Strategy vs tactics ( aka theory vs reading )

[Kirby]

It's certainly best to 'see' why a move works for one's self. Otherwise one won't understand it well enough to know when it is appropriate to play it. That's not at all mutually incompatible with being open to reading about and exploring what others think are good moves. I think you're suggesting a bit of a false dichotomy.

Of course you pick up some ideas from, for example, playing other people. But I will not go out of my way to study another person's idea if I haven't seen it myself.

You will have a very long journey if you study strictly on this basis.

Yes, but it will be much more fun. It's true that I might not have read everything out about playing the 4-4. It's also true that I cannot say that I have had a lot of fun in playing the 4-4.

The moves that I have really enjoyed playing, and really felt were cool were ones that I read out and saw a glimpse of "truth" from.

I've picked up some things over time by playing against other people, but I can't say that any of the stuff I've picked up is something I can feel good about or be proud of. The moves I am proud of are the ones I have read out.

That being said, maybe I should do some more reading in the opening. Maybe I should stop playing 4-4 and 3-4 so much.

[Monadology]

The moves that I have really enjoyed playing, and really felt were cool were ones that I read out and saw a glimpse of "truth" from.

Which is great. I wasn't trying to suggest that your way of playing or studying was 'wrong,' though I may have sounded that way. If I did, I'm sorry.

I just think it has its own inefficiencies. It's probably way more efficient than just reading books and playing only occasional games or avoiding tsumego altogether, but some of us enjoy reading Go books/theory and exploring them in games instead of focusing primarily on reading through all the continuations.

I also think, especially considering your specific attitude about learning, that it's a bit odd to generalize from the fact that you never got anything out of books in terms of progress that others won't either. People learn in very different ways. There will still be fundamental constants, which for Go are probably practice and reading, but they aren't necessarily exclusive.

[Kirby]

... People learn in very different ways. There will still be fundamental constants, which for Go are probably practice and reading, but they aren't necessarily exclusive.

That's probably true. I can only say that, from my own experience, focusing purely on reading is the most efficient method of study. Playing games can give you the rest.

Other people may learn in different ways. I can only understand my own understanding, though.

I actually have a good number of english go books that talk about go theory. I really wish they were helpful to me, but I can't say that I feel that they are. They're just kind of fun to read on occasion.

...

I just think it has its own inefficiencies. ...

Again, with my own way of learning, I do not see how practicing reading is inefficient.

but some of us enjoy reading Go books/theory and exploring them in games instead of focusing primarily on reading through all the continuations.

By the way, by practicing reading, you will start to be able to prune things and remember shapes. So it's not like you will look at all permutations of moves every time. But to get there, first you DO practice going through many more possibilities than somebody that is more skilled at reading.

[Dusk Eagle]

...

I just think it has its own inefficiencies. ...

Again, with my own way of learning, I do not see how practicing reading is inefficient.

I don't think that's the inefficient part Monadology is talking about. I think the inefficient part in your method of study is the (quote) "I will not go out of my way to study another person's idea if I haven't seen it myself."

To combine that with tactics a little, how do your ideas about discovering everything on your own relate to studying joseki? Do you not study joseki, as they are someone else's ideas? I'm not trying to attack you, I genuinely want to know.

[Kirby]

...

I just think it has its own inefficiencies. ...

Again, with my own way of learning, I do not see how practicing reading is inefficient.

I don't think that's the inefficient part Monadology is talking about. I think the inefficient part in your method of study is the (quote) "I will not go out of my way to study another person's idea if I haven't seen it myself."

To combine that with tactics a little, how do your ideas about discovering everything on your own relate to studying joseki? Do you not study joseki, as they are someone else's ideas? I'm not trying to attack you, I genuinely want to know.

I do study joseki occasionally, but I don't really find it an effective form of study when compared to go problems.

There are books that have joseki problems, and I think those are more fun. I can look at a position, and think of what the best way to play is. In my case, I do check the answer in the book. If I compare the book's answer with my answer, I can wonder why my opinion is different.

Not that long ago, I posted a joseki where I favored the black player (who got more territory in the joseki). I still have a hard time seeing how the result is good for white, so I don't play that way in my games, usually.

---

Aside from this, I don't study joseki that often, actually. I look at the problems in the "Train Like a Pro" series and those are, again, joseki problems (not just a book telling you why a move is good).

Usually when I study joseki, it is when I am mentally tired from doing tsumego or tesuji problems. But I feel it is more of a casual study. I don't feel it is as effective as practicing reading.

It's kind of like if I'm training for running. My core workout might be a fast paced distance run. By the end of the run I'm exhausted. After that, I might jog around a little bit to cool down, but it's not my main workout. The main workout is what makes me strain myself.

And in go, tsumego and tesuji problems strain my mind. So I think they provide a better workout than studying joseki.

P.S. Don't worry about "attacking me". It's like I said: I don't believe people until I can see their point for myself

[Monadology]

Again, with my own way of learning, I do not see how practicing reading is inefficient

I didn't mean it was inefficient generally. In fact I suggested it was quite efficient. I just think it's probably limited on its own, such that it IS inefficient when it comes to specific but important parts of learning, like finding moves that one otherwise would not normally consider.

[Kirby]

Again, with my own way of learning, I do not see how practicing reading is inefficient

I didn't mean it was inefficient generally. In fact I suggested it was quite efficient. I just think it's probably limited on its own, such that it IS inefficient when it comes to specific but important parts of learning, like finding moves that one otherwise would not normally consider.

I guess this is where our opinions diverge a little bit. I do not think that reading is limited, provided that you play games to practice your reading. You will be exposed to many situations this way. Granted, it's not purely practicing reading, but rather practicing reading + playing games.

If you keep playing games and keep practicing reading, I think that the "sky is the limit".

[flOvermind]

If I ever experienced improvement by reading a book on theory, I would be more likely to say, "study what you like best". But I can't say that I have. In my experience, the key to this game is reading.

But there are other ways to study theory than reading books. For example you can get a review by a stronger player. This player usually will point out strategic flaws in your plans

[Mef]

Perhaps I am arguing for reading rather than "tactics". I sometimes associate go strategy with go theory. Maybe I'm the only one that does that. I never really called what I do in a game "tactics", either. I just think that reading is most important.

One thing that also comes to mind, though, is that I don't think that we have to separate what people seem to be describing as "tactics" and "strategy".

Part of your local reading should include the global outcome as well. So if you truly are reading well locally (is this what people mean by "tactically"?), you should get a good result globally as well.

I think that good reading cannot omit trying to get a locally good result - if this is what tactics are, and that good reading also cannot omit trying to get a globally good result.

Why does there need to be a distinction (eg. "I'm good at strategy, but not at tactics")? Why not try to simply read well? Good reading seems that it will bring about a good tactical AND strategic result, will it not?

So maybe my talk about how one's time is spent (doing problems or studying go theory) is a bit off topic. But aside from that, I believe that good reading does not require a distinction between "strategy" and "tactics".

As I've always reckoned, tactics is "If I cut, can I capture those stones?" and strategy is "Is it good for me to cut and capture those stones?". I guess to further generalize, tactics looks at all the things you are able to do in a situation (hence, usually focuses locally), and strategy looks at what you should be doing in that situation (tends to focus more globally). They are two important and complementary things. Without knowing what you can do, it's hard to build an effective strategy (I have a great go strategy: just make sure you always end the game with more points than your opponent...of course I'm still working on the implementation...). Likewise, you could be able to read out many variations, but without a coherent strategy, how do you know which one to choose? I agree that both are aided by good reading, though perhaps I personally would amend your statement to say "Good reading coupled with good positional evaluation seems it will bring about a good tactical and strategic result". After all, it may be possible that you can read out the proper variations, but do a poor selection amongst them.

[Kirby]

...


As I've always reckoned, tactics is "If I cut, can I capture those stones?" and strategy is "Is it good for me to cut and capture those stones?". I guess to further generalize, tactics looks at all the things you are able to do in a situation (hence, usually focuses locally), and strategy looks at what you should be doing in that situation (tends to focus more globally). They are two important and complementary things. Without knowing what you can do, it's hard to build an effective strategy (I have a great go strategy: just make sure you always end the game with more points than your opponent...of course I'm still working on the implementation...). Likewise, you could be able to read out many variations, but without a coherent strategy, how do you know which one to choose? I agree that both are aided by good reading, though perhaps I personally would amend your statement to say "Good reading coupled with good positional evaluation seems it will bring about a good tactical and strategic result". After all, it may be possible that you can read out the proper variations, but do a poor selection amongst them.

I think I basically agree with you (though I don't really make a distinction between tactics and strategy), but I think that the good positional evaluation that you mention will more naturally follow a lot of practice on reading than the other way around.

That is, if I practice reading a ton, I think that I will start to be good at positional evaluation without additional effort.

But if I only practice trying to see what constitutes a good result with go theory, for example, I think it is difficult to have good reading follow from that alone.

So I think it's best to spend your time practicing reading rather than studying go theory, for example. You will get positional evaluation for free. If you practice only go theory, your reading will still be poor. Furthermore, I think it is much more fun to develop a sense of positional evaluation based on your own experience than to think a position is good or bad because you read that a pro thinks this way.

[daniel_the_smith]

I have to say I'm leaning towards Kirby's view on this. Theory, proverbs, and principles will only take you so far, and then you actually need to be able to read...

[Redundant]

A question for Kirby: what do you consider to be reading practice? Doing problems, of course, but what type of problems?

[Kirby]

A question for Kirby: what do you consider to be reading practice? Doing problems, of course, but what type of problems?

I guess anything to make you think for yourself can be a good problem. I tend to believe that, if it requires more effort on my part, I am exercising my mind better. Of course, there's the "easy problems" vs. "hard problems" debate, but both easy and hard problems can exercise your mind pretty well, I think. The important thing is that your brain is being exercised.

[Numsgil]

I have to say I'm leaning towards Kirby's view on this. Theory, proverbs, and principles will only take you so far, and then you actually need to be able to read...

I'm not sure anyone's arguing against this.

[Kirby]

I have to say I'm leaning towards Kirby's view on this. Theory, proverbs, and principles will only take you so far, and then you actually need to be able to read...

I'm not sure anyone's arguing against this.

Numsgil, I may have misunderstood you a little bit before, and I don't think that I fundamentally disagree with you that much.

I think mainly, I just personally feel that the "bottom up" approach as you describe in an earlier post is much easier than a "top down" approach, since a "bottom up" approach starts from basic fundamentals that give you a total understanding. A top down approach requires a bit of a reliance on the idea that the top down ideas you are working on are actually true. It is hard to really know if a go proverb is true, for example, other than what you might have read in a book. But it is easy to look at a very basic situation and know for sure that "this is all white can do here".

People do have different learning styles, so a "top down" approach may be good for you. But it is hard for me to understand this viewpoint, because a "bottom up" approach inherently relies upon true understanding, in my opinion.