Is it possible to improve your reading depth/visualization?

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 12:16 pm

Hi Kirby,

I don't have any photo editors to blur anything
(whole JPEG, or selected portions of it, such as individual stones).

Example:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . X O . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . X X O . ? ? . . ? . . . . . $$ | . O O . ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . . $$ | . . . . ? ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . $$ | . . X ? ? ? ? ? . , . . . . . $$ | . . . . ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . ? ? ? . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ --------------------------------[/go]

The above is roughly the image in a late-Starter's brain, after some reading.
What's the next move ?

Here are the steps to reach the above brain image:

This is the current (partial) board. White wants to know if W(a) works,
but there's a possible capture race at the bottom.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . X O . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . X X O . O O . . a . . . . . $$ | . O O . O X X X X . . . . . . $$ | . . . . X O X O O O . . . . . $$ | . . X X . O O X . , . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ --------------------------------[/go]

As I have no photo-blur apps, please imagine (visualize) a gradual increase in blurriness
in each step -- I have no idea if the fuzzy curve is linear, or exponential, or wavy, or what.
But at each move, increase the blurriness, until at the limit of White's reading ability,
it basically reaches close to 100% fuzziness.

Move 1:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . X O . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . X X O . O O . . ? . . . . . $$ | . O O . O X X X X . . . . . . $$ | . . . . X O X O O O . . . . . $$ | . . X X . O O X . , . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . X . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ --------------------------------[/go]

Move 2: (Remember in the late-Starter's brain, this is only slightly more fuzzy than Move 1 --
as I have no photo-blur tools, can only use the binary '?' in the diagrams.)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . X O . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . X X O . ? ? . . ? . . . . . $$ | . O O . ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . . $$ | . . . . ? ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . $$ | . . X ? . ? ? ? . , . . . . . $$ | . . . . . ? . . ? . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ --------------------------------[/go]

Move 3: (Again, gradual increase the fuzziness to here, etc.)

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . X O . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . X X O . ? ? . . ? . . . . . $$ | . O O . ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . . $$ | . . . . ? ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . $$ | . . X ? . ? ? ? . , . . . . . $$ | . . . . . ? ? . ? . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ --------------------------------[/go]

Move 4:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . X O . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . X X O . ? ? . . ? . . . . . $$ | . O O . ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . . $$ | . . . . ? ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . $$ | . . X ? . ? ? ? . , . . . . . $$ | . . . . . ? ? . ? . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . ? . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ --------------------------------[/go]

Move 5:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . X O . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . X X O . ? ? . . ? . . . . . $$ | . O O . ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . . $$ | . . . . ? ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . $$ | . . X ? . ? ? ? . , . . . . . $$ | . . . . . ? ? . ? . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . ? ? . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ --------------------------------[/go]

Move 6:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . X O . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . X X O . ? ? . . ? . . . . . $$ | . O O . ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . . $$ | . . . . ? ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . $$ | . . X ? ? ? ? ? . , . . . . . $$ | . . . . . ? ? . ? . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . ? ? . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ --------------------------------[/go]

Move 7:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . X O . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . X X O . ? ? . . ? . . . . . $$ | . O O . ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . . $$ | . . . . ? ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . $$ | . . X ? ? ? ? ? . , . . . . . $$ | . . . . ? . ? . ? . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . ? ? . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ --------------------------------[/go]

Move 8:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . X O . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . X X O . ? ? . . ? . . . . . $$ | . O O . ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . . $$ | . . . . ? ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . $$ | . . X ? ? ? ? ? . , . . . . . $$ | . . . . ? . ? ? ? . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . ? ? . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ --------------------------------[/go]

Move 9:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . X O . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . X X O . ? ? . . ? . . . . . $$ | . O O . ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . . $$ | . . . . ? ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . $$ | . . X ? ? ? ? ? . , . . . . . $$ | . . . . ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . ? ? . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ --------------------------------[/go]

Move 10:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . X O . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . X X O . ? ? . . ? . . . . . $$ | . O O . ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . . $$ | . . . . ? ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . $$ | . . X ? ? ? ? ? . , . . . . . $$ | . . . . ? ? ? ? ? . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . ? ? ? . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ --------------------------------[/go]

In fact, the final position is in some ways clearer than in the late-Starter's brain:
we can count each liberty very clear -- in their brain, even some liberties are blurred.

If I have a photo-editor, I would gradually blur even the lines --
the entire "reading area" image is blurred more and more with each step.

With each step, the late-Starter is not even sure which stone is B and which stone is W.
And this uncertainty only increases.

Do you now see what I mean -- you seem to think (from your personal experience
in your own brain) that at each step, all the information is clear and binary --
whereas for some late-Starters, the color of each stone is unclear.

That's why Kuros, and I, and many other late-Starters keep saying "fuzzy".
And you (and many others very lucky to have started Go earlier in life)
keep saying "just work harder, read deeper, remember at each step the definite status."

But for some (certainly not all) late-Starters, many, many aspects at each step is fuzzy,
including the color of each stone, or whether there is even a stone at a particular spot --
imagine, captures, throw-ins, kos, etc.

And this is just one variation.

( From a recent thread , move 46 )

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 12:34 pm

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

Kirby, at this point, this discussion is treading dangerously close to an area that violates the terms.
So I'll be very careful and will stop soon.

I'll try it at another angle, the last time: What evidence, if any, would change your mind ?

I ask because your position and reply remind me (unfortunately, very frighteningly) of another (very publicized) dialogue in recent years:

Questioner. "What evidence, if any, would it take to change your mind ? "
Person A. "Oh, it's very easy: anything, any evidence at all, that shows the current theory is wrong. Examples: AAA, BBB, CCC, etc."
Person B. "Nothing. I believe in this [YYY], and I refuse to believe otherwise."

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 12:54 pm

Thanks for clarifying, Ed.

The board is fuzzy for me, too, when the situation is complicated enough. But a single position is not fuzzy.

Let's consider a ladder:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ | . . . . . . ? ? ? . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . ? ? ? ? . . . . . . $$ | . . . . ? ? ? ? . . . . . . . $$ | . . . ? ? ? ? . . . . . . . . $$ | . . X ? ? ? . . . . . . . . . $$ | . X O ? ? . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ --------------------------------[/go]

It's really fuzzy if I try to keep the entire sequence in my head. I don't think I really see all of these stones.

But I *can* imagine a single stone.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . X O W . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ --------------------------------[/go]

That's 1 move ahead. OK. I can do that. It's a lot less fuzzy than trying to imagine the whole thing.

Even another couple of moves is still much clearer:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . X 2 . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . X O O 1 . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . X X . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ --------------------------------[/go]

But now, the original part of the problem doesn't matter. It's OK to have the rest of the problem as "fuzzy":

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . ? O . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . ? ? ? X . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . ? ? . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ --------------------------------[/go]

All that matters is the part I'm working on now.

And as you go up the ladder, it can still stay fuzzy, as long as the part you are working on stays clear:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code: [go]$$ $$ | . . . . . . X O W . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . ? ? O X . . . . . . $$ | . . . . ? ? ? ? . . . . . . . $$ | . . . ? ? ? ? . . . . . . . . $$ | . . ? ? ? ? . . . . . . . . . $$ | . ? ? ? ? . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . ? ? . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $$ --------------------------------[/go]

Once I reach a terminal state - a ladder breaker, for example, or perhaps some conclusion that the ladder works for black... Then I can propagate this information backwards and simply have the conclusion: "the ladder works" or "the ladder doesn't work".

---

So I buy the argument that the board is fuzzier for some people than for others - maybe if you're older, it's even more fuzzy. But if you can visualize just a tiny bit, you can use this small buffer as your "working memory" and draw conclusions as you explore the search tree. If the rest of the board is fuzzy, that's fine.

And my suspicion is that, if you keep exercising this "working memory", you can increase its capacity so that you can hold more "non-fuzzy" stones in your head at a given time.

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 12:56 pm

EdLee wrote:Kirby, at this point, this discussion is treading dangerously close to an area that violates the terms.
So I'll be very careful and will stop soon.

I don't think that disagreeing with one another and discussing it is against the terms of service. This is a forum for discussing Go. I don't take anything here personally, and I hope that you don't either.

EdLee wrote:I'll try it at another angle, the last time: What evidence, if any, would change your mind ?

It would help to know more clearly what you are trying to get me to understand. It's not clear to me if you are simply saying that the board is fuzzier for some people than others (I agree with this), or if you are saying that the board is fuzzy enough for some people that they cannot read.

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:01 pm

Hi Kirby,

I, too, would like to find some ways to improve.
If I took the position "stuck, can't do anything about it" as you said, I would've quit some time ago.

Anyway, I do hope there are ways to improve our reading,
regardless of the clarity or fuzziness in each of us.

Kirby wrote:if you keep exercising this "working memory", you can increase its capacity so that you can hold more "non-fuzzy" stones in your head at a given time.

I hope so, too -- I'm not sure, maybe we're not disagreeing.

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:06 pm

EdLee wrote:Hi Kirby,

I, too, would like to find some ways to improve.
If I took the position "stuck, can't do anything about it" as you said, I would've quit some time ago.

I'm not sure what we disagree about, then...?

Also, FWIW, I started Go in my 20s - not that old, but also not that young, either :-)

Post by **Solomon** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:31 pm

It seems to me that in this discussion between EdLee and Kirby, there is a mixup of two things being considered as one: one's visual perception of the board and the state of the board itself. Yes, on the board at any given position, a sequence that needs to be read can be broken down into simpler subsequences and can be considered binary. However, one's perception of the board, even for a position in terminal state where only 1 move needs to be read out, may make it difficult to perceive, analyze, and understand it. For more than 1 move, it is even more difficult.

Just to clarify what I'm trying to say, there is nothing binary in a person visually processing a position on the board to read 1 move ahead, but the requirement itself of reading 1 move ahead in a given position on the board is itself binary. No one is saying that a complicated position on the board can't be reduced to a simpler one; it's not what EdLee is trying to argue it seems. And lastly, it seems the debate is pretty civil and the discussion is interesting and relevant to Go, so I don't think it's against TOS.

Krama · Post by **Krama** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:53 pm

I am wondering if you could show a ladder (big one across the board that bends somewhere) to a pro and let them read it out.

Then simply point at one of the intersections somewhere randomly in the path of the ladder and ask them which stone is there.

They only have a moment to respond.

Since they already did read it out they should remember which stone is at the intersection I am pointing at.

But is it really like that?

EdLee · Post by **EdLee** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 2:04 pm

Krama wrote:Since they already did read it out they should remember which stone is at the intersection I am pointing at.
But is it really like that?

Hi Krama, I believe the answer to your specific question is no.

It depends greatly on the purpose of the person reading the particular ladder.
If -- and it's an important if -- if all that matters is the result of the ladder (good for B or W?),
then that's the only piece of information that matters to the reader.

Post by **Solomon** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 2:04 pm

Krama wrote:I am wondering if you could show a ladder (big one across the board that bends somewhere) to a pro and let them read it out.

Then simply point at one of the intersections somewhere randomly in the path of the ladder and ask them which stone is there.

They only have a moment to respond.

Since they already did read it out they should remember which stone is at the intersection I am pointing at.

But is it really like that?

https://youtu.be/9-wtIpTzyk4?t=21m08s

Krama · Post by **Krama** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 2:18 pm

Solomon wrote:
Krama wrote:I am wondering if you could show a ladder (big one across the board that bends somewhere) to a pro and let them read it out.

Then simply point at one of the intersections somewhere randomly in the path of the ladder and ask them which stone is there.

They only have a moment to respond.

Since they already did read it out they should remember which stone is at the intersection I am pointing at.

But is it really like that?

https://youtu.be/9-wtIpTzyk4?t=21m08s

Haha.. so here is what happened. I was reading it out and I concluded the ladder was good.. and then the pro said it wasn't so I kinda felt bad. So I tried to read again and I just couldn't understand why it isn't working.

Then I checked the comment section

Kirby · Post by **Kirby** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 2:30 pm

Krama wrote:I am wondering if you could show a ladder (big one across the board that bends somewhere) to a pro and let them read it out.Then simply point at one of the intersections somewhere randomly in the path of the ladder and ask them which stone is there.They only have a moment to respond.Since they already did read it out they should remember which stone is at the intersection I am pointing at.But is it really like that?

I think it is not like that, and that's the main point I've been reiterating in this thread. Specifically, I believe it is possible for anyone to break up a problem into smaller pieces - you don't have to keep the entire thing in your head. Then, when you have solutions to subproblems, you can put them together to solve the larger problem.

I think pros probably do this, too, but they probably can handle larger subproblems at a time.

For the rest of us, it's pretty "fuzzy" until the problems are small enough to manage :-)

Krama · Post by **Krama** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:32 pm

Kirby wrote:
Krama wrote:I am wondering if you could show a ladder (big one across the board that bends somewhere) to a pro and let them read it out.Then simply point at one of the intersections somewhere randomly in the path of the ladder and ask them which stone is there.They only have a moment to respond.Since they already did read it out they should remember which stone is at the intersection I am pointing at.But is it really like that?

I think it is not like that, and that's the main point I've been reiterating in this thread. Specifically, I believe it is possible for anyone to break up a problem into smaller pieces - you don't have to keep the entire thing in your head. Then, when you have solutions to subproblems, you can put them together to solve the larger problem.

I think pros probably do this, too, but they probably can handle larger subproblems at a time.

For the rest of us, it's pretty "fuzzy" until the problems are small enough to manage

I wonder if there are some kind of savants or people who have certain memory skills that enable them to clearly see any stones they are visualizing. I guess it would be the same as clicking through variations on your go client, probably much faster also.

It would be amazing to possess a skill like that.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:36 pm

Krama wrote:I am wondering if you could show a ladder (big one across the board that bends somewhere) to a pro and let them read it out.

Then simply point at one of the intersections somewhere randomly in the path of the ladder and ask them which stone is there.

They only have a moment to respond.

Since they already did read it out they should remember which stone is at the intersection I am pointing at.

But is it really like that?

Not really.

How far one can push the analogy between brains and computers is unclear. However, what is clear from linguistics and cognitive science research is that humans prefer depth first search and have a fairly shallow stack or stacks. Humans also do parallel processing, but that is not conscious. Humans also redo parts of conscious search trees, despite the admonitions of Kotov and some others not to do so. Basically what this means is that human conscious working memory is limited.

Now, calculating a ladder is basically depth first search, which means that it puts little strain on the conscious working memory. It also means that, once part of the ladder has been calculated, unless it includes a branch point, as a rule it may be forgotten without loss of accuracy. And that means that if you point at an intersection on or near the path of the already calculated ladder, there is no guarantee whatsoever that it will be remembered whether it is empty or has a Black or White stone on it.

True, there are problems where a ladder doubles back on itself and it is crucial to remember earlier parts of the ladder, but how often does that happen in real life?

Also, Redmond's commentary indicates that much of pros' visualizations are processed unconsciously and simply spring to mind. That happens with experienced amateurs, as well, if not to the same extent. But that is another matter.

Bill Spight · Post by **Bill Spight** » Mon Mar 21, 2016 3:45 pm

Krama wrote:I wonder if there are some kind of savants or people who have certain memory skills that enable them to clearly see any stones they are visualizing. I guess it would be the same as clicking through variations on your go client, probably much faster also.

It would be amazing to possess a skill like that.

See viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3882&hilit=savant

Also see viewtopic.php?f=15&t=12287&hilit=savant

Life In 19x19

Is it possible to improve your reading depth/visualization?

Re: Is it possible to improve your reading depth/visualizati

Re:

Re:

Re: Is it possible to improve your reading depth/visualizati

Re: Is it possible to improve your reading depth/visualizati

Re: Is it possible to improve your reading depth/visualizati

Re: Is it possible to improve your reading depth/visualizati

Re: Is it possible to improve your reading depth/visualizati

Re: Is it possible to improve your reading depth/visualizati

Re: Is it possible to improve your reading depth/visualizati

Re: Is it possible to improve your reading depth/visualizati