I have changed the journal title, since lately I'm just dumping numbers. Here's this week's (which were holidays for me) data.
----
This week I was on holiday, and decided to train a little more my go reading. I wasn't sure about which book to bring, had a lot of candidates: 1001 life and death problems, Graded Go Problems for Beginners Vol 3, any amount of Lee Ch'ang Ho Life and Death or Tesuji books, Seigen-Segoe tesuji books, a couple Chinese tsumego books I have... Finally settled for
Graded Go Problems for Beginners, Vol 3, which has
421 problems. I've had this book for 8 years, and never, ever gotten farther than page 20 or so (I got this and an opening book – In the beginning, I think – in exchange for my copy of The Endgame from a former go playing friend.) I re-bound the book, covering the ugly cover with a plain, dark grey paper and film. Now it's a sturdy, dull book. I hated that cover.
My original plan was to just do all the problems, twice, giving me 1 minute for the first time (at most) and 30 seconds for the second run. What I didn't consider is that tallying so many times is incredibly time consuming, a significant overhead to an already large undertaking (421 problems at 1 minute per problem can easily end up being close to 7 hours). In the end, I have just made one run of the book, But I logged more or less all times used, to gauge reading improvement in the near future. Here comes the time and % data.
For the first two batches (which comprise Sections 1 and 2) I logged the problem time, whether I was right or wrong and if I passed 60 seconds, the problem was marked as wrong without further reading. The times are cut to the full seconds figure unless the tens of second was higher than 90, where I rounded up for no special reason.
From these two first batches I analysed some data, splitting wrong problems (and also right ones) into very wrong and "just" wrong classes. This made "problematic reading check" afterwards somewhat easier.
First batch:
Covering problems 1-64 (I was tired and stopped short of a few problems to finish "real" Part 1, which ends on problem 86)
- Total problem solving time: 16 minutes, 17 seconds
- Average time per problem: 15 seconds
- Median time per problem: 13 seconds
- Mode time per problem: 15 seconds
- First quartile: 9 seconds
- Standard deviation per problem time: 10.25
- Percentage of correct problems: 82.8%
The problems where the time taken is larger than the average AND are wrong are one class of
very wrong problems, the other class being problems where the time taken is lower than the first quartile and the problem is wrong.
The first type covers problems where my reading is totally mistaken: either I can't see the solution (so, time>=60 and directly wrong) or I convinced myself a wrong solution is actually right. In a game this results in bad time efficiency, since I'm taking more time than usual to just answer wrongly.
Problems of the other class include instant responses where not only my intuition, but my shape sense and "instant reading" are
very wrong. This is time<=Q1 AND wrong. In a game setting this is essentially a brain fart: for life and death or tesuji I may not answer instantly in a game with long time settings, and re-read (probably catching the mistake). In a blitz game though, this may be a game losing move.
My reasoning is that improving in this set of very wrong problems (which is smaller than the set of wrong problems) will yield better results than checking all wrong problems and analysing why I was wrong: it can just be a minor hiccup in my reading.
- \>avg&wrong: 3 problems
- \<=Q1&wrong: 1 problem
- Percentage of very wrong problems: 6.25%
- Percentage of very wrong problems among wrong problems: 36.36%
Likewise, problems where time taken is less (or equal) than the first quartile and are right are considered "very right," since my intuition and reading where spot on and fast.
- \<=Q1&right: 16 problems
- Percentage of very right problems among right problems: 30.1%
Second batch:
Covering problems 65-169 (end of Section 1 and the whole Section 2)
- Total problem solving time: 36 minutes, 31 seconds
- Average time per problem: 20.8 seconds
- Median time per problem: 15 seconds
- Mode time per problem: 60 seconds
- First quartile: 9 seconds
- Standard deviation per problem time: 10.25
- Percentage of correct problems: 72.1%
- \>avg&wrong: 18 problems
- \<=Q1&wrong: 6 problems
- Percentage of very wrong problems: 23%
- Percentage of very wrong problems among wrong problems: 80%
- \<=Q1&right: 26 problems
- Percentage of very right problems among right problems: 34.6%
The fact that the mode is 60 seconds means I timed out in "many" problems. Actually the mode in this data sets is not that relevant anyway. I'm somewhat surprised about the difference between the percentages of very wrong within wrong problems in the two batches. Since the average time and percentage of wrong problems are worse in this second section, it seems the problems are on average somewhat harder (the two batches were done in different days with roughly the same day load, so the results should be independent of my own mental tiredness). I would expect very wrong problems to be roughly the same ratio. I think this hints at a problem when solutions are somewhat deep: I'm expecting solutions to have a certain depth, and I'm reading no further. If I can't see a solution at "that" depth I keep circling around wrong solutions until I time out or I miss a refutation of my shorter, wrong line which I then accept as right.
Third batch:
This one covered Section 3, which is "just" life and death problems (124 problems). For this third batch I was somewhat tired of recording times and just timed each page, each page (except the last, having 4) had 6 problems.
- Total problem solving time: 34 minutes
- Average time per page: 97 seconds
- Median time per page: 91 seconds
- Mode time per page 113 seconds
- First quartile: 72 seconds
- Standard deviation of time per page: 31.6
- Percentage of correct problems: 92.7
Another surprise here: this section seems far, far easier than the rest (or I was already reaping rewards from doing so many problems before.). I had long stretches of 6/6 pages and none of the problems I miss had any "stupid" surprises, I just plainly misread or miscounted. Worth noting, some problems from this section are already in the previous two sections.
Fourth (and final) batch
This one covered Section 4, another set of only life and death problems (128 problems.) Again, each page had 6 problems except for the last page, which had only 2. My reading was slightly less sharp (or so I felt, seeing some of the mistakes I did) than in the previous batch, but I caught several "repeated errors" from this section. Again, I counted per-page times. I wasn't specially motivated to finish this batch, I only did it because it may be the last chance during holidays. So, spent ~1h30 to finish it (adding the time needed to check answers, find the reading mistake if it wasn't in the "wrong" diagram and record the time taken per page.)
- Total problem solving time: 51 minutes
- Average time per page: 140 seconds
- Median time per page: 122.5 seconds
- Mode time per page: NA
- First quartile: 98 seconds
- Standard deviation of time per page: 62
- Percentage of correct problems: 71%
I had quite a few "shape katteyomi," where I saw a clear shape defect in the target group and falsely assumed it worked to kill. I also had a stupidly hard time with "easy" problems where the shape is almost completely settled and just a simple move is needed, the kind covered in 1001 LD problems. I think I need to tackle this book next.
Final results:
Total time for the book: 2h 18 minutes (give or take a couple minutes due to rounding mistakes)
Percentage of correct problems: 79.3 %
Clearly this book was not challenging "enough" (Bill Spight suggested in a previous comment in this log that the best is aiming for books with ~50% failure rate) but this revisiting of the basics is always good. I also managed to find some areas to improve and work on in problem solving, and now have an interesting data set to use as baseline of reading improvement.