you are studying one set of tactics, you can't very well simultaneously study another set of tactics.

Why are you equating strategy in selecting your training method with strategy in a game of Go? These are obviously not interchangeable. You could be good at one but not the other.

Additionally, the strategy/tactics distinction as I understand it is basically a global/local distinction. Surely, then, it takes tactics to choose which tactics to study over a short period, but strategy to coordinate which tactics you study and in what ways across a great period of time. Also it's unclear whether you are arguing that the two aren't distinct or that strategy is always more fundamental than tactics.

Finally, how is anything in RBerenguel's post a straw-man? Who is he misrepresenting?

He is misrepresenting those poor tacticians, who keep fighting with the strategists, who don't exist.

[EdLee]

In addition to RBerenguel's, leichtloeslich's and Bill's first replies,
as usual (i.e. as always), nobody mentions age as a factor.

ThousandAtaris, it's a good quest, but extremely difficult to pull off. Good luck.