When an important decision requires reading, I make it based on reading.
I do play some moves on "pattern instinct", but I do that mainly when it seems overwhelmingly likely to be the correct move, to save time for moves that require reading.
(By the way, I think that making many moves purely based on instinct is a bad habit that starts to really weigh you down at around 10k.)
Visualization
Re: Visualization
Interesting. We had the example earlier about joseki choice. If I'm trying to think about, say, whether to pincer an approach to my 4-4 stone, I can abstractly think about the possible outcomes. But—assuming I pincer and the opponent plays 3-3—I don't have any clear understanding of what the outcome will be other than that I can realize which way my wall will go and who has sente. When you think about something like this, are you reading, or is the process abstract? Same question when the decision is harder.
edit: I don't try to make these decisions purely on instinct, but rather it's too hard to read real sequences in real games well enough that I can decide using reading. It sounds like I can improve my reading well enough to be able to do that, so that seems very good.
edit: I don't try to make these decisions purely on instinct, but rather it's too hard to read real sequences in real games well enough that I can decide using reading. It sounds like I can improve my reading well enough to be able to do that, so that seems very good.
-
dfan
- Gosei
- Posts: 1598
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:49 am
- Rank: AGA 2k Fox 3d
- GD Posts: 61
- KGS: dfan
- Has thanked: 891 times
- Been thanked: 534 times
- Contact:
Re: Visualization
My thought process is usually more like "I know that joseki A emphasizes the top and joseki B emphasizes the right, so let's go with joseki B", but I know where the stones are at the end of it, which can be important, like if there's a ladder. It's easier with joseki than regular reading because you don't have to make any reading decisions along the way, you just have to remember how it goes.
Honestly I don't think that I really read much differently from anyone else at around my level when you get right down to it, we just have different ways of getting it done. I don't recommend thinking that you need to think or read or strategize in some qualitatively different way. At your level or mine it is not our inherent visualization ability that is holding us back.
Honestly I don't think that I really read much differently from anyone else at around my level when you get right down to it, we just have different ways of getting it done. I don't recommend thinking that you need to think or read or strategize in some qualitatively different way. At your level or mine it is not our inherent visualization ability that is holding us back.
Last edited by dfan on Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Visualization
What's interesting to me about this is that your thinking is purely abstract for an easy decision. If we could read out the easier sequence, why not make that decision based on reading instead of instinct? It's hard to explain our thinking so I don't want to characterize what you mean, but does that make sense?dfan wrote:My thought process is usually more like "I know that joseki A emphasizes the top and joseki B emphasizes the right, so let's go with joseki B", but I know where the stones are at the end of it, which can be important, like if there's a ladder. It's easier with joseki than regular reading because you don't have to make any reading decisions along the way, you just have to remember how it goes.
Honestly I don't think that I really read much differently from anyone else at around my level when you get right down to it, we just have different ways of getting it down. I don't recommend thinking that you need to think or read or strategize in some qualitatively different way. At your level or mine it is not our inherent visualization ability that is holding us back.
-
EdLee
- Honinbo
- Posts: 8859
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:49 pm
- GD Posts: 312
- Location: Santa Barbara, CA
- Has thanked: 349 times
- Been thanked: 2070 times
Hi Dan,I know where the stones are at the end of it
Very interesting discussion.
I don't quite understand what you mean by know here.
I (conceptually) understand you can recognize shapes (say, a face, or an apple). At the same time, I was under the impression you couldn't consciously generate a mental image of these shapes.
So, what does know here mean ? ( because the resulting shape of a sequence can range from a few stones to many... Say, it's a 20-stone shape. Each stone has a precise location on the board, not to mention the existing stones that aren't part of the sequence. )
Thanks.
-
dfan
- Gosei
- Posts: 1598
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:49 am
- Rank: AGA 2k Fox 3d
- GD Posts: 61
- KGS: dfan
- Has thanked: 891 times
- Been thanked: 534 times
- Contact:
Re:
EdLee wrote:Hi Dan,I know where the stones are at the end of it
Very interesting discussion.
I don't quite understand what you mean by know here.
I (conceptually) understand you can recognize shapes (say, a face, or an apple). At the same time, I was under the impression you couldn't consciously generate a mental image of these shapes.
So, what does know here mean ? ( because the resulting shape of a sequence can range from a few stones to many... Say, it's a 20-stone shape. Each stone has a precise location on the board, not to mention the existing stones that aren't part of the sequence. )
Thanks.
I can point to a point on the board and tell you whether it is black, white or empty at the end of the variation.
Re:
I can't consciously generate a mental image and have the same answer as dfan. In reading a sequence, I can know whether a square is black, white, or empty, but there's no "sensation" of that knowledge when I look at the board (it's all abstract memory, like memorizing the digits of pi or something). I don't think I've ever managed to accurately read a 20-move sequence because I can't abstractly memorize that many steps.EdLee wrote:Hi Dan,I know where the stones are at the end of it
Very interesting discussion.
I don't quite understand what you mean by know here.
I (conceptually) understand you can recognize shapes (say, a face, or an apple). At the same time, I was under the impression you couldn't consciously generate a mental image of these shapes.
So, what does know here mean ? ( because the resulting shape of a sequence can range from a few stones to many... Say, it's a 20-stone shape. Each stone has a precise location on the board, not to mention the existing stones that aren't part of the sequence. )
Thanks.
-
BlindGroup
- Lives in gote
- Posts: 388
- Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 5:27 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- IGS: 4k
- Universal go server handle: BlindGroup
- Has thanked: 295 times
- Been thanked: 64 times
Re: Visualization
This is a fascinating discussion.
Dan, aside from the ability to visualize, there is another mental process that govern's people's ability to understand the relative location of things. I've usually seen this described as the ability of people to remember the relative positon of objects in physical space -- like where one's house is located in relation to work. People who are strong in this area may not have the ability to recall images in tremendous detail. For example, I can't recall visual images in great detail, but my spatial sense is very strong. I can remember the layout of almost every building I've ever been inside. And before I lived with a wife and two kids, I would regularly get up in the middle of the night, walk through my home without turning on a light (complete darkness), and do things like get myself a glass of water, etc. I just knew the location of the cabinet, glasses, and sink. My understanding is that this is how blind individuals can navigate familiar space without any ability to visualize or see. Now that I share a living space, things are not always where I left them and if I don't turn on a light, I run the risk of stepping on a stray Lego -- excruciatingly painful.
In go, I've always had the sense that my ability to "read" was based largely on this skill and my ability to remember and process relationships. I don't "see" stones in any sense that might be considered visual.
As an aside, this is also how I think about go problems when I'm not looking at a board or a piece of paper. For example, I can play out variations of a corner sequence from an earlier game in my mind without a board. It's not at all like I'm imagining a picture of a board and moving pieces around on it. Rather, if the fist move is say the small knight approach to the 4-4, Then, I just know the relative positions of the stones -- that the approaching stone is one line down and two lines away from the original.
Another thing that might be related is that I've never had trouble inverting or translating sequences that I've learned. Once I have learned a sequence in a given corner, say, I can play in out in any orientation without having to consciously "rotate" or "flip" what I've learned from the corner in which I've learned it. I'd wager that this is much more of a challenge for people who rely more heavily on their visualization skills to read and learn. If what you see and remember is a picture of a joseki, for example, then to play it in a different orientation would require imagining the picture and thinking about how to recreate the moves in the different orientation. I've definitely heard that this is a challenge for some players, and I've also heard people recommend doing things like studying a joseki in multiple orientations when learning it. I wonder if this is why some people need to do this? I'd always wager that people with stronger visualization skills are able to replay new sequences from memory with much less study than I can. My experience in general is that I'm slower to learn than others at my "level", but once I've got a concept in my head, I usually end up with a better than average understanding.
Dan, aside from the ability to visualize, there is another mental process that govern's people's ability to understand the relative location of things. I've usually seen this described as the ability of people to remember the relative positon of objects in physical space -- like where one's house is located in relation to work. People who are strong in this area may not have the ability to recall images in tremendous detail. For example, I can't recall visual images in great detail, but my spatial sense is very strong. I can remember the layout of almost every building I've ever been inside. And before I lived with a wife and two kids, I would regularly get up in the middle of the night, walk through my home without turning on a light (complete darkness), and do things like get myself a glass of water, etc. I just knew the location of the cabinet, glasses, and sink. My understanding is that this is how blind individuals can navigate familiar space without any ability to visualize or see. Now that I share a living space, things are not always where I left them and if I don't turn on a light, I run the risk of stepping on a stray Lego -- excruciatingly painful.
In go, I've always had the sense that my ability to "read" was based largely on this skill and my ability to remember and process relationships. I don't "see" stones in any sense that might be considered visual.
As an aside, this is also how I think about go problems when I'm not looking at a board or a piece of paper. For example, I can play out variations of a corner sequence from an earlier game in my mind without a board. It's not at all like I'm imagining a picture of a board and moving pieces around on it. Rather, if the fist move is say the small knight approach to the 4-4, Then, I just know the relative positions of the stones -- that the approaching stone is one line down and two lines away from the original.
Another thing that might be related is that I've never had trouble inverting or translating sequences that I've learned. Once I have learned a sequence in a given corner, say, I can play in out in any orientation without having to consciously "rotate" or "flip" what I've learned from the corner in which I've learned it. I'd wager that this is much more of a challenge for people who rely more heavily on their visualization skills to read and learn. If what you see and remember is a picture of a joseki, for example, then to play it in a different orientation would require imagining the picture and thinking about how to recreate the moves in the different orientation. I've definitely heard that this is a challenge for some players, and I've also heard people recommend doing things like studying a joseki in multiple orientations when learning it. I wonder if this is why some people need to do this? I'd always wager that people with stronger visualization skills are able to replay new sequences from memory with much less study than I can. My experience in general is that I'm slower to learn than others at my "level", but once I've got a concept in my head, I usually end up with a better than average understanding.
-
EdLee
- Honinbo
- Posts: 8859
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 6:49 pm
- GD Posts: 312
- Location: Santa Barbara, CA
- Has thanked: 349 times
- Been thanked: 2070 times
-
dfan
- Gosei
- Posts: 1598
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:49 am
- Rank: AGA 2k Fox 3d
- GD Posts: 61
- KGS: dfan
- Has thanked: 891 times
- Been thanked: 534 times
- Contact:
Re: Visualization
BlindGroup, your experience is very much like mine. I have a good spatial sense and I often grok patterns or shapes in a tactile and three-dimensional way, like imagining feeling them with my hands.
-
BlindGroup
- Lives in gote
- Posts: 388
- Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 5:27 pm
- GD Posts: 0
- IGS: 4k
- Universal go server handle: BlindGroup
- Has thanked: 295 times
- Been thanked: 64 times
Re: Visualization
dfan wrote:BlindGroup, your experience is very much like mine. I have a good spatial sense and I often grok patterns or shapes in a tactile and three-dimensional way, like imagining feeling them with my hands.
Have you seen the version of go for the blind?
Description: https://senseis.xmp.net/?BlindGo
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FInaPZoQCSc
So, clearly reading without visualization is possible
That said, I'm really curious to know if I could do this. (It also might be a useful way to study.) Anyone know where one could get one of these sets either on-line or in the United States?
If I had to guess, I think that I'd be ok with local play, but I think two things would take getting used to:
1. Judging the relative position of stones across the board or at some distance.
2. Feeling the stones without knocking them all over the place. I find it hard enough to avoid doing this when placing stones normally
That said, I think there is something on the stones that sticks them to the board. The video quality is too poor to see it, but given how firmly they press the stones down, it seems like they are "locking" them into place.Edit: I found two sources online. The first seems insanely expensive for a plastic go set, but the second looks more promising.
https://www.shapeways.com/product/QY3BEPLS4/goban-for-the-blind-igo-baduk-weiqi
http://fmiyano.sakura.ne.jp/
-
jlt
- Gosei
- Posts: 1786
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:59 am
- GD Posts: 0
- Has thanked: 185 times
- Been thanked: 495 times
Re: Visualization
From what I read in this thread, some people don't visualize (or at least don't visualize consciously), and others do. I am curious to know the answer to the following question: for those who visualize, what do you actually see? Can you see two different colors when you read a sequence? Personally I cannot. For instance, if I want to solve an easy go problem like this one:
then I almost immediately see a succession of fuzzy shapes like this:
(and a second variation with a snapback).
For more difficult problems, the process can be painfully slow. When I need to calculate variations, some of these blurry shapes are tagged in my mind as "Black", others are tagged as "White", but it can be hard to keep track of which intersection is black or white. My thoughts sound like this: "Black, White, Black, (...) Now this blurry shape consists of 3 black stones, and this other one of 4 white stones. The only possible move for Black is this one, so let's continue (...) OK, seems to work, now let's click and check (...) Oh sh*t, I auto-ataried at move 8". It can become quite hard for me to count liberties, especially when captures are involved.
then I almost immediately see a succession of fuzzy shapes like this:
For more difficult problems, the process can be painfully slow. When I need to calculate variations, some of these blurry shapes are tagged in my mind as "Black", others are tagged as "White", but it can be hard to keep track of which intersection is black or white. My thoughts sound like this: "Black, White, Black, (...) Now this blurry shape consists of 3 black stones, and this other one of 4 white stones. The only possible move for Black is this one, so let's continue (...) OK, seems to work, now let's click and check (...) Oh sh*t, I auto-ataried at move 8". It can become quite hard for me to count liberties, especially when captures are involved.
-
Bill Spight
- Honinbo
- Posts: 10905
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
- Has thanked: 3651 times
- Been thanked: 3373 times
Re: Visualization
This problem can easily be solved without counting liberties consciously. But it can help with more difficult problems to keep track as you go, instead of trying to count the liberties of a mental image.jlt wrote:It can become quite hard for me to count liberties, especially when captures are involved.
In this case the key string of stones in the corner has 3 dame. When Black throws in it has 2 dame. If White captures the throw in stone the new string has 2 dame. (The throw in to take away a dame.) This may take some visualization, at least of the dame, or noting that connecting to the 1-1 stone does not add any dame, because it shares the dame with the string. (For simple problems who thinks this through?) Now Black takes away a dame, leaving the string in atari. At this point we need to note that the single stone no the edge has 2 dame, one of them shared with the string, so that connecting to it will leave only 1 dame for the new string. Connect and die!
In the other variation we have 3 dame to start with. Black throws in, for 2 dame. White connects on the edge, still 2 dame. Black ataris, leaving a snapback.
For easy problems we do not need to keep track of the dame like this, so we are not used to doing so, but it can help with more difficult problems.
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
-
Bill Spight
- Honinbo
- Posts: 10905
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
- Has thanked: 3651 times
- Been thanked: 3373 times
Re: Visualization
I'm not very good at conscious visualization, but in this case I do visualize.
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
-
Bill Spight
- Honinbo
- Posts: 10905
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:24 pm
- Has thanked: 3651 times
- Been thanked: 3373 times
Re: Visualization
This does not look like a real game position, but if it came up in a real game, I would kind of know that Black to play can capture the corner stones. It is similar to positions that I do know. I would not use conscious visualization, unless I just happened to see a mental image. (Taking it as a problem, I did visualize, as I just said. )
Let me talk about it in a way that does not involve visualization.
)Let me talk about it in a way that does not involve visualization.
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Visualize whirled peas.
Everything with love. Stay safe.