Is it possible to improve your reading depth/visualization?

[Kuros]

For example, when I do tsumego and I have to read out a long (7+ moves) squeeze sequence or similar, the stones early on in a sequence tend to get "fuzzy" and in case they get reactivated later in the sequence this becomes a liability.

Is it possible to improve this by focused training or is it one of those properties of our brains that are unfortunately just unimprovable?

Do you happen to have any anecdotes when it comes to this, have you been able to improve your reading clarity/depth?

[Kirby]

There is one thing that has helped me a little (I think), which I kind of already knew, but maybe practice more due to Robert Jasiek's book on Tactical Reading.

Like you said, when you start reading really deeply, it can be difficult to keep track of where all of the stones are in memory.

But it's (usually) not difficult to look at a problem where you just have to read a single move ahead. When you're just reading a single move, it's easy to answer the question: Is black alive or dead here? But if you have to read two moves ahead instead of one, that's a little more difficult. So if you have a problem where you have to read two moves ahead, consider each of your candidate moves, and for each of those candidate moves, you only have to read one move ahead - and once you do that, remember that label.

Maybe that's confusing...

Basically, if you accept that reading 1 move ahead is easy from a given position, then visualize that far into the problem, and read 1 move ahead for each candidate move. Once you've read 1 move ahead, for each candidate move, you have a definite result. Then if you want to read 2 moves ahead, don't read 2 moves ahead - read 1 move ahead using the result you stored from the last step. Then store this result. Then if you want to read 3 moves ahead, don't read 3 moves ahead - read 1 move ahead using the result from the last step.

Sounds confusing even to me, and I'm writing this. But I think the method works if you get what I'm trying to say.

[EdLee]

tend to get "fuzzy"...

...properties of our brains that are unfortunately just unimprovable?

When you're just reading a single move, it's easy to answer the question: Is black alive or dead here?

Kuros' questions are perennial in Go.

As a complete layman in neural science, I have these questions:

- What was your age when you started Go? ( By "you" I mean for every Go person. )
From anecdotal evidence and my personal experiences (myself, and other friends),
I know the starting age makes a huge difference in terms of reading in Go (visualizing stones in the brain).

- How does age correlate to reading ability ? ( Not binary; a continuum ? )
In general, the younger the better. But, How, exactly ? ( Continuum ? )

- Related: Is there some significant change in reading ability around the Starting age 10-15 ? ( Continuum ? )

- Related: Is there some significant change in reading ability around the Starting age 20-25 ? ( Continuum ? )

- Related: Is there some significant change in reading ability around the Starting age 30 ? ( Continuum ? )

- What exactly does the brain see when one reads in Go ? ( Continuum ? )
I'm not interesting in the philosophical question (Is my 'red' the same as your 'red' ?);
I'm interested in the actual, physiological, and neural differences when different brains read in Go.
This means actual research.

remember that label.

for each candidate move, you have a definite result.

using the result from the last step.

I suspect there's some cross-talking (non-overlap areas) between Kuros' questions and Kirby's perspective.
I think the questions above may shed some light.

Take an extreme (contrived?) example:
Take a person, Bob, with "normal" color vision.
Take another person, Joe, with "severe" color vision impairment.
( Already, I don't know the neural science behind color visions.
The point is that reading stones in the brain could be a physiological, neural question,
and not a psychological, thought-process, managerial/organizational problem. )

We have a box of balls, either red, blue, yellow, or green.
We take a random ball from the box, and ask Bob and Joe what color is it.
This is a sample result, for the same ball for each person:
Bob: Red. Joe: I don't know.
Bob: Blue. Joe: I don't know.
Bob: Yellow. Joe: I don't know.
Bob: Green. Joe: I don't know.
Bob: Red. Joe: I don't know.
Bob: Green. Joe: I don't know.
...

This is taking Kirby's "process steps" to an extreme:
at each step, unlike Kirby's idea of "definite", "stored result", and "label",
what Joe sees for each step is "Unclear/fuzzy".

Back to Kirby's step 1, to read a single move ahead: is it alive or dead ?
I suspect the answer, unlike what Kirby suggests, is not necessarily binary.
I suspect for some people, they can "see" the single move more clearly than others.
See the above questions again.

As for the status: is it alive or dead -- well, it's "unclear" --
either B is alive, B is dead, W is alive, W is dead, ko (what kind of ko?), or seki.

At each step, as Kuros said the stones are "fuzzy".
I suspect the stones have different degrees of clarity and fuzziness,
depending, once again, on the above questions, and the particular shape.

Questions:

What part(s) of the brain do we use when we read in Go ?

If it turns out that Kuros' questions stem from certain areas of the brain,
whereas Kirby's step process involves other, unrelated areas of the brain for managerial/organizational problem solving,
then we have an interesting situation (cross-talking, non-overlapping of discussion).

( Another (contrived?) example: why is it so difficult or even impossible for certain people
to reduce or completely eliminate their accent with a non-native language if they started learning
that non-native language after a certain age ? Is it because certain neurons which were never activated
have died ( during some age range ) and they are simply missing for the new non-native language ?
The non-native speaker simply cannot, physiologically, hear certain non-native tones.

If reading in Go has any similarity to color vision or accents in non-native languages,
then it seems any managerial or organizational process is not very helpful,
because at each step, the answer is "I don't know -- I cannot see colors; or I cannot hear this tone." )

Research needed, please.

[Kirby]

@EdLee:
I'm not sure what you are implying by noting my use of words like "definite" and "result"; my intention isn't to say that someone can read any position with definite clarity or anything.

What I'm trying to express is that a complex reading problem can be broken up into smaller pieces that are easier to manage. At the "leaf" of the game tree, problems are much easier. So if you can come to intermediate conclusions about those leaves, you can in a way, propagate the result of these smaller subtrees up the tree so that you have a simpler problem to deal with.

Reading can certainly be difficult, and sometimes a definite answer is difficult to find. Nonetheless, we can make it simpler by breaking the problem up in an organized manner.

[EdLee]

Hi Kirby,

There was a small text "editing..." at the start of my post --
I was still in the middle of a massive editing session when you replied.

If we take my (contrived?) examples above,
if you have "normal" color vision, and Joe has "severe" color vision impairment;
or, if you are a native English speaker (who can correctly pronounce the English consonants L and R),
and Joe is a non-naive English speaker who started learning English at age 40,
it seems any organizational stepping process may not help him (at all) ?
Because at each step, what he experiences is "Unclear -- I don't see colors.";
or, "I cannot hear the difference between the English L, the English R, and my native closest consonant -- all three sound identical to me."

I suspect color vision (impairment) and accents in non-native languages
are probably both not binary but a continuum.
I suspect the same for reading in Go.

[Kirby]

Hi Kirby,

There was a small text "editing..." at the start of my post --
I was still in the middle of a massive editing session when you replied.

If we take my (contrived?) example above,
if you have "normal" color vision, and Joe has "severe" color vision impairment,
it seems any organizational stepping process may not help him (at all) ?
Because at each step, what he sees is "Unclear -- I don't see colors."

Interesting. I didn't really see the problem this way, because my view is that something "fuzzy" can become "less fuzzy" if you drill down far enough. That's what I'm trying to get at in saying that you can break a complicated problem down into manageable pieces. Maybe the problem from the starting point is fuzzy and unclear. But I suspect, with enough drilling down, you can solve it.

So to your example about ball colors, I'd suspect the conversation could go like this:

"What color is this ball?"
Bob: Red. Joe: I don't know. Bob: Well, does the color of this ball more closely match that of this (red) piece of paper, or this (blue) piece of paper?

Maybe Joe isn't that familiar with how colors work, and by drilling down on the question, perhaps Joe can eventually get to a solution. The exception to this would be, of course, if Joe is totally blind to colors and has no way of answering the question, "What color is this?", even after dissecting the question.

I refuse to believe that this is the case with Go. Simplicity is part of the beauty of the game. If you break a complicated situation down enough, you eventually get to a simpler problem.

[EdLee]

I refuse to believe that this is the case with Go.

Why, Kirby ? This viewpoint seems quite strange to me,
because all of my anecdotal evidence (and personal experiences, myself, and others I know)
all point to a neural (visual cortex/processing) scenario.
( Is it perhaps because you started Go relatively ...*gasp*... young ? )

I keep a more open mind: more research needed.
Why would you refuse to believe this ? Without having seen strong evidence either way ?
( From what I've seen and experienced personally, the evidence strongly points to a neural, visual processing issue. )

BTW, I'm curious about my first question: the respective Starting age of you, and Kuros.
( I would not be surprised if there is a 10 year or greater difference. )

BTW2, I suspect why it's so difficult for certain high-dan level Go people (say, pros)
to teach adult beginners (say, starting age over 40).
From what I've gathered, Mr. Kaz seems to be one of the very very few
who have experienced the age factor and how it correlates to reading in Go (when he teaches adults).

And that's why here on the forum and KGS, etc., I alway feel this massive divide:
people who started Go young (age range?) v. people who started Go later (age range?) --
the former group has great difficulty to understand the problems faced by the latter.

That's why it's so important to know the starting age -- if we're discussing how to improve at Go.

[Kirby]

I refuse to believe that this is the case with Go.

Why, Kirby ? This viewpoint seems quite strange to me,
because all of my anecdotal evidence (and personal experiences, myself, and others I know)
all point to a neural (visual cortex/processing) scenario.

If you know the rules of Go, you can read 1 move ahead on a given board position. If you can read 1 move ahead on a given board position, with enough time iterating over different 1-move sequences, you can read 2 moves ahead. If you can read 2-moves ahead, with enough time iterating over different 2-move sequences, you can read 3 moves ahead. If you want to read X-moves ahead, with enough time iterating over different (X-1)-move sequences, you can read that far ahead.

The rules of Go are very simple compared to other games. Situations can get complex, but fundamentally, they are always composed of smaller subproblems.

I believe that, regardless of your "blindness" to Go, there exists a subproblem small enough for you to solve.

It's just much easier and faster for some than others.

[EdLee]

If you know the rules of Go, you can read 1 move ahead on a given board position. If you can read 1 move ahead on a given board position, with enough time iterating over different 1-move sequences, you can read 2 moves ahead. If you can read 2-moves ahead, with enough time iterating over different 2-move sequences, you can read 3 moves ahead. If you want to read X-moves ahead, with enough time iterating over different (X-1)-move sequences, you can read that far ahead.

This is our dichotomy, Kirby. At each step, from your perspective, it's a binary situation (either-or).
I disagree. At each step, it's a fuzzy situation (specifically, for people who started Go later in life;
and literally, visually fuzzy in the brain -- what Kuros and many others directly experience in their brain;
and each further step gets fuzzier and fuzzier! )

We're repeating ourselves, in circles.
I will stop here -- more research needed.

( Actually, it's too bad I don't have a Photoshop-like editor handy --
does anyone know some freeware app to "blur" a JPEG ?
I can actually visually show Kirby what adult-late-Starters see in the brain (approx.) --
to give him and other youngsters some idea of the problems faced by late-Starters. )

[Kirby]

Ok. I agree we are repeating ourselves.

But it is hard for me to see how reading 1-move ahead is not binary at a terminal position - "This is what the board looks like after you play the move". Looking just 1-move ahead, if the position is fuzzy, ask yourself why it is fuzzy? What do you need to know so that it will not be fuzzy? The answer is there.

Go is not a magical game where information is irretrievable. Difficult to retrieve? Sometimes. Difficult to remember? Sure. Impossible to retrieve? I don't think so.

[Kirby]

FWIW, I'm not saying that it's not difficult. I'm just saying that the information is there to read ahead.

No matter how good you are at reading, you can break the problem up into a smaller piece (until you get down to reading 1-move ahead).

If we just stop and say, "Looks fuzzy. Can't do anything." Then you're stuck and cannot improve.

[EdLee]

Looking just 1-move ahead, if the position is fuzzy, ask yourself why it is fuzzy?

Did you read anything I wrote ? I said, the evidence strongly suggests it's a neural, visual processing issue, relating to the starting age of Go.
( I didn't say "definitely"; just strong evidence. )

[Kirby]

Looking just 1-move ahead, if the position is fuzzy, ask yourself why it is fuzzy?

Did you read anything I wrote ? I said, the evidence strongly suggests it's a neural, visual processing issue, relating to the starting age of Go.
( I didn't say "definitely"; just strong evidence. )

I read what you wrote, but maybe I don't understand (or maybe you're not understanding what I wrote?).

"neural, visual processing issue"

> I interpret this to mean that some people have a harder time visualizing stones. Is this possible? Sure. But even if you have a "fuzzy" image of stones, can you not break the problem down into a smaller problem? Does this not make it easier than solving the larger problem?

To say more clearly, when I am faced with a difficult life and death problem - yes. It is fuzzy. That does not mean that it is unsolvable. It means that I need to break the problem down into pieces that I can manage.

Are you arguing that the board is so fuzzy for some people that they are incapable of breaking the problem into smaller pieces?

[EdLee]

If we just stop and say, "Looks fuzzy. Can't do anything." Then you're stuck and cannot improve.

Kirby, I don't know what it is, but why do you turn this (once again) into binary ? Yes or no. Black and white. Either or ?

I never said "Can't do anything". I said it's a continuum; and more research needed.
I don't know why, but your position seems very closed "I refuse to believe..."

My position is actually open: that it's unclear (fuzzy), but that more research needed.

If it turns out there is indeed a managerial, organizational solution to reading in Go;
and that is it not a neural, visual processing issue;
or, that the organizational solution can overcome the neural visual issue,
I'll be the first person to celebrate it.

I need to photo-blur some board positions, Kirby, give me some time
to find a free app at the App store...

[Kirby]

I never said "Can't do anything". I said it's a continuum; and more research needed.
I don't know why, but your position seems very closed "I refuse to believe..."

Yes. I refuse to believe that a complicated problem cannot be broken into a smaller problem in Go, until you reach some terminal state.

A problem in Go is comprised of smaller subproblems. I don't see why this is controversial.

That's why I asked the clarifying question, "Are you arguing that the board is so fuzzy for some people that they are incapable of breaking the problem into smaller pieces?"

Because this is what it seems to me that you are arguing. Otherwise, we might not be in disagreement. I agree that the board is "fuzzier" for some people than others.