Rational choice by amateurs

[RobertJasiek]

Effort is necessary.

Shape (even with very much effort) is terribly bad in tsumego. Two very similar shapes can have very different behaviours. Trying to rely on shape and the like together with only reading a few variations halted my tsumego progress for many years. Suggesting such belongs to the worst possible advices. Only when understanding the method(s) of tactical reading properly, I started making progress in tsumego again. Needless to say, proper tactical reading does not mean reading all variations but means reading all those necessary for the method(s) to produce only correct answers.

Spend your tsumego effort on the necessary tactical reading.

[John Fairbairn]

I do wish you'd stop every attempt at a possible discussion by surreptitiously trying to promote your books.

I'm sure others will note that I was not writing about tsumego, nor did I say in my oblique reference to it what you imply I say.

[Elom]

I believe that counting - the be all and end all for many amateurs - is likewise just another confirmation tool for a pro, and again they can use it in the centre of the board in ways amateurs can't.

Would you say that amatuers should treat counting as trainer wheels to improve their perception, so they eventually don't need to use it a lot except for verification?

Effort is necessary.

Shape (even with very much effort) is terribly bad in tsumego. Two very similar shapes can have very different behaviours. Trying to rely on shape and the like together with only reading a few variations halted my tsumego progress for many years. Suggesting such belongs to the worst possible advices...

KazSensensei may differ in opinion . But... The new font made for easy recall is based upon a concept I think relates to tsumego.

The only point I see in relying mainly on shape to solve tsumego is to increase your shape vocabulary.

Let's say shape vocabulary is part of the knowledge-perception 'base' of Go. You could compile a shape dictionary and try to memorise the contents, but it is more efficient to do many easy tsumego (under 1min). Having a small amount of difficulty involved helps in remembering it. So I guess in this case, the right way to solve many easy tsumego is through the shape method, as you are simply using tsumego as a tool to remember shape, not train your reading. The more you see a shape, more you can instinctively tell the differences between similar shapes with very different consequences. Having more shapes in your mind increases your ability to block' together sequences when reading, letting seven items of short term memory become 35 moves. It doesn't improve reading; it makes it easier to do.

But when solving a hard tsumego (5+ mins), you are training your reading, or rather your reading technique, something I view as part of the thinking-feeling cap you take to go. An opposite approach is best in this case, the one RobertJasiek mentioned.

Problems for your level (1-5 minutes) balance both aspects .

Pros have a broader and more nuanced sense of shape and direction, but I also suspect that they are more competent in using their perception than amateurs are. It probably goes along with telling insei to put their chairs back when they finish a game!

[John Fairbairn]

Would you say that amatuers should treat counting as trainer wheels to improve their perception, so they eventually don't need to use it a lot except for verification?

I don't really know, which is why I was trying to get a discussion on perception (NOT tsumego) going.

Pros have a broader and more nuanced sense of shape and direction, but I also suspect that they are more competent in using their perception than amateurs are. It probably goes along with telling insei to put their chairs back when they finish a game!

Part of the problem here is that shape can be either katachi or sugata (and also things like gokei) in Japanese, and English speakers don't make the distinction. I lean towards believing that the more limited go vocabulary in the west inhibits growth of perception. That's something too I would like to see discussed (and NOT tsumego or books).

[Tryss]

Part of the problem here is that shape can be either katachi or sugata (and also things like gokei) in Japanese, and English speakers don't make the distinction.

What about korean or chinese go vocabulary?

[Elom]

I remember a game in the Gu-Lee ten game match that made many an amateur scratch their heads as they thought the result in the lower right corner was too good for one player, but professionals felt it was even. I guess it showed the gap in perception between pros and weaker amateurs.

[RobertJasiek]

I'm sure others will note that I was not writing about tsumego

In your previous message, you wrote about tsumego,...

You look at a tsumego problem and if you try to work out every move on a "if he plays there I play here" basis, you soon run into the sand. But if you recognise a shape (e.g. a space where you can play a nakade) you can choose the right move instantly, just performing one or two lines of analysis to make sure there's nothing hidden there

...discouraged tactical reading, which is using an "if he plays there I play here" basis, and encouraged relying on shape recognition supported with only a few sequences.

the more limited go vocabulary in the west inhibits growth of perception.

Suppose you are right that the go vocabulary in the west is more limited on average. A limited vocabulary can inhibit growth of perception. As can many other factors, including those you might prefer not to discuss, such as tactical reading. Perception is not a one-way street or dominating other skills. Perception can also be trained by practising tactical reading, and perception can be an early filter for tactical reading, especially when considering large parts of the board early during the game.

The only point I see in relying mainly on shape to solve tsumego is to increase your shape vocabulary.

For this purpose, studying shapes (or tesujis) is very useful.

[EdLee]

What about korean or chinese go vocabulary?

The recent 10-15 years of international pro tourney results seem to show the Chinese and Korean go vocabularies don't hinder the Chinese or Korean pros. Dunno about amateurs.

it showed the gap in perception between pros and weaker amateurs.

Likewise between the top engines and top pros.

[Tryss]

The recent 10-15 years of international pro tourney results seem to show the Chinese and Korean go vocabularies don't hinder the Chinese or Korean pros. Dunno about amateurs.

My question was rather if the Chinese or Korean go vocabulary was as developped and nuanced as the japanese one.

[Kirby]

The recent 10-15 years of international pro tourney results seem to show the Chinese and Korean go vocabularies don't hinder the Chinese or Korean pros. Dunno about amateurs.

My question was rather if the Chinese or Korean go vocabulary was as developped and nuanced as the japanese one.

This reminds me of a conversation my wife had in a linguistics class with her professor. At the time, she believed that the Korean word for "jeong" (a word kind of similar to "love", but with various nuances) couldn't be expressed in English, since there wasn't a corresponding concept.

The linguistics professor had a different view: all concepts are expressible between languages, though, it may take more words in some languages. Another popular example is the idea that eskimos have many different words for snow than in English. Does it mean that eskimos can understand snow better simply because of the language?

I don't know. I only have a single native language, so how could I objectively assess? My suspicion is that all things are expressible, but certain languages may be better at explaining certain concepts efficiently. Cultural understanding may be required for certain concepts, too.

[hyperpape]

Side note for Kirby: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowclone

[Kirby]

Side note for Kirby: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowclone

Cool.

the basic premise (that Eskimos have a larger number of words for snow) is often disputed by those who study "Eskimo" (Inuit and Aleut) languages.

I stand corrected

[Bill Spight]

Snowclones?

Have rocks, will gravel.

Have lox, will bagel.

[ez4u]

Side note for Kirby: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowclone

Cool.

the basic premise (that Eskimos have a larger number of words for snow) is often disputed by those who study "Eskimo" (Inuit and Aleut) languages.

I stand corrected

Maybe you shouldn't...

'How many Eskimo words for ice?’ Collecting Inuit sea ice terminologies in the International Polar Year 2007–2008

Abstract [emphasis added]

Inuit knowledge of the sea ice environment has been praised by generations of early explorers, arctic travellers, natural scientists, anthropologists, and popular writers. Surprisingly little has been done to systematically document and analyze the richness of the Inuit sea ice nomenclatures until quite recently. This article reviews the history of Inuit (Eskimo) sea ice terminology collection, including efforts undertaken in 2005–2009 for the International Polar Year (IPY) 2007–2008. Altogether, a database of 35 indigenous ice nomenclatures from the Bering Sea to East Greenland has been created, displaying the richness of over 1,500 terms for sea ice in all Inuit/Eskimo languages and most regional dialects, as well as in other indigenous northern languages (Chukchi, Dena’ina Athabascan, and Sámi). Processing these vocabularies, analyzing the origins and historical geography of the Inuit sea ice nomenclatures, and returning the data to participating communities as educational, heritage, and language materials may become one of the lasting contributions of the IPY 2007–2008 program.

[Kirby]

The Wikipedia page hyperpape linked seems to reference this paper for that bit: https://web.archive.org/web/20170729174 ... conception

I can't claim to have read the paper, though.