Principles and Concrete Knowledge - Question to the Strong

[RobertJasiek]

Working through a bunch of proofs is quite literally the only way to learn higher mathematics.

Because it is taught like that everywhere. It could also be taught in terms of ideas / methods used in proofs.

[RobertJasiek]

I've never met a good writer who hasn't read lots of good books.

Uh, what is a good book? And surely a writer can improve the level of certain aspects of book quality beyond prior standards :) (Interesting topic, but off-topic.)

[daal]

I've never met a good writer who hasn't read lots of good books.

Uh, what is a good book? And surely a writer can improve the level of certain aspects of book quality beyond prior standards (Interesting topic, but off-topic.)

This quip points to the fact that carefully observing the competition is a common if not essential way of staying on the cutting edge of one's field. In order to improve beyond prior standards, one must be aware of what the current standards are.

[daal]

Interesting contradiction:

2) You can improve by increasing knowledge
3) You can improve by deepening understanding

Sure... BUT strength is also blocked by your greatest weaknesses. Your 9p fuseki is useless if your reading is 1k - you will be 1k. To improve, you have to improve in MOST (or better: all) fields.

For me it was always repetition and focusing on my strong points rather than my weak points

[John Fairbairn]

I have nothing new to add, but a re-statement of what has been said through my own eyes may provide a different viewpoint for someone else.

I think all players make a decision (not always conscious) between being strong at go and understanding go. The two camps belong to the same species but are as different as men and women.

I infer that Tami is in the "want to understand" group (like me) whereas ez4u and Araban are in the "want to be strong" group.

If you want to be strong that means you really want to beat your opponents, like Fischer. You want to win, you care about your rank. You drill, you think hard, you avoid games against weaker players, you ignore go history and other distractions. Winning gives you joy; losing gives you pain. For you, go is like tennis.

If you merely want to understand, go is more like philosophy. You want to grasp the fundamental principles, for their own sake rather than to beat an opponent. You are at something of a disadvantage because go literature tends to be written for the "want to be strong" and those who want to be strong tend to ignore anything and anyone that doesn't help them in their quest. But for you, go can be fun all the time. To be sure, losing games can be disconcerting, but more because it produces a general angst that you are not yet understanding the principles. It is not a visceral pain.

Of course, the attributes of the two groups can overlap at times, but when the crunch comes, I think you know you are in one group or the other. The difference is rather like being a player or a fan. In baseball, some people want to play in the Big Leagues, and may often get there without knowing even (say) who Jackie Robinson was. Some people are content with being fans. They not only know who JR was but where he came from, where he served in the war, what his number was, etc. They can't make a triple play, but can tell you when the last one was made. The Major Leaguer has fun while he makes big bucks but his world is shattered if he is demoted to the Minor Leagues. The fan may never reach the highs of being paid millions a year, but has a source of fun all his life.

For a fan, reading out tsumego problems or facing a pitch is really part of the fan process, and not about becoming strong. You want a taste of the real thing simply in order to appreciate it better. I know that when I began to take baseball seriously, I was desperate to face a fastball. Just from watching on tv I couldn't really understand all the fuss about fastballs. They didn't look so fast to me. But when I got into a batting cage for the first time, and a slow ball plopped past me. I began to understand a little. After a few sessions I plucked up courage to go into the fast cage. When I saw nothing but heard a mighty crash behind me I began to understand even more. With perseverance I learned to smack almost every fast ball (we don't get curve balls or cutters unless it rains and the ball becomes a spitball), so I had become "stronger", yet I didn't feel I understood more. Then one day I got careless and got hit by a fastball. That day I understood a lot! Then I enjoyed watching games on tv even more.

My recommendation for Tami is to stand back from her list. Instead, look at a game through the eyes of Takagawa: view the flow of a game like water, which never fights what is in front but builds up the power to move boulders and always flows on. I think she'll understand go better then, in the sense of making it even more fun. And look at the commentaries by Shuei. I like him because I think that more than anyone else he has the ability to pinpoint the changes in flow of a game without getting bogged down in variations. He, of course, was both strong and he understood. But he was the Meijin of Meijins, after all.

[RobertJasiek]

You seem to suggest that books with principles are not written for those wishing to become stronger. The opposite is true: They are written to allow becoming stronger much faster. There are still many topics though where such books for (high) dans don't exist yet. Then even if one wants to improve by principles, one is forced to improve by examples.

[Kirby]

...

I infer that Tami is in the "want to understand" group (like me) whereas ez4u and Araban are in the "want to be strong" group.

If you want to be strong that means you really want to beat your opponents, like Fischer. You want to win, you care about your rank. You drill, you think hard, you avoid games against weaker players, you ignore go history and other distractions. Winning gives you joy; losing gives you pain. For you, go is like tennis.
...

Interesting analogy... I think that I am in the "want to be strong" camp. I care about winning. It's interesting to try to understand the "want to understand" camp, as I don't know if I completely understand them. ;-p

I feel that I "want to understand" go, but this desire is driven by the fact that I ultimately want to win the games that I play. It is hard for me to conceptualize the idea of "wanting to understand" without "wanting to win", probably because I want to win.

To me, the goal of the game is to win. If you think of the game from a game-theoretical standpoint, it's a zero-sum game: you profit from any win equally, and you lose that same amount when you lose. It is difficult for me to fathom playing the game without using the principle of trying to win as a guideline.

I don't think that this is limited to go in my life. Pretty much any game that I play, I play with the intention of winning. That is the goal to me, and it is how I understand that the game is defined.

If I try to think of games where winning is not important to me - say playing Monopoly - then it seems to be the case that they are games that I do not care about very much. I don't care about winning Monopoly, because I don't really care that much about Monopoly.

However, the "fan" perspective that John mentions in his post is an interesting one. Clearly he cares about baseball. Clearly it is something that he values and enjoys. But he is not driven by trying to get stronger as much as an appreciation of the game.

This is admirable to me, because it is a trait that I do not feel that I can relate to in any aspect of my life.

[RobertJasiek]

"to understand the theory to increase my strength" and "to understand the theory for its own sake" are often not in direct conflict because it is the same theory. If the theory is not useful for improving (e.g., rules theory), then there is another sort of conflict though: that of time spent.

[hyperpape]

However, the "fan" perspective that John mentions in his post is an interesting one. Clearly he cares about baseball. Clearly it is something that he values and enjoys. But he is not driven by trying to get stronger as much as an appreciation of the game.

This is admirable to me, because it is a trait that I do not feel that I can relate to in any aspect of my life.

There is nothing that you admire but don't try and do well? Movies, photography, music, go historiography, statistical analysis, physics...

You must be very ambitious.

[Kirby]

However, the "fan" perspective that John mentions in his post is an interesting one. Clearly he cares about baseball. Clearly it is something that he values and enjoys. But he is not driven by trying to get stronger as much as an appreciation of the game.

This is admirable to me, because it is a trait that I do not feel that I can relate to in any aspect of my life.

There is nothing that you admire but don't try and do well? Movies, photography, music, go historiography, statistical analysis, physics...

You must be very ambitious.

There are things that I admire. I like movies, for example. I even like the game of Monopoly alright. But I would say that I do not care about those things as much as for things that I am more competitive with. Or rather, if I care about a particular thing a lot, then I become competitive with it, particularly if it is an area in which competition is possible.

To give an example, if I was extremely passionate about movies, I might try to become the best movie director that I could be, perhaps. I don't care about movies THAT much, so I am content with not being competitive with it.

[Kirby]

if I care about a particular thing a lot, then I become competitive with it

Yes, we know. Have you tried therapy?

Not yet. I haven't considered it a real problem in my life, yet.

[oren]

Interesting analogy... I think that I am in the "want to be strong" camp. I care about winning. It's interesting to try to understand the "want to understand" camp, as I don't know if I completely understand them. ;-p

I go to the Seattle Go Center on Wednesday nights where a majority of the time we spend going over pro games. I do learn a lot from it, but I know if I wanted to get stronger faster I would be either playing games or doing tsumego with that time. However, I enjoy that time with a group going over the pro games more than my own games.

So I think it's simply that improvement is less important than finding the aspects of the game that I enjoy. There is one member here, who will go nameless, who enjoys relaying live games to the internet more than playing. I find that odd, but we all like Go.

Does that help at all?

[Kirby]

...

So I think it's simply that improvement is less important than finding the aspects of the game that I enjoy. There is one member here, who will go nameless, who enjoys relaying live games to the internet more than playing. I find that odd, but we all like Go.

Does that help at all?

I suppose. Although, if I were really serious about relaying live games to the Internet, I might still be competitive about it. Still, I think I understand your point.

[daal]

I think all players make a decision (not always conscious) between being strong at go and understanding go.
...
The difference is rather like being a player or a fan.

As one who is securely in the understanding camp, I must say that I don't like this analogy much. Although a fan wants to increase his appreciation of the game as you say, he generally is an observer and not an active player. While I may be considered a fan of the game, it is far more important to me to be seen as someone who plays go.

The main reason that I want to know more about go - undertand it better - is to increase my arsenal of moves. For me, this is less about winning per se than it is about coolness and being able to put up a good fight. Today I played a game in which I found a move - cutting across a knights move and stealing a corner - that I wouldn't have found when I was a bit weaker. Seeing it and executing it gave me an inordinate amount of pleasure. Were I to have seen something similar in a game I was watching, I would not have thought "what an clever move," but rather: "I want to be able to do that."

When you were standing in the batting cage, you were interested in seeing what challenges a batter faces. This is indeed the interest of a fan - to be in awe of the skill of the professionals. Most of us in the understanding camp however would probably prefer to learn how to throw a curveball.

My recommendation for Tami is to stand back from her list. Instead, look at a game through the eyes of Takagawa: view the flow of a game like water, which never fights what is in front but builds up the power to move boulders and always flows on. I think she'll understand go better then, in the sense of making it even more fun. And look at the commentaries by Shuei. I like him because I think that more than anyone else he has the ability to pinpoint the changes in flow of a game without getting bogged down in variations. He, of course, was both strong and he understood. But he was the Meijin of Meijins, after all.

This on the other hand is marvellous. Where can one find Shuei's commentaries?

[Tami]

Thank you again, everybody, for providing such thoughtful and interesting replies. I think I for one will need a day or three to digest all the recent remarks.

I think the one about the 1k reading and the 9p fuseki was a very pertinent point. For me, I feel like I am slowly building up experience and knowledge, and getting stronger that way (the concrete knowledge part); but I get the feeling that I am missing something fundamental in principle. Do you people know what I mean? The feeling of climbing a mountain step-by-step, with pain and pitons, while suspecting that there is a ski lift or mountain train just a short distance away, that would take you up the mountain much more pleasurably.

Of course, experts in any field have masses of knowledge. When I took lessons with Alex Dinerchtein, I was always in awe of the information he had at his fingertips; back in my student days, I was always impressed by how Prof Whenham always knew every article in all the journals. And, given the efforts I've been through to get to N3 on the JLPT (a medium level only), I'm astounded how John can be so fluent and well read in Japanese, Chinese, Korean and, I guess, several other languages.

But, it's not just knowledge, is it? I mean, my vocabulary and kanji ability are probably better than the average 10-year-old's; but I can't put the words together as fluently! They have a grasp of the principles behind it all.

So, yes, I want to understand. I don't want to be a walking tesuji or L&D database. But, I also want to be strong. I desire the understanding above all else; but I'm prepared to do the work to get the necessary knowledge. I do already work hard on tsumego and L&D, and I study games, and review my defeats critically.

There is one thing left to try, one fundamental change to make. I have read John's writings here and on SL, and they have inspired me to do this: see what happens if I make defence the foundation of my game.

There are two writers to recall: Ishikura and Sonoda. Ishikura says

"If the situation is settled:
1) If you have weak stones, defend
2) If your partner has weak stones, attack
3) Play a big point"

and Sonoda says "Don't attack, don't defend", which we at SL seem to think means "Don't just attack, don't just defend".

To sum it all up:

I've been trying to improve by focussing on the building of knowledge and reading ability but I get the strong impression that I'm missing the highway and crawling through the bushes on the verge. Therefore, I'm going to see what a drastic change in attitude produces. Maybe my rank will go down two or three stones, but I don't care. I want to understand!