Is it possible to improve your reading depth/visualization?

[John Fairbairn]

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 have seen Mrs Sugiuchi (just turned 89, still active like hubbie) do essentially this, only faster than a moment. When I asked her how she did that, she looked dumbfounded as if to say: It's a ladder, dummy. But I now know it was nearly all covered by the rule of six in the Dunhuang Go Classic a millennium and a half ago, so she was entitled to her arched eyebrows.

Because such rules exist for ladders, they are not a good test of depth of reading. Similarly for things like the L-shape, crane's nest and quite a few other things where little rules (pattern descriptions) produce major short-cuts.

The chess world has produced many books/articles on how to read/analyse since Kotov, and seem to have made new insights. My shorthand summary: most people think Kotov sucks, but they can't seem to agree much among themselves; they all want to claim the better mousetrap.

[hyperpape]

Also: what is it like to read out a ladder? viewtopic.php?f=10&t=12615&hilit=ladder

[Calvin Clark]

I worry that Kuros hasn't responded and we are talking among ourselves now. If the OP still cares, I may add something.

[skydyr]

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

Cho U has some tsumego books out that follow this concept, with an initial harder problem given. The answers diagram then has refutations for some simpler sequences, but the correct sequence is then given as a followup problem a few moves along that is of somewhat easier difficulty. This continues onward, so a given problem of some difficulty may actually have 10 easier subproblems behind it in the book covering different aspects of the original problem.

Most of the problems he has done like this are way beyond my level, but it's still possible to get something out of them by looking at the subproblems. Granted, it would probably help even more if I could read the explanations (in Japanese).

[Bill Spight]

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

Cho U has some tsumego books out that follow this concept, with an initial harder problem given. The answers diagram then has refutations for some simpler sequences, but the correct sequence is then given as a followup problem a few moves along that is of somewhat easier difficulty. This continues onward, so a given problem of some difficulty may actually have 10 easier subproblems behind it in the book covering different aspects of the original problem.

Most of the problems he has done like this are way beyond my level, but it's still possible to get something out of them by looking at the subproblems. Granted, it would probably help even more if I could read the explanations (in Japanese).

Before I bought Cho U no tsumego, I checked out the customer reviews on Amazon Japan. To my surprise, more than one DDK reviewer liked the book, and got something out of it. I expect that the subproblems had a good bit to do with that.

[Kuros]

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.

That's more or less what I'm doing. The problem is that each sub-result gets more and more difficult to store the more stones it involves, and it also gets more difficult to reason about the sub-result since I have to utilize even more of my working memory in the reasoning process itself.

I'm curious about my first question: the respective Starting age of you, and Kuros.

I was in my late 20's.

I worry that Kuros hasn't responded and we are talking among ourselves now. If the OP still cares, I may add something.

Please do!

Thanks for your interesting discussions, but I still don't know if it's possible to improve my visualization depth and clarity by practicing or if it's all a matter of working memory which seems to have a hard limit.

[Calvin Clark]

I'll try to be brief, which is hard for me, so I'll give one tip on the depth path. I am 48. From about December 2015 to early March 2016 I have somehow improved my reading ability by about 2 stones, as measured by the level of problems in goproblems.com / SmartGo that I can solve with 50% accuracy. (I have been doing that since I was a 20k or so in pretty much the same way.) It's had some positive effect on my online games, but I am not sure it is stable enough to preserve. It's looking like about 2 stones, but only time will tell and I may be wrong.

For training, I use other problems than the ones I test myself with. My real work begins after I have attempted to solve a problem, whether I am successful or not. Solving a lot of problems, moving on to the next one immediately after solving (or not solving) literally stopped helping me at some point in my go career.

One challenge is depth itself. To concentrate on this, I remove every other factor, even the move choice part. So after I know the main line to a problem (whether by solving it or looking it up) I spend time re-visualizing that line. I do this maybe 5-10 times---whatever it takes to get some smoothness---then I start adding key variations or asking myself mental questions about the position at intermediate steps---how many liberties in this string of stones? Is this other move sente?

I look at the problem again, and ask myself: why I didn't a see the main line as fluently the first time as I just visualized it? There is usually an unfamiliar shape, or order of moves that is not what I expected. I write down these blind spots for future reference, though I admit I don't have a good use for these notes yet. Sometimes I miss the opponent's strongest move, but that's a breadth thing, which is another topic.

For me, I had to discard the notion that accidentally memorizing things through repetition was somehow bad.

I do fewer problems than in the past and repeat them a lot. This is post-solution. The solution is already memorized, that's not the point. The point is fluency, to internalize new shapes, tesujis and patterns. A musician doesn't just sight-read all the time, right?

Some players may consider the above approach to be heresy, but if you're doing everything the "right" way and not improving, is there anything to lose?

[OtakuViking]

To give you (OP) a straight answer instead of delving into a convoluted philosophical debate (wiggle eyebrows@kirby+ed).

Yes it is possible for anyone to improve the stone visualization and reading ability.

As for concrete methods to employ, there are a few ones. Kageyama Toshiro in his chapter on ladders, suggests that you start by laying out a short ladder and visualizing every move in said ladder, then when you can do that perfectly. Elongate the ladder and keep going until you can visualize a ladder stretching across the entire board. Note, this may not be perfect visualization and not 'clear color vision' but more a feeling like you know that there's a black stone here and a white stone there.

Once you have accomplished reading out a ladder spanding the entire board, you can challenge yourself by trying some Gokyo Shumyo ladder problems. They are extremely hard to fully visualize in your head if you aren't young and strong (ama 5d maybe). Also, when I went through gokyo shumyo the first time, it struck me that this ancient go manual was made as an over-all kind of manual. It didn't specifically hone in on tesuji problems, endgame problems or life and death, but covered a more broad range of shapes. So if the go student only had Gokyo shumyo, it makes sense that the author would include these long, winding ladder problems simply to help the student increase his visualization abilities. The ladder problems themselves do not contain any mindblowing techniques or weird complications. They are just very long and requires the challenger to visualize well.

So suggestion number 1. Ladder problems, gradually more advanced. Even if you can't fully read out the Gokyo Shumyo ladder problems, you can still try them just don't look at the solution for these, since the entire point of the Gokyo Shumyo ladder problems is to increase your visualization ability.

Suggestion number 2. is to solve simple tsumego in your head, by first remembering the problem, then closing your eyes and solving it without your eyes. (Cho Chikun's elementary go problems@ https://tsumego.tasuki.org/ fit well for this exercise).

Suggestion number 3. Play slow games on KGS and simply force yourself to read ahead, even in simple joseki's, visualize the shape and compare board positions.

Suggestion number 4. Solve challenging tsumego without looking at the answer. This is tough and hard, and takes a long time so it is the least recommended method if you simply wish to increase your visualization ability.

Number 5. Solve many tsumego below your current level, and make sure you read out/visualize all the sequences that exist in all of these easy problems, even the failure variations. This is very effective and I can heartily recommend this method along with the ladder method.


That's it for now. There are probably other ways, but these seem like the main ones to me. I've tried them all and know they all work to some extent. Try them all and see what works for you.

[daal]

I've also tried OtakuViking's 5 suggestions, and I agree with him that they all work to some extent. Clearly though, they worked better for him (5d) than for me (5k). My reading skill has developed from laughable to sad, and EdLee's observation that starting late often coincides with fuzzy visualizing ability is supported by my experience. OTOH, although my reading has improvesd only minimally since my days as a 15k, (just yesterday I failed to read a 2 move sequence), my ability to recognize situations and employ strategies has allowed me to gain 10 stones. When I am faced with a reading situation, I hardly visualize anything, and instead think about the affect additional stones might have on a shape - do I smell a snapback? sense a shortage of liberties? fear a cut? I sometimes try to visualize a sequence to confirm my intuitions, but this is highly prone to error if the sequence has more than 5 or 6 moves, due to the unclarity of the state of stones imagined early in the sequence. So I tend to choose a move not because I have read a sequence, but rather because my experience tells me it has the best chance of working. Needless to say, this is a hit or miss method, but so is my reading.

Edit: revised my fuzzy threshold from 3 - 4 to 5 - 6. Just did some tsumego and realized I was underestimating my ability. I just don't take enough time in games.