Understanding

[daal]

Go knowledge is much more elusive than a substance that you either have or don't have. This is because these "go dots" have only elementary significance when viewed independently. They achieve their power when they are understood in the context of other go dots. An analogy that works along these lines, for example atoms forming molecules forming substances, or sounds forming words forming sentences might better get to the heart of the matter.

[EdLee]

I request the right to remove Posts if immediately after creation
i am unhappy with them, both technically and morally.

I don't think it shows courtesy to then expose it,
without comment so actually undoing my action.

• It's fascinating the choice words include right, unhappy, moral, courtesy, undo, action.
• Words can be powerful -- this theme not yet discussed in depth in this thread.
• Words, taken as actions, can affect people's neural systems. ( post 4 )
• Happiness, morality, and suffering --
  not yet discussed, just barely touched upon. ( footnote 1, post 7 )
• Undos. ( mentioned, post 35 )
• Speaking of Toothpaste Out of the Tube,
  here's an understanding that's eluded many kyu players,
  and even some low-dans: Toothpaste Shape.
• Teachable moment -- often searching for it.

[EdLee]

Go knowledge is much more elusive than a substance
that you either have or don't have. ...<snip>

Yes, exactly.

This is why continuum appears so frequently;
many things, related to understandings, are not digital, not "either-or".

Often, they are continuums. ( posts 5-7, 18, 23 )

[EdLee]

Culture and Etiquette, 3.

From posts 16-18 of Who needs algebra? --

You need a course in basic economics, I fear.

id say this is the pot calling the kettle Black, but that's unfair to Bill.

I'd say you seem to take great delight in insulting and contradicting everything I say. Instead, perhaps you should read and learn.

Part of the reasons for this thread is I'd like to have a better understanding of communication, and communication skills (post 1).

Questions:

• Given the flow of the conversation, was the statement/suggestion, "You need a course in basic economics, I fear" appropriate or called for ?
• Why or why not ?
• Often, it's notoriously difficult to glean the tone of voice from text alone, which can lead to (big) mis-communication.
  On one end of the spectrum, if someone is asking for a Go book recommendation, then one reply might be, "For your level, I suggest The Second Book of Go."
  On another end, we could imagine an un-solicited, "You ignorant fool! You don't know anything about basic economics.
  Why don't you first take Economics for Dummies, then come back and we can chat more, little buddy ?"
  How to gauge the needle ?
• Any relation to Ad hominem ?
• Any relation to bullying ?
• Same questions as above, for the statement/suggestion, "perhaps you should read and learn."

[daal]

Similar to my suggested analogies for understanding go, there is more to communication than the sum of its parts. As with go, first comes a command of the basics - the equipment used in go and how we place the stones might correspond to words and their pronunciation. The rules of the game might correspond to grammar. Skills such as threatening and protecting weak groups might correspond to making statements and asking questions. Skills such as Life and Death or tesuji might correspond to expressing oneself succinctly or cleverly. Building on these skills, we see that threatening a group for example has ulterior motives - perhaps to make territory, and protecting weak groups likewise allows them to be more effective in the future. In communication, this might correspond to making a case, or presenting an argument. Later, we see that subtleties are involved, that some ways of protecting a group are better than others, and likewise that some ways of presenting an argument are better than others. Why is this so? This comes with a deeper understanding of the game and of communication. Some moves are better than others because they are more effective in ways that someone who is not able to take very many factors into consideration all at once might not be able to see. Some ways of communicating are better than others, because they are more effective for reasons having to do with being able to evaluate a wide variety of factors: the short term goals of the communication, the long term goals, sensibility for the tone of voice, to the reactions and standpoint of ones listeners and readers, recognition of the limits of some forms of communication.

[EdLee]

there is more to communication than the sum of its parts.

Hi daal, yes, what you wrote is all true and I agree.

There is still value, sometimes, to examine individual, smaller parts --
local analysis -- as opposed to studying only the big picture,
at the neglect of the smaller chunks.

We have Go books ranging from Positional Judgement or
Whole Board Thinking, to Basic Joseki or 500 L&D Problems.

We can easily find analogies for books on the English language or
about English writing and communications.
( Or for other languages, for that matter. )

[EdLee]

Snapshot of a 13k user.

Earlier this evening:

13k: I am quite passive and defensive a player. I would rather block and expand else where.
13k: Someone mentioned there is a style to study. Starts with an H I think but I lost the word. Anyone know it?
13k: Say they start to invade your corner, block then expand down the side instead of fighting for a few points
13k: Some people are very aggressive, like atari almost every second move
...
( ~20 minutes later... )
2k: Honte ?

On-going project: find and polish analogies to help with people's understanding,
while at the same time encouraging their good efforts.

( The next day... )

I have been playing Go for 27 years.
<9k user> is my father, he taught me to play when I was 3 years old.

I played only a handful of game with him growing up. I didn't see him often.
Even played my uncle once when I stayed in the same city.

I have never studied Go or tried to aim for Dan level.

[EdLee]

Finally! This is exactly how I feel about Go proverbs and guidelines:

The Sense of Style -- Steven Pinker

[EdLee]

Some good stuff in this TED talk about Parenting Taboos.
Keeping it here for future reference.

• Many people think in binary terms, when the reality isn't. Example: understanding.
• Something about "average happiness": some people pay $ and study with a Go pro for years, and they think the teacher is great and that they're improving; but the hard evidence shows otherwise. But they feel happy. Live and let live?

[jeromie]

Ed, thanks for starting this thread. It's interesting to reflect on the way that we learn go, and understanding your philosophy of learning (as it relates to go) also helps me to better appreciate your comments on the games that I and others have posted.

I like the Go-Man analogy because it highlights the importance of paying attention to fundamentals (your favorite theme ) and that shortcuts taken today will come with a later cost. Your model can also be used to explain why a teacher can be very helpful: it is extremely difficult to tell which go dots I am missing, especially since (unlike Pac-Man) I can pass over the same dot several times without actually picking it up.

I think daal is right, though, that it is important to include synthesis as an essential element of our model of learning go. This relates to the first few posts of the thread: understanding go is more than just the acquisition of knowledge. I think you intend to convey this with the Go-Man model (the Go-dots don't necessarily correspond to knowledge), but the nature of the model makes it easy to miss. We could expand the analogy to make it clear (e.g. there are different colored dots that must be used in the proper combination to beat "boss" characters), but doing so risks damaging the simplicity that makes Go-Man a useful model for emphasizing the points it DOES make well.

I think a metaphor from the realm of creation (the directed construction of a new universe appeals to my romantic side, but building with Lego blocks might work just as well) would emphasize other aspects of learning to play go. Gathering raw materials is still a necessary step, but the way we assemble those materials is also important. There are even times when we might have to deconstruct what we think we know in order to add a missing piece. This also highlights the individual, creative nature of learning: we all strive to form something beautiful with our go, but the individual products we create will certainly differ from one another.

[EdLee]

Hi Jeromie,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

Yes, any analogy has its strengths and shortcomings. For example, for me the Go-dots are not limited to only
knowledge about the moves, but they can also encompass other understandings, such as etiquette and the mentality.

Another thing touched upon but not discussed in detail is the knowledge curve:
my feeling is it's not linear, but I don't know if it's exponential ( it seems that way to me ),
and if exponential, what's the exact exponential curve ?
This relates to the size of each Go-Man level ( see post 59, etc.).

The original Pac-Man had a fixed size blue maze for all the different levels,
all the way to the highest, most difficult levels. But for Go-Man, this may be different.
There could be more and more Go-dots on higher and higher levels.
This could correspond to why many people under-estimate the time it takes to reach a certain Go level
( "I figure it took me about a year to gain six stones from 6k to 1d,
so another year, another six stones, that's within the limits of possibility." )^(1,2,3)

It's great you mentioned a teacher can help you see some Go-dots you've missed.
I'm working on another analogy or two to show other aspects of Go learning and teaching.

______

⁽¹⁾ Post 1 of this journal, on Jul 26, 2010. Reality check: still 3d KGS on Aug 18, 2014.
Reality: 4 years, about 1 stone gain. Not SIX stones, as dreamed.
⁽²⁾ Post 1 of So.
⁽³⁾ A thesis lurks here.
We see this gap between reality (1 stone) and the estimate (6 stones) in many cases -- see (2).
We can view this target as an over-estimation, an optimism, or a fantasy.
If we ask the question, "What level do you think you can reach in the next 12 months ?" or
"How long do you think it'll take you to make 5-dan ?" --
We then plot the replies against a variety of variables: current age, current Go level,
social-economic-cultural background, education level, "life experience" level, etc.
Would be interesting.

[EdLee]

The instructions were supposed to transmit some understanding:

Vox article

Some understanding is very difficult to be transmitted accurately.
( Go is only one example from an infinite pool. )

[EdLee]

Snapshot of a 25k user:

Hi guys!
I'm a beginning Go player looking for a professional or amateur dan review of my most recent game.
I understand the rules of Go, eyes, etc., but I really keep losing quite badly even to other beginners.
Thanks!

From Critique of my game.

Another popular question: beginner kifus.

[EdLee]

From Defeat of the week, post 3:

Your main weakness is fighting strength, not direction of play, at least in this game
(and probably in all games, for all amateurs, but I digress).

This.

And mitsun, you didn't digress. At all. You're spot on.

At least in the U.S., many ( or most ) adult amateurs have
a big mis-undersranding about this. Is it different in Europe -- how ?

This is one reason for the incessant questions, discussions, and threads
about the opening, and "general questions", like Tami's ( sorry, Tami ).

And this is exactly the kind of thing, the truth if you will, that people
don't want to hear. They are so happy to "study" the opening -- because for
non-contact-fight openings, they don't have to read fights! They're so happy
to talk about big points, "direction", moyo, miai points, etc. etc.

And as soon as a fight starts, all hell breaks loose.

Of course, this is not to say the opening is not important.
Of course, it's good to study it, too. But relatively,
the mid-game fighting skills are much more important for kyu levels,
and at least low-dan levels.
Maybe Bill and mitsun can share that mid-game fighting is still very
important for high dans and pro levels.

[daal]

And as soon as a fight starts, all hell breaks loose.

Of course, this is not to say the opening is not important.
Of course, it's good to study it, too. But relatively,
the mid-game fighting skills are much more important for kyu levels,
and at least low-dan levels.

I heartily agree. Without fighting skills, one cannot achieve one's objectives. This raises two questions:

1. How do we get strong at fighting?
2. What objectives should we be aiming for?

Before skipping question 1, because the answer is a bit obvious, I would like to ask a follow-up question: Why are so many of us so lousy at this core competency?

As to 2, I think this is where EdLee's theme of understanding re-arises. We can have the objective to capture some stones, to secure a group, to make an advantageous trade of influence for territory etc., etc. Which objectives should we be following at any particular point in a specific game? How do we decide? In his book Fighting Fundamentals, Robert Jasiek takes the approach of defining all possible objectives, which he also categorizes as primary and secondary aims. The idea is that by being aware of possible objectives, we can better choose among them. Unfortunately, knowledge of something does not necessarily equate to awareness of something, particularly in the heat of battle. Nonetheless, this does represent one approach to leveling-up one's understanding of objectives. What are others?