Failure of free club culture

[Knotwilg]

In Hushfield's marvelous journal of his study in China, Abyssinica challenged my claim that beginners should play many games on small boards before moving to 19x19. Here's my answer, which I did not want to hijack the journal with.

In essence it is an attack on the non-existing training culture in our clubs, at least the ones I've been part of, which extends into the even more liberal online gathering (maybe the Nordic Go Academy and likes are an exception).

--------------

Anyone can of course do whatever they like. We're discussing fast ways to improve. Beginners can decide to read Invincible by John Power prior to Life & Death by James Davies too. It's however this culture of total freedom in our clubs that leads to their poor average performance. In martial arts clubs a beginner doesn't enter 1,5 hours after the club evening has started, they don't were a black belt if they care for it and they don't throw swords and knifes around until their coach thinks they're ready for it. In tennis, kids play with small rackets on half a field. In soccer, kids play in teams of 5 on small fields. There ARE preferred ways to instruct newbies, even if there are no lives at stake or physical limitations present.

In most go clubs, beginners play their coach with 9 stones handicap on a big board, are butchered and then get an explanation which mostly serves to show how smart the coach is. The coaches' arrogance then propells into the beginners' attitude who think they're too grown up for small boards.

I find this a pitiful situation and envy the culture of excellence the Chinese foster, as witnessed by Hushfield's account. I'm also staggered by the subliminal belief that Asians would somehow be smarter or culturally-genetically predestined to play go. They're not as can be seen from their rapid take over of mastery of western classical music. They're more studious and respect the idea there could be a fast lane to mastery, which may not be to their spontaneous liking. Whether their genes or culture is the primary cause for this, I cannot tell.

[Solomon]

Not sure I understand why a 19x19 board is less beginner-friendly than a 9x9.

[RBerenguel]

Not sure I understand why a 19x19 board is less beginner-friendly than a 9x9.

The 19x19 board seems huge, specially to people used to more "normal" classic board games (chess, checkers, backgammon, 3-in-a-row, Nine Men's Morris.) 9x9 is quite non-intimidating (it's almost a chess board without colouring) and allows to reach interesting tactical positions faster.

[Shenoute]

I wholly agree with the idea of having beginners playing on 9*9 and 13*13 boards for some time. I've played in two different clubs for quite a few years now and the players that insist on playing on 19*19 right from the start usually get confused by the size of the goban. They also can not keep track of their progress because it takes a very long time before the handicap stones can be reduced from 9 to 8 and very often most of them lose interest after a few weeks/months.

On the other hand, spending too much time on 9*9/13*13 can make them "fear" 19*19.

When the shift from 9*9/13*13 to 19*19 should be made is a tricky question. Usually I wait until handicap on 13*13 has decreased from 5 to something like 3 stones (which means that basic concepts like attack/defense/walls/connection have started being grasped) and, maybe more important, until "silly" reading mistakes are (mostly) gone.

Of course if the beginner is adamant on playing "real go" (i.e. on a 19*19 goban and/or without handicap) I'm quite ready to indulge them if I feel that they may not come back.

[Shenoute]

Not sure I understand why a 19x19 board is less beginner-friendly than a 9x9.

Apart from the fact that the size is confusing as mentioned above, there's also a problem with the duration of such games. When I've spent 1 hour (or more) on a 19*19 game with a beginner that doesn't see ataris/shichos/eyes/etc I'm not really in the mood for commenting the game.

9*9 and 13*13 games are finished much faster and I'm usually quite enthusiastic about commenting it and playing another one (or two or three).

[Abyssinica]

Back when I was starting on kgs, I was playing with another beginner and we alternated between 19x19 and 9x9, though ultimately played more 19x19 games than 9x9 simply because we didn't like 9x9.

[Marcus]

I have erased three separate posts already trying to get my thoughts out on this topic ... I'm hoping this fourth attempt is coherent.

First, a disclaimer: I have played fewer than a couple dozen 9x9 games in my life, and I am not a fan of this board size (though I admit it has useful properties, and I'm trying to change my opinion in order to include it in my own teaching methods). This may colour my opinion somewhat, so take it with a grain of salt.

I am of the firm belief that 19x19 is perfectly fine for teaching the game to a beginner. Any intimidation a beginner feels about the size of the board should be dealt with earlier, not later, as a fear of the board size is silly and should be nipped in the bud.

A proper teacher will be able to make the game enjoyable on 19x19 for any student. Expecting to find a proper teacher in a random club is a bit ludicrous, however.

When I've spent 1 hour (or more) on a 19*19 game with a beginner that doesn't see ataris/shichos/eyes/etc I'm not really in the mood for commenting the game.

Why did you spend an hour on the game? There's nothing that says a teaching game MUST be played out to the end. I'd argue that this is an expectation that should be challenged, and that the teacher should make sure the student understands the difference between a teaching game and an even game.

Encourage the student to tell you during the game "I don't know what to do here", and then discuss the position. Help them sort out their thinking during the game, and be fluid about backing up or re-arranging the pieces for a better understanding. Ask questions during the game about "why did you decide on this move?" and discuss it. Teaching a beginner should be more than comments at the end of a game. I can't always remember what I was thinking for any given move after 20 more moves, so by the end I'm sure any beginner is going to have trouble remembering any of their thoughts about specific moves.

They also can not keep track of their progress because it takes a very long time before the handicap stones can be reduced from 9 to 8 and very often most of them lose interest after a few weeks/months.

I am also of the firm belief that handicap stones are pretty much useless for teaching absolute beginners. They need a bit of fundamental understanding first. As Knotwilg indicated, a club coach playing a 9-stone game and then discussing it with the beginner is usually a waste. In this respect, I think I need to adapt my own methods to include smaller board sizes, but I don't believe that smaller boards are absolutely necessary for this.

As a final note, I think there's so much emphasis on skill building here ... but shouldn't the emphasis be on building enjoyment for the game? If my prospective students are not enjoying the game, it doesn't matter how quickly they gain skill ... they will eventually quit playing. Instilling enjoyment of the game is my primary goal when I teach go (or any other topic near and dear to my heart).

[Knotwilg]

I know that small boards are usually interpreted as 9x9 and 13x13. I'm talking 5x5, to instruct total newbies. I tell them "In go, the purpose is to have more stones on the board than your opponent". Then I explain
- the capture rule
- one can pass
and off they go on a 5x5. They quickly learn about ko and seki, all by themselves. They learn to value the privilege of the first move, which is all decisive in 5x5. They shift to 7x7 fast: they understand the game would be silly on small boards.

On a 7x7 the first two eyed groups appear (it's technically possible on a 5x5 but rare). They might already gain a sense of territory. They might extend the obvious centre point on a 5x5 to either the centre point on 7x7 OR any of the 3-3 points. This awakens the ideas of territorial stability (3-3) or overall influence (4-4 = centre).

Soon 7x7 becomes just as silly and with 9x9 the board is just big enough to make things interesting while still manageable. The idea not to fill the board but count stones and "points where black/white can come without being captured" is intuitive. Birth of territory. The shift to territory+captured stones is a matter of basic accountancy. Where's the stability now? (3-3 but not in a busy area) Where's the influence? (4th line or centre?)

These are all merits of small board based instruction. All concepts are introduced in a natural fashion. Beginners have a real chance to win, by their understanding. Try beating a beginner on 5x5 if they can play black and understand the rule of capture. Try beating a well instructed beginner on 9x9 with 4 stones. They won't need joseki. Connecting will do.

Then there are the benefits for the teacher, as Shenoute mentions. The fruitless hours of waiting for a blunder. The exhaustion of the first game review. It's pointless. But again, beginner comes first. It's their progress that matters, not our wasted time.

edit: as Marcus submitted an answer while I did the same, I believe a beginner's joy is mostly supported by rapid understanding of the basics and fast improvement based on clear and measurable merits, rather than a superficial understanding of what's going on in the real game and an inflated self esteem based on attempts to grasp what the teacher has said about territory, influence, thickness, opening moves ... Perhaps I'm wrong at that and the visual appeal of large board patterns is at least as important for enjoying the game.

[topazg]

my belief that 19x19 is perfectly fine for teaching the game to a beginner. Any intimidation a beginner feels about the size of the board should be dealt with earlier, not later, as a fear of the board size is silly and should be nipped in the bud.

Agreed

Why did you spend an hour on the game? There's nothing that says a teaching game MUST be played out to the end. I'd argue that this is an expectation that should be challenged, and that the teacher should make sure the student understands the difference between a teaching game and an even game.

Agreed

As a final note, I think there's so much emphasis on skill building here ... but shouldn't the emphasis be on building enjoyment for the game? If my prospective students are not enjoying the game, it doesn't matter how quickly they gain skill ... they will eventually quit playing. Instilling enjoyment of the game is my primary goal when I teach go (or any other topic near and dear to my heart).

Agreed

FWIW, I sometimes play a potential student on a 13x13 board to get an idea of their skill level, and move to 19x19 as soon as I can, normally with 3 stones as a "standard" most of the time. It's very easy to keep things free of tactical complications as they get to grips with the idea of mapping out territory, and slow introducing tactical issues as they arise and as comfort with the game starts kicking in.

There's also no need to complete most of the games - some is nice because it feels "normal" to finish the game, and scoring often produces surprise that something was worth more or less points than was thought at the time. It's also easy to allow the games to feel relatively close in this situation, which is quite nice for a beginning to feel like they understand what they are doing.

Obviously, YMMV, but there's little to no strategy on a 9x9 board, and IMO Go is a primarily strategic, sharing patient game rather than a tactical bloodbath.

[HermanHiddema]

Not sure I understand why a 19x19 board is less beginner-friendly than a 9x9.

On 9x9 you need to keep track of fewer groups, interactions between groups are much more direct, and you get a result (and therefore feedback) much more quickly.

9x9 allows you to do away with subtleties that are way beyond the beginners horizon, allowing them to focus on the more understandable parts of the game, while at the same time increasing the pace are which beginners can learn.

[Knotwilg]

Obviously, YMMV, but there's little to no strategy on a 9x9 board, and IMO Go is a primarily strategic, sharing patient game rather than a tactical bloodbath.

This is what most western go players prefer to think and precisely the reason why a single digit kyu like Hushfield is butchered on 19x19 by kids who have no sense of strategy but are much better at tactics.

Yes, go is a game of strategy, but good strategy matters only from a certain level onwards, a level far beyond that of a beginner.

[SoDesuNe]

In my opinion the problem ("poor average performance") is more a deficit in (self-)studying than of teaching on different board sizes. Or teaching in general.

Since Knotwilg mentions Hushfield's indeed great journal: The players there study Joseki on their own and do (A LOT of) problems on their own. Teaching seems to be limited to game reviews and apparently the player has to reach at least a certain playing strength to be deemed "review-worthy".
(Although I guess a very important aspect is the availability of equally strong and stronger players and the possibility to play them all the time.)

I generally agree that the 9*9 board is suited well to introduce players. For instance capturing and related techniques are easily demonstrated. It is also good to show first pointers like keeping your stones connected while cutting your opponent's stones.
Introductions aside, I don't see any use in enforcing board sizes because of the rank of the players. I also encourage every beginning Go player to move to 19*19 as quickly as possible; in the end Go is played on 19*19 and every book they might ever read will tell them something about Go on this board size.

After the introduction Go players branch off into two categories: Those who want to improve and those who don't.
Those who want to improve either play a lot online or with friends and want to learn through these experiences or/and read books about Go or/and solve problems.
Those who don't want to improve just play because it's fun.

Regarding teaching games: I always play teaching games with 4H at max. For me it's easier to spot essential mistakes (direction, Joseki, judgement...) while playing a "normal" Go game.
When I played 9H, I found out that I can only offer two kind of comments most of the times: In the early stages I repeatedly say that the Black stones should be well connected while aiming to cut White's stones. I generally say that around a douzen times. After that all I say is that moves do not work or groups die like that and so on, meaning Black has not sufficient reading skill or does not know the shapes.

In the end I can only point, the beginning players have to walk on their own.

[topazg]

On 9x9 you need to keep track of fewer groups, interactions between groups are much more direct, and you get a result (and therefore feedback) much more quickly.

9x9 allows you to do away with subtleties that are way beyond the beginners horizon, allowing them to focus on the more understandable parts of the game, while at the same time increasing the pace are which beginners can learn.

I agree with the first statement, but not the next. Hell, 9x9 is way behind my horizon, let alone a beginners', I just have a slightly further horizon than they do.

Yes, go is a game of strategy, but good strategy matters only from a certain level onwards, a level far beyond that of a beginner.

I think the amount of abstract strategy is one of the most endearing features of Go, and something that makes it stand out from other games such as chess that a beginner could go and play instead. Of course their strategy may not be correct, but then neither I suspect would ours be if a pro was to assess strategic choices we were making.

"I want to try and make territory in this area over here" to me embodies the concept of Go, and I think it's much easier to feel like that's what you're doing on a 19x19 board than a 9x9 board. Of course I could butcher a typical beginner's attempt to make territory, but that's not really the point. The point is that the beginner is already thinking in terms of "having a bigger portion of the board than my opponent" and "getting some area and securing it". Even if they spend most of their moves making points in one corner of the board whilst letting you take the rest, they're learning important balancing aspects of Go - is this too slow and not getting me enough bang for my buck? Is this too fast and not really tight enough to be my points?

In 9x9, my experience is that too often it starts off as a "my side / your side" game with beginners that either you win with not a great deal being learned, or you win because they stretch too far and suddenly experience the tactical craziness of Go tesujis and sequences on the second line (and let's be honest, second line cut/atari/squeeze type things appear a lot in 9x9 boards).

Although, as a caveat, I'm not actually strongly advocating that beginners "must learn on a 19x19 board" at all, just that my experience with introducing them quickly to a large board has worked fine, and on the whole I've seen a lot of beginners not want to step up or lose interest in the big board because they've spent the last 20 games on a 9x9 board and that's what they want to play. The big board is so different that I've had comments of dissatisfaction that it's almost like learning a new game again.

[HermanHiddema]

On 9x9 you need to keep track of fewer groups, interactions between groups are much more direct, and you get a result (and therefore feedback) much more quickly.

9x9 allows you to do away with subtleties that are way beyond the beginners horizon, allowing them to focus on the more understandable parts of the game, while at the same time increasing the pace are which beginners can learn.

I agree with the first statement, but not the next. Hell, 9x9 is way behind my horizon, let alone a beginners', I just have a slightly further horizon than they do.

I'm not saying that 9x9 does away with all subtleties that are beyond the beginner's horizon, just some of them. On 9x9 you don't need to consider how far to extend from a wall, you don't have to consider whether to invade or reduce moyos, you don't have to make several joseki work together. That means you can focus primarily on those skills that are the most relevant to a beginner: Can I capture this stone? Can I kill this group? Can I connect? Can I cut? How do I seal off my territory at the end?

[RBerenguel]

I'd like to point somewhere that 9x9 go is almost a different game wrt 19x19, and should not be taken lightly. It's hard, bloody and real fun on its own.