A question about goproblems.com

[daniel_the_smith]

Kirby is probably guilty of generalizing from one example.

But I think he's a lot closer to the truth. Doing it in your head (even if you mentally throw stones down at random) at a minimum practices the vital skill of holding a mental representation of the board in your head. Clicking on a screen does not do that.

[imabuddha]

So he goes "I prefer to work go problems on my computer by clicking rather than using a book," and igo "it's all in your head".

[Kirby]

Maybe it can, again, be compared to physical exercise. When I go to the gym, I typically run on the treadmill. I get pretty tired when I run at a fast pace for 30 minutes. Even aside from my feeling, I can tell how much I've worked out from my sweat!

Some people use the exercise bikes there - which is fine. But when I use the exercise bike, I have to use it for a really, really long time to get the same amount of sweat. It doesn't feel hard at all compared to running.

Using the exercise bike is certainly useful, but I find running a lot harder. And typically, running helps me to lose weight a bit quicker.

The exercise bike still has benefit - and maybe it can be easier to stick to a routine of using it every day. But if I can run every day, I think I'll lose weight faster.

Playing moves out on the board is kind of like the exercise bike. It still requires some effort to exercise properly, but you it's a bit easier than its counterpart (running/visualization).

[Monadology]

When you click mindlessly, you can see stones on the board. You can see a position.

If you do it in your head, you are required to keep this image in your head - this takes brain power.

I do not understand how you can visualize the problem without thinking.

Storing the "representation", which you reference, in your head takes mental work, because that storage is happening in your head. If you put the stones on the board, it does not take mental work to store the image of the stones in your head. You just look at it.

Yes, but the only brain power it requires is the brain power used for visualization. Which is a necessary step if you're going to be using the visualization to read (compute). But in itself being able to hold the picture in your head will not help very much. I can practice learning to visualize intricate cubist paintings, but that won't help me terribly much trying to paint.

What's important is that you're constructing a mental representation of the state of the game which you then manipulate. What I'm contesting is that the mental representation must be purely visual in order to compute with it, in the same way that people can compute arithmetically using a variety of mental representations.

I do not see how storing the image in your head does not take brain power.

It takes brain power but it does not require me to think.

Let me put it this way: I could memorize the image of every joseki ever, all as a complete newbie to Go without any comprehension whatsoever of what they accomplish, what their appropriate use is, without thinking about variations or why they are played in that order. It will certainly require brain power! But it will not require thinking!

Right here. The "thinking" part that you mention! That happens in your head. That's the important part of this process.

Visualization keeps the whole thing in your head. If you click WITHOUT first visualizing, you have missed the "thinking" step. This is the part that I think is problematic.

No. Visualization ≠ thinking. Being in your head ≠ thinking. You can think WITHOUT visualizing BEFORE clicking.

at a minimum practices the vital skill of holding a mental representation of the board in your head.

I think the perceptual datum of the board present at any game you are playing can function just as well as any visual mental representation. Unless you have since gone blind. Not that mental representation must always be visual.

It probably is true that playing it out is more susceptible to a lazy approach. But that just means we need to discourage the lazy approach, not the method.

[Kirby]

But in itself being able to hold the picture in your head will not help very much.

I disagree. If you have no picture in your head, how do you know where to play when you are actually in a game? If you have no picture in your head, how can you really say that you are reading?

What's important is that you're constructing a mental representation of the state of the game which you then manipulate. What I'm contesting is that the mental representation must be purely visual in order to compute with it, in the same way that people can compute arithmetically using a variety of mental representations.

The "mental representation" that you're referring to is exactly what I'm referring to when I talk about visualization. The mental representation that you have in your head does not have to fit a particular picture.

It takes brain power but it does not require me to think.

Let me put it this way: I could memorize the image of every joseki ever, all as a complete newbie to Go without any comprehension whatsoever of what they accomplish, what their appropriate use is, without thinking about variations or why they are played in that order. It will certainly require brain power! But it will not require thinking!

Yes, of course. To make a move, you need more than just the image of the board. You also need to think about what future positions you want to get to after that. But in order to do this, you need a representation of something.

That is the point. Visualization practices storing this representation. Playing out on a board does not.

In both cases, you need to decide choices on where to play next.

No. Visualization =/= thinking. Being in your head =/= thinking. You can think WITHOUT visualizing BEFORE clicking.

Visualization is a part of thinking. You say that you can think WITHOUT visualizing. What are you thinking about, then? If it involves a board position (or some representation of game state), you'd better have that board position in your head. :-p

[imabuddha]

No. Visualization =/= thinking. Being in your head =/= thinking.

=/= = =

Perhaps you meant != or <> ?

[Monadology]

No. Visualization =/= thinking. Being in your head =/= thinking.

=/= = =

Perhaps you meant != or <> ?

I meant "does not equal". "=/=" is the notation I have seen used on the internet for that, but I don't really mind editing it to something people are familiar with.



It's supposed to approximate this.

[imabuddha]

I meant "does not equal". "=/=" is the notation I have seen used on the internet for that, but I don't really mind editing it to something people are familiar with.

Ah, you meant ≠. I've never seen anyone use "=/=" before.

No biggie, I'm just being a donkey.

[Monadology]

If you have no picture in your head, how do you know where to play when you are actually in a game? If you have no picture in your head, how can you really say that you are reading?

How does a blind-from-birth person navigate with no "picture" in his head? I confess that it involves a "picture" in the sense that it involves representation but it is not a "picture" in the sense that it is visual.

Visualization is a part of thinking. You say that you can think WITHOUT visualizing. What are you thinking about, then? If it involves a board position (or some representation of game state), you'd better have that board position in your head. :-p

The best way to show you what I am thinking about is to take a piece and place it on the board. I am thinking the playing out of a variation. I am thinking the actual kinesthetic doing. In the same way that you don't have to draw your visual representation, I do not need to play out my kinesthetic representation.

[Kirby]

How does a blind-from-birth person navigate with no "picture" in his head? I confess that it involves a "picture" in the sense that it involves representation but it is not a "picture" in the sense that it is visual.

Right. This is the "picture" that I'm talking about. It doesn't have to look a particular way. When you're visualizing a tsumego problem, you could have the pieces look like marshmallows or something even more weird.

But the point is, you have some representation of game state that you want to do something with.

If you click the board without keeping this representation of game state in your head, then you cannot evaluate any future possibilities of game state, because you are not tracking any such representation.

The best way to show you what I am thinking about is to take a piece and place it on the board. I am thinking the playing out of a variation. I am thinking the actual kinesthetic doing. In the same way that you don't have to draw your visual representation, I do not need to play out my kinesthetic representation.

Interesting...

So you mean that the representation of the game state that you have is stored kinesthetically? If you have a representation of the game state, I guess that would be fine, but I'm not sure how you would distinguish between different game states in your mind, simply by touch or movement.

If I play a move at T13, how does it feel different than playing one at A10?

[Monadology]

Interesting...

So you mean that the representation of the game state that you have is stored kinesthetically? If you have a representation of the game state, I guess that would be fine, but I'm not sure how you would distinguish between different game states in your mind, simply by touch or movement.

If I play a move at T13, how does it feel different than playing one at A10?

If you play it, initially it just looks different (because you put it on the actual board). But then when I consider hypotheticals (or if I'm considering it as a hypothetical) it "feels different" in the same way that putting stones down in different places "feels different". If I had to associate it with a particular variable it would be something like the "aim" is different. I don't mean the "aim" in terms of what I or you want to accomplish with the play, but the "aim" involved in putting it there.

Non-visual mental imagery is not all that unusual. It is not the norm in a number of activities though. A lot of people probably learn best using visual representations for reading in Go. I tend to favor it myself, but with complicated local scenarios I find visualization is not as effective as kinesthetic because I can capture the order of the plays better that way.

Despite the fact that most scholarly discussions of imagery, in the past and today, do indeed focus mainly or exclusively upon the visual mode, in fact, quasi-perceptual experience in other sensory modes is just as real, and, very likely, just as common and just as psychologically important (Newton, 1982). Contemporary cognitive scientists generally recognize this, and interesting studies of auditory imagery, kinaesthetic (or motor) imagery, olfactory imagery, haptic (touch) imagery, and so forth, can be found in the recent scientific literature (e.g., Segal & Fusella, 1971; Reisberg, 1992; Klatzky, Lederman, & Matula, 1991; Jeannerod, 1994; Bensafi et al., 2003). Although such studies are still vastly outnumbered by studies of visual imagery, ‘imagery’ has become the generally accepted term amongst cognitive scientists for quasi-perceptual experience in any sense mode (or any combination of sense modes).

(From http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/menta ... index.html)

[Kirby]

...

Non-visual mental imagery is not all that unusual. ...

I guess that's fine, as long as you are doing some sort of evaluation.

But the point remains, doesn't it? Doing a problem entirely in your head (in some way, be it visual, non-visual mental imagery, etc.) practices the art of keeping the information in your head, whereas not doing it in your head, and just clicking through a solution does not keep this information in your head.

[nagano]

Monadology, suppose this situation occurs in one of your games. You may not place any stones on the board before you make your final decision. How will you solve it?

$$B Black to play and capture white.
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . O |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . X . . . . . X O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O O O X O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Black to play and capture white.
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X X O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . O |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . X . . . . . X O O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X X X O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O O O X O X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]

[Sverre]

Monadology, suppose this situation occurs in one of your games. You may not place any stones on the board. How will you solve it?

If in one of my games, I were prevented from placing stones on the board, I would lose on time.

[Kirby]

Monadology, suppose this situation occurs in one of your games. You may not place any stones on the board. How will you solve it?

If in one of my games, I were prevented from placing stones on the board, I would lose on time.

Unless you are white, and black has the same restrictions