Why do some people never reach shodan

[daal]

How does a 2200 player play differently from me? Of course his calculating skills are stronger and he know more patterns. But largely I think he just wants it more. He concentrates hard on every move, and if I pull ahead he will fight back hard on every move, instead of collapsing, lashing out, or marching glumly to the end as we all know it is easy to do. These are skills I can work on too, in go as well as chess.

This is something that has cropped up a few times in this discussion - it falls under "fighting spirit." You attribute it to your 2200 opponent wanting it more, but I suspect that there is also a big element of knowledge and experience. If you have seen and remember how it is possible to get out of a bind, to dig yourself out of a hole, to not drown in deep water, then you are all the more likely to believe it is possible and do what you can to make it happen.

Just today, an opponent of mine beat me in a situation where his one eyed group was surrounded, and instead of rolling over and dying, he kept pushing until one of the weak links broke. He knew from experience that instead of striving for a second eye that he couldn't get, it would be worth trying to capture some of the surrounding stones. I knew it too, but instead of keeping my stones safe and letting him out (where I could have continued to pressure him) I let greed get the best of me and died.

The idea of using spaced repetition to strengthen your pattern recognition seems quite good. I've often considered it with go, but haven't done it - partly because I don't really know what would be the best info to put on the cards. I've heard that Guo Juan has a spaced repetition system for studying on her website. Has anyone here tried it?

[Calvin Clark]

I've heard that Guo Juan has a spaced repetition system for studying on her website. Has anyone here tried it?

It is very well done. A good fraction of the lectures now have problem sets. I used to watch lectures, kind of nod my head and then forget much of it. The problems are based on the lectures and sometimes explore variations not covered in them. After the problem sets were added, the site became much more valuable. But you have to do it. When I thought it was helping me I was doing 150 problems day, but that was hard to sustain.

[Bill Spight]

I've heard that Guo Juan has a spaced repetition system for studying on her website. Has anyone here tried it?

When I thought it was helping me I was doing 150 problems day, but that was hard to sustain.

How about 150 problems per year? Now that's really spaced repetition.

[Bill Spight]

Just today, an opponent of mine beat me in a situation where his one eyed group was surrounded, and instead of rolling over and dying, he kept pushing until one of the weak links broke. He knew from experience that instead of striving for a second eye that he couldn't get, it would be worth trying to capture some of the surrounding stones. I knew it too, but instead of keeping my stones safe and letting him out (where I could have continued to pressure him) I let greed get the best of me and died.

I think that Knotwilg is on the right track in that not particularly technical aspects of go are where to place a good part of your energy now. Such as on concentration and on not being greedy. And, if I may add, on applying the technique that you have, such as by counting liberties.

The idea of using spaced repetition to strengthen your pattern recognition seems quite good. I've often considered it with go, but haven't done it - partly because I don't really know what would be the best info to put on the cards.

If I may make a suggestion, make use of the concept of just noticeable differences. Suppose that you have a problem that you missed or a game position that you misplayed. You can make a card for that position, but also make cards for similar positions with one stone removed or one stone added, or for positions where a stone is moved to an adjacent point. That will give you quite a number of possible cards, and you will not make all of them, maybe not even most of them. But if you want to improve your pattern recognition, you need to be able to discriminate among similar patterns.

[daal]

Trying not to blunder and not blundering are two different things. The combination of b195 and b197 are a classic that I've done before, and I recognized it as soon as I played it. This is why some of us can't have nice things. Other than that, I did make a useless move at b161 forgetting that it no longer threatened to cut anything, but aside from that, I was glad that I decided to save my stones in the center, and that I managed to keep them alive...

[EdLee]

The combination of b195 and b197 are a classic that I've done before, and I recognized it as soon as I played it.

Luckily there's an "easy" solution in this case ( not true in general ):
force yourself or make it a habit to read at least 5 moves deep ( more the better ).
Locally, and globally. Next: how to train yourself to do it consistently, so that eventually it becomes a habit, second nature, like breathing.
Then: how to see it way before yose, so you already have the trap sequence in mind much earlier ( at 180 ) ; make this a habit, too.

( Still, even 9p's self-atari once in a while... )

[hyperpape]

Personally, I can beat any go champion or physicist.

...Of course I mean beating the physicist at go, and the go champion at solving physics problems

Check this out :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shen_Chun-shan

Shen Chun-shan, a 6-dan physicist.

But keeping adding things to the list and you can eventually find one to beat him with.

A few years ago, I thought it would be fun to have people try and make their list of topics where they can say "there's no one who knows more about each and every one of these topics than I do".

[Knotwilg]

I've read many good and thoughtful responses to this post.

I'm not one of those who thinks that anyone can reach anything, given "sufficient" effort. Talent and starting age do play a role, as does the fact that there's only 24 hours in a day and most of us have to eat, sleep and provide for that.

But for a person as strong as Daal already, with his apparent capability to discuss Go at a high level (if not in terms of Go then at least in terms of level of discussion), the fact that he hasn't reached 1d (yet) for me is unlikely to be due to lack of talent.

The likes of Daal may need to put in more effort than the likes of Uberdude, or if he had started as early as Bill, he may have gotten near Bill's level. True, not any kind of effort will bring significant progress right now. What you (we) need is directed effort, targeting directly what seems to keep you from reaching that goal.

With effort, we also don't necessarily mean time. Effort can also mean being fearless. For example, when my coach told me my thumb was still creeping up my blade when playing a backhand, I consciously tried to get rid of that bad habit. It didn't require a particular amount of time, but the "effort" went into accepting a step back in playing comfort, to leap forward in a major way later.

[Kirby]

I like John's idea of going over pro games like T Mark did. From the post, though, I got the impression that he was saying that tsumego is not an efficient way to study. Robert Jasiek appeared to point that out already, and John said we are talking about T Mark's case. So maybe I misunderstood this part.

Anyway, I suspect that both studying pro games and tsumego can both be efficient ways to study.

I still attribute my jump from KGS 4k to 1k solely to doing the problems in the first book in the Train Like a Pro series. I devoted a lot of time to that and never had the energy to study the second book consistently (I.e. Every day).

Combining my own experience with T Mark's, as John describes, I will submit two hypotheses. I don't know if either are correct:

H1.) Studying any area (tsumego, pro games, joseki, etc.) intensely *every day* will lead to improvement. T Mark had a minimum daily goal and spent hours on this every day. In my own case, Train Like a Pro problems sometimes took nearly an hour for me to solve at 4K, and I always completed the daily allotment of problems. Adding in the time I spent in commute + evenings, this was probably around 3 hours of study a day. Maybe studying anything that long will reap some results.

H2.) Maybe different study is more efficient at different skill levels. My improvement was in the KGS SDK range, so maybe tsumego was really what I needed. T Mark was already 2d, so maybe pro games were a better bet.

I don't know if either of these hypotheses are correct. Makes me feel I should either:
a.) Study volume 2 of TLAP
b.) Study pro games

Doing either intensely at 3 hours a day can't hurt, but seems more difficult now with kids

[John Fairbairn]

Maybe different study is more efficient at different skill levels. My improvement was in the KGS SDK range, so maybe tsumego was really what I needed. T Mark was already 2d, so maybe pro games were a better bet.

Yes. To clarify, in an earlier post (in this thread, I think) I made the point that optimal improvement comes from studying or training the things that come up most often in your games. The problem with tsumego when you are a dan player who has already learnt the common tsumego techniques is that the things that occur in advanced problems, such as under the stones, tend never to occur in real life. Why waste time learning them when there is so much else that can still be learnt that is immediately applicable in your games?

In over 50 years of go I have seen rabbit/flower six (hanaroku) in my actual games just three times. I don't think I've ever seen a proper under stones. Of course they may have been there and I missed them, but I suspect not very often - at least nowadays I'm attuned to looking for them from having worked on books like Gateway to All Marvels.

I would never dismiss doing advanced tsumego problems, but as a dessert not as a main course. The book I've mentioned, The Rookie, describes one reason many weakies spend fruitless hours trying to improve at chess as being a search for the truth in a position. That's not a phrase I'm comfortable with - for me (a little ironically) the truth of a position is given by the numbers that show how often the different components come up. But if it's taken to refer to the beauty that's inherent in, say, a chess combination or a tesuji, I can empathise with that. Seeing beautiful moves can be a great motivation. The sugary part of go.

[Kirby]

I can see your point somewhat, but I think there is more to tsumego study than techniques (under the stones, etc.). A lot of go problems consist of simple techniques played in the correct sequence. Practicing such problems doesn't teach you a new technique, but exercises your ability to read ahead and evaluate outcomes. These are useful skills in just about all of my games.

I doubt you disagree with this, but I bring it up since you mentioned that certain techniques in problems are rare.

So the question remains as to whether tsumego is a "main course" or a "dessert" for dan players. I'm skeptical that it is not a main course, but will admit that I don't study pro games much.

So while I feel tsumego is more important than a dessert, I certainly agree that it may not be a bad idea to expand my palette and try digesting some pro games for a change.

What have I got to lose? Variety is the spice of life.

[Uberdude]

In over 50 years of go I have seen rabbit/flower six (hanaroku) in my actual games just three times. I don't think I've ever seen a proper under stones. Of course they may have been there and I missed them, but I suspect not very often - at least nowadays I'm attuned to looking for them from having worked on books like Gateway to All Marvels.

I've had that simple one where it looks like you'll have a false eye on the edge but you sacrifice 4 stones in a square and then capture under them for a real eye in at least 2 online games, but my most memorable under-the-stones was in the Rengo tournament after the London Open a few years ago in which Andrew Kay, Klaudia Kleczkowska and I all managed to find that classic one with the wriggly tetris 4 shape to save our group in some important fight. And I remember a pro review of my game pointing another one out deep down some variation line that I had earlier dismissed as hopeless.

Having said that I agree such fancy tsumego aren't so useful for improvement (in terms of game results) until you can consistently get the easy ones right, which I still don't (particularly in byo-yomi). At the recent Gold Cup tournament in China I failed a basic life-and-death that probably a 10k can solve which cost me the game, which elicited a wry smile from some Chinese chap watching the game, see move 180 in http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewto ... 70#p209970. Noob Europeans! (My mental mistake in that game was to think if I blocked the hane he could kosumi in sente then hanging connection for ko, but the kosumi isn't sente, I can peep vital point and if he pushes out just connect/capture on the top and he doesn't have enough eyespace outside: that peep is not ingrained in me enough to read in a glance).

Btw when was T Mark doing those Go Seigen games and going from 2d to 4d? I only started playing Go in 2005 and met him a few times over the years, though unfortunately we never played a rated tournament game (we did play at the London teams tournament). He was notable to me as one of those older generation of British 4 dan players who held his rating, whilst many others went down (probably a combination of getting weaker and grades getting tougher).

[daal]

Why some people never reach shodan is probably too vague of a question. Some started late, some didn't put in the effort, some perhaps just don't have a very good go sense. In my case, a few very good points have been made as to why my play is not dan level. Here is what seems to me is keeping me back the most: I blunder (fixable), I lack fighting spirit (fixable) I lose fights. The last point is not a matter of fixing, but rather of slowly improving a wide set of skills. Additionally, my sente awareness, aji awareness and miai awareness are all below dan level. There's also counting, but I think quite a few dans don't count either.

Some have pointed out that as a matter of attitude, optimism will take one farther than pessimism, and I admit that my optimism could be improved. People who don't believe that they can change probably won't. So what are the changes that need to take place? Basically it amounts to playing fewer bad moves and more good moves. Doing this is a matter of both knowledge and practice. The knowledge aspect is on the one hand knowing which moves are bad and not playing them, and on the other hand knowing patterns, tesuji and theory that help me find better ones. The practice part involves consistently making the effort during play.

At least I think I know what needs to take place in order to keep improving, and that's something...

[Knotwilg]

I am on a quest to improve from KGS 1d to 3d and I'm doing the hitachi go problems as a main course, next to replaying Otake games and refreshing my "mentality" diet of fighting spirit, time management and concentration. I'm also playing games on Tygem as a 3d. When I joined as 1d I got a 16-1 record. After promotion to 3d I'm at 12-1.

I'm still missing so many relatively basic problems, or fortunately neglecting some variations of them even if I "got" the solution, that I don't think it is fruitless effort. As you stated, the benefit will be an increased awareness of shapes and vitality of groups but also an improved proficiency at reading itself.

I think the ROI on L&D starts lowering from KGS 4-5d onwards.

[RobertJasiek]

"Counting" is too ambiguous a word when describing go skills. daal, I think you mean "territorial positional judgement". It is right that some (esp. low) dans don't do it. OTOH, it can be good for 1/2 rank for an SDK. Seeking excuses for several topics like this then can prevent you from reaching 1d because of having too many omissions. For SDK, learning the basics of using influence is responsible for 2 +-2 ranks. The same applies for 3d wishing to become 5d. Using influence involves several topics incl. fighting and dynamic positional judgement of influence. Of that, counting numbers of stones is a part. A very easy part. However, if you dismiss it as "counting which some dans neglect", you miss your chance to improve easily. There are much harder aspects of using influence, so why dismiss the easiest part? Yes, one can become 1d without counting and positional judgement but I say: it is easier with them. The same goes for easy cases of endgame counting. Make 14 additional correct choices between 3 and 4 point endgames per game and you are a rank stronger. 3 1/2 ranks in one message; good enough for now:)