Life In 19x19

Bantari wrote:1000 hours? really?

Yes. E.g., read Rin Kaiho dictionary twice, read Nihon Kiin dictionary once, play through the opening of 1500 pro games, read go theory books about the opening.

And that with exclusion of anything else,

Of course not. Also study in particular L+D, using influence and all kinds of fundamentals.

In real life, such study, if ever undertaken, takes long years for most of us.

Sure. Whoever lacks enough time must make compromises and spend less time. My advice for ca. 1000h is for those with enough time.

A 5d will practically always beat a 1d because a 5d is a 5d while a 1d is only a 1d.

My point is that it almost suffices for the 5d to have superior opening knowledge. The 5d is stronger in many respects, but he does not need most of them for the sake of beating a 1d.

Were you meaning to say that a 1d with superior opening theory will almost always beat a 5d with weak opening theory?

No, because typically 5d a) are not weak at opening theory and b) are stronger in other areas as well, so (even if they fail in the opening) they have a greater chance to catch up than the 1d has.

There is more to Go than just fighting and opening theory.

Yes, and we can have endless discussions about this, but I maintain my main point that the one with knowledge of opening, basic fighting and positional judgement wins in most cases.

If both are 5d, then theoretically they both have 50% chance of winning in any given game.

See (a) above. The exception is 5d children having neglected detailed opening study so far. See my earlier message.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Bantari wrote:1000 hours? really?

Yes. E.g., read Rin Kaiho dictionary twice, read Nihon Kiin dictionary once, play through the opening of 1500 pro games, read go theory books about the opening.

And that with exclusion of anything else,

Of course not. Also study in particular L+D, using influence and all kinds of fundamentals.

So basically, your advice is for him to spend the next 3-4 years working on Go 8 hours a day, every day, and "do it now"?
Do you really think this is a practical advice?

RobertJasiek wrote:My point is that it almost suffices for the 5d to have superior opening knowledge. The 5d is stronger in many respects, but he does not need most of them for the sake of beating a 1d.

And my point is that 5d is stronger than 1d in so many areas that he does not need superior opening knowledge to win. He might decide as well to win with superior fighting skills, or even superior yose skills, or whatever.

For example, just for kicks, when playing a much weaker player online I sometimes purposefully play a very bad opening just to make the game more interesting for me later on. And if the opponent is really weaker, like in your example, I have no problem winning in any case.

This is a very trivial point.

RobertJasiek wrote:Yes, and we can have endless discussions about this, but I maintain my main point that the one with knowledge of opening, basic fighting and positional judgement wins in most cases.

So basically, what you are saying is that the one with more skill and superior knowledge, especially in the main areas of the game, usually wins.
This I also find a trivial point.

Bantari, 1000h at 10h per day plus 5h playing (which I did when studying mainly the opening, the first ca. 170 moves of 1500 pro games and ca. 1500 LD problems as a 1k to become 1d in 5 months and 2d after another 3 weeks and 3d after another 2.5 months) means 100 days (some 3 months) if studying only the opening. I.e., a few months and not your proclaimed years.

The time consumption for the opening is similar to the time consumption for studying ca. 500 josekis seriously and their underlying go theory because there are that many openings and go theory for understanding how to play them is similarly rich. (Go theory for joseki and opening is also applicable for the middle game, whose go theory is even much richer though. So if you spend time for studying the middle game, you can save some time for studying the opening.) Quite like 500 josekis cannot be learnt by simply looking at their sequences and trying to remember them by heart permanently, 500 openings cannot be learnt permanently without understanding.

You discuss as if 1000h for getting the 5d understanding of the opening when starting as a ca. 1d were an exaggeration, but it is not. The opening phase of the game represents ca. 1/4 of the game. Having to spend ca. 4 * 1000h = 4000h of study from 1d to 5d is a lower limit rather than an exaggeration. (Reminder for the kyu players reading this: the learning curve is exponential. Study time as a kyu pales when compared with study time to be spent as a dan player in order to improve.)

If there were shortcuts using the literature, I would mention them. Unfortunately, there is hardly any literature on opening theory for dan players. It hardly becomes any better than teaching by examples and so does amount to the ca. 1000h. Only the very most popular openings (such as Sanrensei, Chinese, Shusaku) get a slightly better, but still very insufficient, coverage. Some time can be saved by replacing it by money for teachers, but only if choosing teachers teaching opening as go theory instead of examples only (in which case reading opening dictionaries amounts to the same amount of time and is much cheaper).

Bantari wrote:I am sure you are thinking right, but some stuff you say is just questionable. For example:

RobertJasiek wrote:If you have not spent your 1000 hours on studying openings, do so now.

1000 hours? really? Do you realize it is like 6 solid months of full-time study, 8 hours a day, every weekday? And that with exclusion of anything else, like studying L&D, playing, going over pro games, etc... I am not sure who can really afford that. I find it strange to give advice to just "do so now". In real life, such study, if ever undertaken, takes long years for most of us.

Actually I would say the number is realistic.

A 6 dan told me once he'd spent 200 to 300 hours on the nadare alone, a remark I only understood later (it's the running fight/haengma aspects where there is a lot to learn). Quite a few years ago, when I was compiling my own fuseki index, I noticed how hard it is to understand what is really going on (i.e. the "funnel" or whatever you would call it, distinguishing the small group of plays pros would even consider in a typical position around move 10 of a game, and the much more random amateur scatter). It is a meaty and demanding subject, and just as important, you probably have to draw your own conclusions.

As a training method ... well, plenty of people here self-prescribe training, but I'm a bit sceptical about that. There is something in what Robert says here that chimes with my own views: namely that the way to improve is to get into better types of positions, rather than play the same old types of position a bit better. Time spent on the opening is supposed to address that issue.

RobertJasiek wrote:Bantari, 1000h at 10h per day plus 5h playing (which I did when studying mainly the opening, the first ca. 170 moves of 1500 pro games and ca. 1500 LD problems as a 1k to become 1d in 5 months and 2d after another 3 weeks and 3d after another 2.5 months) means 100 days (some 3 months) if studying only the opening. I.e., a few months and not your proclaimed years.

The time consumption for the opening is similar to the time consumption for studying ca. 500 josekis seriously and their underlying go theory because there are that many openings and go theory for understanding how to play them is similarly rich. (Go theory for joseki and opening is also applicable for the middle game, whose go theory is even much richer though. So if you spend time for studying the middle game, you can save some time for studying the opening.) Quite like 500 josekis cannot be learnt by simply looking at their sequences and trying to remember them by heart permanently, 500 openings cannot be learnt permanently without understanding.

You discuss as if 1000h for getting the 5d understanding of the opening when starting as a ca. 1d were an exaggeration, but it is not. The opening phase of the game represents ca. 1/4 of the game. Having to spend ca. 4 * 1000h = 4000h of study from 1d to 5d is a lower limit rather than an exaggeration. (Reminder for the kyu players reading this: the learning curve is exponential. Study time as a kyu pales when compared with study time to be spent as a dan player in order to improve.)

If there were shortcuts using the literature, I would mention them. Unfortunately, there is hardly any literature on opening theory for dan players. It hardly becomes any better than teaching by examples and so does amount to the ca. 1000h. Only the very most popular openings (such as Sanrensei, Chinese, Shusaku) get a slightly better, but still very insufficient, coverage. Some time can be saved by replacing it by money for teachers, but only if choosing teachers teaching opening as go theory instead of examples only (in which case reading opening dictionaries amounts to the same amount of time and is much cheaper).

Go is my main hobby, and I can only give it realistically 1-2h day, and because I'm doing an effort to do so lately. 1000h at 1h day is slightly less than 3 years already.

RobertJasiek wrote: If there were shortcuts using the literature, I would mention them. Unfortunately, there is hardly any literature on opening theory for dan players. It hardly becomes any better than teaching by examples and so does amount to the ca. 1000h. Only the very most popular openings (such as Sanrensei, Chinese, Shusaku) get a slightly better, but still very insufficient, coverage. Some time can be saved by replacing it by money for teachers, but only if choosing teachers teaching opening as go theory instead of examples only (in which case reading opening dictionaries amounts to the same amount of time and is much cheaper).

I pretty much agree with Robert that it takes a lot of time and study if you want to truly improve.

It can be helpful to have a teacher about these types of things. I've been participating in In-seong's Yunguseng Dojang, and he has several lectures on opening theory and common openings. The lectures are very valuable, and make me feel I have an advantage over opponents that have not studied a particular opening.

That being said, even with a teacher, and even being at the lecture and able to ask questions, there is not enough time to master an opening pattern in a single lecture, even though the lecture may range from 60 to 90 minutes. Even with a teacher there to answer your questions, your opponents might play in ways that didn't come up in the lecture, which can be tricky to answer.

So it takes a lot of individual study outside of the lecture, even if you have an experienced teacher that can answer your questions. Not to mention the "forget factor". You might study a particular opening in depth and learn about several variations, etc., but if you don't use it in your games, after a couple of months, what you've studied may be forgotten.

If anything, I think 1000 hours might be an understatement.

Charles Matthews wrote:

Bantari wrote:I am sure you are thinking right, but some stuff you say is just questionable. For example:

RobertJasiek wrote:If you have not spent your 1000 hours on studying openings, do so now.

1000 hours? really? Do you realize it is like 6 solid months of full-time study, 8 hours a day, every weekday? And that with exclusion of anything else, like studying L&D, playing, going over pro games, etc... I am not sure who can really afford that. I find it strange to give advice to just "do so now". In real life, such study, if ever undertaken, takes long years for most of us.

Actually I would say the number is realistic.

Realistic as a number itself? Sure. I don't think I ever disputed that.
But realistic/practical as an advice to an every-day Go player?

This is what I have a problem with. Especially when combined with the words "do it now." It just seems ridiculous to me. Nobody has such amount of time, unless you are either retired (in which case it might take much longer because of your age), independently wealthy (must be nice), or supported by parents/wife/whoever (get off your lazy bum and get a job!) And I am not even talking about the necessary dedication, motivation, and energy.

But hey, maybe there are people among us who can serious allow themselves to just drop everything and start seriously study Go 8 hours a day (in addition to playing), each day, for years. I don't know anybody like that, but if there are, especially if the OP is one of them, then my apologies. I withdraw this particular comment. But first show me some such people on this forum.

Not everyone has to be a high dan player, Bantari. Playing go on the side and studying here and there is fun, too. You just can't expect to master that which you don't sufficiently study.

Kirby wrote:even with a teacher, and even being at the lecture and able to ask questions, there is not enough time to master an opening pattern

This begs the question: What do we understand by "mastering" an opening pattern?

Depending on the answer, do we, average Go players, really need to go that far? As desirable as it might be...
Or have even top pros really "mastered" anything at all?
Has anybody here "mastered" something? OP? RJ? Anybody?

PS>
To me, it is all about levels of dedication and about want/need.

I think that giving an advice that "you need to go and study opening theory 1000 hours now" to improve from KGS 1d to KGS 3d is misguided.
I think that if somebody wants to improve from KGS 1d to a top world-class ama or a pro - such advice would be much more appropriate.

Here is what I can say:
- Does a KGS 1d (like the OP) need to study opening theory to improve? It certainly cannot hurt.
- Does a KGS 1d need to study it to get to 3d? Possibly... but not certainly.
- Does a KGS 1d need to "master" anything? Not really.
- Does a KGS 1d need to study opening theory 1000 hours to get to 3d? I seriously doubt it.

Bottom line:
Whatever study you do is always good and it will always help you improve. The more you study, the better. But the rest is up to you... how far do you want to go, what are your resources (material, mental, and otherwise), etc.

Bantari, it sounds like your main point is that studying several hours for the opening is not the most efficient way to improve. I don't know if it is, but as you approach higher levels, eventually you need to study everything

Kirby wrote:Bantari, it sounds like your main point is that studying several hours for the opening is not the most efficient way to improve. I don't know if it is, but as you approach higher levels, eventually you need to study everything

Hi Kirby.
No, this is not my point at all.

My point is that studying opening theory for 1000 hours is not necessary to get to KGS 3d.
My other point is that I don't believe anyone here can realistically afford to do that, at least not in the sense RJ suggested - to just "do it now".

As for efficiency you mention, I have no clue. It is a very individual issue. Some people can improve most efficiently by studying L&D for example, because theis where they lose most games. Others can improve most efficiently by studying opening theory. Others yet by studying yose (this would be me, I guess.)

You simple cannot tell what is the most efficient in general because it depends not only on the player in question, but also on the development stage the player is at.

The only general statement I would make here is that to improve most efficiently you first need to figure out why you lose games, and then study that area. Once you stop losing games due to that one thing, figure out why you losing games now, and study that. Rinse, repeat.

Kirby wrote:Not everyone has to be a high dan player, Bantari. Playing go on the side and studying here and there is fun, too.

This is, sort-of, my point.
We are all amateurs, and we study when we study, usually not that much, unless it is fun.

My problem was not with study, but with the advice that to get from KGS 1d to KGS 3d you need to
a) study opening theory 1000 hours and "do it now" (as RJ seems to suggest), and
b) that you actually need to master anything (as you and others seem to suggest.)

I think that:
a) as you say, we study here and there, when it is fun, and sometimes study more to accomplish specific goals (like 1d to 3d), and
b) mastering something would be nice, but rarely achievable. It is certainly not needed to get to KGS 3d. I know that from experience.

I am really not sure I can make it any simpler.

You just can't expect to master that which you don't sufficiently study.

Personally, even with sufficient study I never really expect to "master" anything, really.
But this might depend on our definition of "mastering something." I probably just have higher standards in this regard. Or my study was not really "sufficient."

I also side with Robert here. This makes at least 3 people who think Robert's comments here have merit.

This is a free forum; people are free to post from the best suggestion to the wackiest advice. It's free; you get what you pay for.

Food for thought for Pippen: have you encountered a good teacher and received good comments about your Go yet ? It may turn out that the opening is the least of your problems. (From anecdotal evidence, this is most likely true.)

Pippen is intelligent and can decide for himself how much or how little to take from Robert's comments. Or anyone else's.

Bantari wrote:

Kirby wrote:Bantari, it sounds like your main point is that studying several hours for the opening is not the most efficient way to improve. I don't know if it is, but as you approach higher levels, eventually you need to study everything

Hi Kirby.
No, this is not my point at all.

Thanks for the further explanation, Bantari. I think that I still understand what you are trying to say, but perhaps I didn't word it well. You weren't claiming anything about efficiency - that was my addition, mostly because I think it logically follows that, if there are many paths to 3d, it would be useful to know which one is most efficient.


It sounds like your main argument is here:

Bantari wrote: My problem was not with study, but with the advice that to get from KGS 1d to KGS 3d you need to
a) study opening theory 1000 hours and "do it now" (as RJ seems to suggest), and
b) that you actually need to master anything (as you and others seem to suggest.)

Regarding (a), I don't think it is necessary to study 1000 hours to get to an arbitrary rank - like KGS 3d. But I think it is necessary to put in that time if you truly want to be a high level player. What a high level player is can vary in rank depending on the person. But having seen the skill that some players have in opening theory, for example, from my teacher - I cannot fathom becoming that strong without putting in the time necessary to learn what they know. Maybe I can be a KGS 3d without that work - but I would be a KGS 3d without good opening theory knowledge. KGS 3d is an arbitrary rank. But to be truly strong, you need to put in the time. "Truly strong" does not correlate to a specific rank.

Regarding (b), I don't think you need to master anything. Just look at your quote of what I said

Kirby wrote:Not everyone has to be a high dan player, Bantari. Playing go on the side and studying here and there is fun, too.

You don't even have to play go if you don't like it. I'm just saying that, in order to get truly strong, you need to put in the time and effort for it. Maybe you can get to KGS 3d or some other rank without much work. But this is an arbitrary line.

Personally, even with sufficient study I never really expect to "master" anything, really.
But this might depend on our definition of "mastering something." I probably just have higher standards in this regard. Or my study was not really "sufficient."

High standards are of no value if you don't put in work to achieve them.

Kirby wrote:

Bantari wrote:

Kirby wrote:Bantari, it sounds like your main point is that studying several hours for the opening is not the most efficient way to improve. I don't know if it is, but as you approach higher levels, eventually you need to study everything

Hi Kirby.
No, this is not my point at all.

Thanks for the further explanation, Bantari. I think that I still understand what you are trying to say, but perhaps I didn't word it well. You weren't claiming anything about efficiency - that was my addition, mostly because I think it logically follows that, if there are many paths to 3d, it would be useful to know which one is most efficient.


It sounds like your main argument is here:

Bantari wrote: My problem was not with study, but with the advice that to get from KGS 1d to KGS 3d you need to
a) study opening theory 1000 hours and "do it now" (as RJ seems to suggest), and
b) that you actually need to master anything (as you and others seem to suggest.)

Regarding (a), I don't think it is necessary to study 1000 hours to get to an arbitrary rank - like KGS 3d. But I think it is necessary to put in that time if you truly want to be a high level player. What a high level player is can vary in rank depending on the person. But having seen the skill that some players have in opening theory, for example, from my teacher - I cannot fathom becoming that strong without putting in the time necessary to learn what they know. Maybe I can be a KGS 3d without that work - but I would be a KGS 3d without good opening theory knowledge. KGS 3d is an arbitrary rank. But to be truly strong, you need to put in the time. "Truly strong" does not correlate to a specific rank.

Regarding (b), I don't think you need to master anything. Just look at your quote of what I said

Kirby wrote:Not everyone has to be a high dan player, Bantari. Playing go on the side and studying here and there is fun, too.

You don't even have to play go if you don't like it. I'm just saying that, in order to get truly strong, you need to put in the time and effort for it. Maybe you can get to KGS 3d or some other rank without much work. But this is an arbitrary line.

Personally, even with sufficient study I never really expect to "master" anything, really.
But this might depend on our definition of "mastering something." I probably just have higher standards in this regard. Or my study was not really "sufficient."

High standards are of no value if you don't put in work to achieve them.

Alright... so what are we really saying? That studying helps improve and that to get really really strong you need to study really really much. I never had any issues with that.

My problem started with RJ's "do it now" comment, as if there was no alternative, and unless you "do it now" you are doomed to mediocrity or something. In this particular context, it seems to mean that unless you "do it now" you cannot improve from 1d to 3d. The "it" refers to spending 1000 hours studying opening theory. I took the advice in its entirely, not just a "study opening theory" or "study 1000 hours" or the implied "study a lot to get really strong". In particular, the ridiculous "do it now" raised my objections, in case you still wonder.

If you kids have no problem with the above, then we just have to agree to disagree.

For the record - I never said anything about efficiency. Nor did I say that you don't need to study at all or that there are better ways of improving than studying opening theory, although there well might be, depending on circumstances.

What I also never said is that RJ was wrong in the sense that to truly get strong you need to spend a lot of time (maybe 1000 hours) studying opening theory. I simply have no clue, I was never truly strong. But I am aware that you have to study long and hard for that.

It seems I was (mis)understood this way, and the fault for that is certainly on my part, for not explaining stuff clearly enough.

But this thread was started by the OP asking if this will help him to get from 1d to 3d, and so RJ's advice must be seen in this light. And, in this light, I disagree with its validity. That's all.

Bantari, my great motivation hint "do it now" has beaten you, hasn't it?:) Let me clarify:

- Is it possible to become 3d without opening study? Yes. Do I recommend forgoing opening study? No. Do I consider opening study important from 1d to 3d? Very important! Hence I do not give the worst advice "Try it without opening study." but the best advice "Opening study belongs to the most important study topics from 1d to 3d.".

- The OP wants to become 3d but also shows signs of aiming at higher ranks. Presumably he needs less than 1000h for the opening until 3d, but if he starts study with a too modest approach, his prospects to continue afterwards are restricted. The 1000h indicate the right order of magnitude and therefore suggest appropriately serious study of the opening. Just casual study of one opening pattern or another is insufficient. Ca. 1000h spent on opening study suffice to get a weak 5d understanding of the opening. So if this amount is spent until 3d, one need not study much opening theory from 3d to 5d. Contrarily, with this amount of study for the opening (and similar for other essential topics), the 1d does get enough drive to reach 3d for sure. With instead a too modest aim of, say, 300h, the 1d becomes 2d and then still wonders how to reach solid 3d. Set the right amount of study and motivation, and you are 3d before you have realised to pass 2d.

- I have said it before, but apparently you have overlooked it and missed the great importance: Also study in particular L+D (solve many problems), using influence and all kinds of fundamentals. Play through the opening [and middle game] of 1500 pro games. Each of these is essential for improving fast from 1d to 3d.

- (I know, there is also the endgame. Of course, a 1d must avoid all the endgame mistakes of kyu players; I have presumed this. A 1d still missing kyu endgame knowledge must catch up, of course. However, endgame theory for dan players is a tedious study object. Surely it is important, but studying the endgame is a slow task, so endgame is not the best topic for improving fast from 1d to 3d. Improving from 3d to 5d will be slower, so then there will still be the time for studying the endgame. Delaying the endgame has the other advantage that playing through 1500 pro games is much faster because the first ca. 170 moves suffice and the endgame moves can be skipped.)

- Mistakes, mistakes. Sure they are important and must be studied at all levels. But a 1d has as great difficulties to recognise his mistakes as players of all levels. For autodidactic study, attempting to detect one's mistakes goes without saying. If necessary, take a teacher to point out them. However, the study of mistakes does not replace the need for positive study of opening, LD, infuence, fundamentals and pro games.