Why do some people never reach shodan

[John Fairbairn]

Do you have evidence/examples for this? Most cases of pros getting weaker in the West (e.g. Catalin Taranu, Guo Juan) are also associated with them no longer actively participating in pro tournaments, study groups, training themselves etc. So I would put most if not all of their weakening down to no longer being active pros.

Whatever the reason for their weakening they are still getting weaker. And if they are no longer active because of teaching, teaching is ultimately to blame.

If it really is teaching to blame, it is probably not the sort of teaching like giving tv lectures or helping to write books. Coaching is perhaps a better term, and it means making a commitment (we are talking about pros here) to a small number of players, often players who aspire to become pros themselves. Doing this conscientiously takes a much bigger slice of energy and time than internet or tv lectures.

I have been told by one pro that teaching live-in pupils made her specifically two grades weaker, and I have heard other pros say similar if unquantified things. There is also the traditional reluctance of some pros to play with any or some of their pupils (Kitani and Segoe are probably the best known, and Cho Hun-hyeon, a Segoe pupil, has been copy about how often he, in turn, played Yi Ch'ang-ho). No doubt there are quite a few counterexamples, and Iyama's teacher springs to mind at once, but perhaps they actually did become weaker anyway. If you get all your pupil's prize money until he reaches 4-dan it can make economic sense to accept some weakening, especially if middle or old age is beckoning.

[Bill Spight]

I have been told by one pro that teaching live-in pupils made her specifically two grades weaker, and I have heard other pros say similar if unquantified things. There is also the traditional reluctance of some pros to play with any or some of their pupils (Kitani and Segoe are probably the best known, and Cho Hun-hyeon, a Segoe pupil, has been copy about how often he, in turn, played Yi Ch'ang-ho). No doubt there are quite a few counterexamples, and Iyama's teacher springs to mind at once, but perhaps they actually did become weaker anyway.

This jives with my experience in bridge. It is extremely difficult to maintain your level of play if you play against (and in the case of bridge, with) weaker players. Marshall Miles recommended playing every hand as though it were for a national championship against opponents of that level, no matter how weak your opponents may actually be.

In go, giving handicaps helps, but not if you resort to hamete.

This kind of thing also applies to learning, IMHO. How often do we hear about kyu players who wish to become dan players, yet play even games? (Or, in the case of Moss, how many of his blitz chess games were against players as strong as he wished to become?) You don't learn to beat dan players, which is what you must do to become one, by learning to beat 5 kyus. To become a stronger player you need to play against stronger players.

[Krama]

Yes the book's a good read.

Thanks.

Stuart Dowsey claimed that Sakata's tell was to pick

Not to mention smoke-suji:

smoke-suji.png

And tea-suji:

tea-suji.png

From which video is the smoke-suji? (also time in video would be nice)

Thanks

[Ulquiorra]

Professionals are all talented, serious players, and have access to resources to improve (teachers and study groups).
Amateur Dans have only one or two of those things (high dans probably have two and low dans probably have one)
Kyuu players are both untalented and casual players. (Or are beginners of higher tiers that will move on very soon)

Since you can't gain talent, the only way for kyuu's to reach Dan is to stop being casual and care about winning.

[Krama]

Professionals are all talented, serious players, and have access to resources to improve (teachers and study groups).
Amateur Dans have only one or two of those things (high dans probably have two and low dans probably have one)
Kyuu players are both untalented and casual players. (Or are beginners of higher tiers that will move on very soon)

Since you can't gain talent, the only way for kyuu's to reach Dan is to stop being casual and care about winning.

Keep blinding and patting yourself on the back with that talent crap.

There is no such thing as talent, only hard work.

[Ulquiorra]

Keep blinding and patting yourself on the back with that talent crap.

There is no such thing as talent, only hard work.

It's not a pat on the back to say I don't have great talent. Or that I'm so weak because I don't focus hard enough.

Also, how can you say talent doesn't exist? Do the insei that get kicked out and have their dreams crushed just not work hard enough?

[Uberdude]

There is no such thing as talent, only hard work.

So how do some people get strong without hard work?

(I got to 1 dan in 1-2 years without doing what I would describe as hard work, so I think it would not be immodest of me to say I have some talent (or aptitude if you prefer that word) for this game).

[daal]

There is no such thing as talent, only hard work.

So how do some people get strong without hard work?

(I got to 1 dan in 1-2 years without doing what I would describe as hard work, so I think it would not be immodest of me to say I have some talent (or aptitude if you prefer that word) for this game).

Thank you.

[Gotraskhalana]

Somehow, the fact that not everyone can get shodan in an ELO system is completely absent from this thread.

[Ulquiorra]

Somehow, the fact that not everyone can get shodan in an ELO system is completely absent from this thread.

Dan levels are supposed to measure skill, not rating.

[hyperpape]

At the age of 2, Terence Tao tried to teach a fellow kid how to spell and add, things he learned from Sesame Street. I regret that at this age in life, my parents had yet to teach me the value of hard work, so I never did anything so precocious.

The good news is that he doesn't think you have to be a genius to do good work in math: https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-a ... -do-maths/

[Kirby]

At the age of 2, Terence Tao, tried to teach a fellow kid how to spell and add, things he learned from Sesame Street. I regret that at this age in life, my parents had yet to teach me the value of hard work, so I never did anything so precocious.

The good news is that he doesn't think you have to be a genius to do good work in math: https://terrytao.wordpress.com/career-a ... -do-maths/

Thanks for this article. One part I found interesting was the following:

It’s also good to remember that professional mathematics is not a sport (in sharp contrast to mathematics competitions). The objective in mathematics is not to obtain the highest ranking, the highest “score”, or the highest number of prizes and awards; instead, it is to increase understanding of mathematics (both for yourself, and for your colleagues and students), and to contribute to its development and applications.

There's a clear contrast that Terence draws here between mathematics as a sport vs. mathematics as an intellectual pursuit. For a sport, the objective *is* to win. Achieving the highest ranking, the highest score, the highest number of prizes and awards - they can all be motivating goals toward performing well in the sport. For an intellectual pursuit, in contrast, winning is not the objective. Ranking doesn't matter, awards don't matter. Simply trying to increase understanding matters.

In go, I think you can hold either perspective (or perhaps some combination!), depending on what drives you to the game. If you're not into the competitive aspect, maybe your rank doesn't matter. Maybe winning or getting prizes doesn't matter either. You just want to learn more about go for the sake of expanding go knowledge. For this, being a "genius" doesn't matter.

Another passage was also interesting:

Of course, even if one dismisses the notion of genius, it is still the case that at any given point in time, some mathematicians are faster, more experienced, more knowledgeable, more efficient, more careful, or more creative than others. This does not imply, though, that only the “best” mathematicians should do mathematics; this is the common error of mistaking absolute advantage for comparative advantage. The number of interesting mathematical research areas and problems to work on is vast – far more than can be covered in detail just by the “best” mathematicians, and sometimes the set of tools or ideas that you have will find something that other good mathematicians have overlooked, especially given that even the greatest mathematicians still have weaknesses in some aspects of mathematical research. As long as you have education, interest, and a reasonable amount of talent, there will be some part of mathematics where you can make a solid and useful contribution. It might not be the most glamorous part of mathematics, but actually this tends to be a healthy thing; in many cases the mundane nuts-and-bolts of a subject turn out to actually be more important than any fancy applications.

This passage points to contribution, contributing something to the field despite not being a "genius". Certainly, this holds in go: Even if others are more knowledgeable, more efficient, more careful, more creative - if you know a reasonable amount about the game, there is some area in which you can "contribute to the field" of go.

Maybe you can organize a tournament. Maybe you can submit go problems to your colleagues. Maybe you can give some lectures to lower ranked players. Maybe you can clean up some pages on Senseis Library. Maybe you can make some informative posts on L19.

---

I think different people have different conclusions on what makes go worthwhile.

For some, the competitive nature is important, winning is important, and it's important to try to be the best (or maybe the best out of a smaller population). For these individuals, being a "genius" would certainly help

For others, competition is not important, winning is not important, and therefore, being a "genius" is not important, either. For these individuals, knowing a little bit about go is already enough. Value comes from making positive contributions to the field.

Most likely, it's healthy to value a little bit of both: competition and field contribution, some combination that works for you.

For both ends of the spectrum, working hard can lead to a better result. Whether your a competitive genius, or someone who aims to contribute to go in their own way... Greater efforts will certainly have some sort of impact.

---

Anyway, nice article. Thanks for sharing it.

[wineandgolover]

Thanks daal for broaching this interesting topic.

I find it interesting that people get upset at the concept of some people having natural talent. Isn't this just normal or Normal even? Why would we doubt that aptitude for go is similar to many other things that fit some sort of bell curve?

Uberdude suggested the word aptitude. Maybe that's still too offensive? How about knack? Or we could just agree not to get uptight over nomenclature and just accept the phenomenon for what it is.

One thing to be clear about is this talent is not the same thing as intelligence. I know many very bright permanent-kyus. I also know dan players who can't hold their own in an argument. I see even less correlation with the nebulous concept of emotional intelligence.

The more important question is whether people without this knack can still break through with effort. I'd like to think the answer is yes. But I know several people that have tried and failed, and now just play go for fun rather than improvement.

And finally there is the idea that we all face a terminal plateau. Once you accept that, despite incredible effort, you will never reach the level of Ke Jie, then you admit that there is a limit to your future. The question is where is that plateau? Is it 7D for all of us? Or maybe some of us are capped at 5D, 1D, or even 5K. This could be true, even with hours-per-day study. Discouraging, but possible, no?

[Kirby]

Agree with what wineandgolover says pretty much completely, but would like to add my take that one's plateau is unknown. I believe that usually, someone's plateau is higher than they think (e.g. If you think your plateau is 5k, probably it's really at least 3k).

For this reason, it becomes a matter of priority: if becoming a certain level is sufficiently important to you, it's reasonable to aim toward that goal, despite the real possibility that you might not make it.

Important things are worth fighting for, even though you might never get the result you want.

[hyperpape]

Agree with what wineandgolover says pretty much completely, but would like to add my take that one's plateau is unknown. I believe that usually, someone's plateau is higher than they think (e.g. If you think your plateau is 5k, probably it's really at least 3k).

I think this also explains the hostility. If you see a lot of unreasonable assumptions about where a pleateau is, then the very idea of a plateau can start to look like an illusion that holds people back and gives them excuses. But the idea that no one ever has a plateau is just as self-serving as assuming that you've reached your own plateau, and your failure to improve has nothing to do with your own efforts.