Life In 19x19

John Fairbairn wrote:

Reading is independent of meijin versus amateur status. Not social status decides reading, but the skill at reading is decisive for reading well.

I thought we'd already reached the height of amateur arrogance with the contumely for Japanese 9-dans. I see now there was scope for more - and not just any meijin but the Meijin Inseki!

If we replace "reading" by "brute force calculation of variations", research on chess indicates little difference between master and patzer in that regard. I doubt if that is the case with go pros vs. amateurs, because of brain sculpting as kids. Still, reading is much more than calculation.

Dear Robert,

Pattern regognition is a means to easily truncate the variation tree. Thus, it minimises the amount of reading that will be necessary in addition.

Usually, you will easier find your treasure, when you know what you are requested to look for.

"There might be two Nakade shapes in different orientations." gives you a hint to start your considerations with two potential vital points.

"There will arise a line of false eyes, if I play there." might be a useful insight to begin with.

+ + + + + + + + + +

Reading can stop at a moment, when I securely know about the rest.

E.g. there is absolutely no need to fill-in two of four one-point eyes of a group to prove that this group is an independently alive two-eyes-formation.

+ + + + + + + + + +

As a matter of course there will be single examples, where solely trusting "intuition" (i.e. pattern recognition, in my opinion) does not lead you to the correct solution of a problem.

Inoue Dosetsu Inseki apparently liked a lot to integrate such pitfalls for his professioanal collegues in Igo Hatsuyôron 120.

John Fairbairn wrote:I thought we'd already reached the height of amateur arrogance with the contumely for Japanese 9-dans. I see now there was scope for more - and not just any meijin but the Meijin Inseki!

Instead of meta-discussion or reference to proprietary file formats, show us Inseki's skill of explaining how to solve a problem well so that we can praise or criticise it properly.

Cassandra wrote:Pattern regognition is a means to easily truncate the variation tree. Thus, it minimises the amount of reading that will be necessary in addition [...]
Reading can stop at a moment, when I securely know about the rest.

Yes, and for the context see my earlier messages.

Instead of meta-discussion or reference to proprietary file formats, show us Inseki's skill of explaining how to solve a problem well so that we can praise or criticise it properly.

Show us RJ's skill of explaining how to solve a problem well so that we can praise or criticise it properly.

Uberdude wrote:You mean like this?

How about this:

Curkananotes prisoneens' facaninil brendus iseranced bnoyed paittillabay falilny atbead.

It's not of much help that English isn't particularly phonetic to begin with.

Bill Spight wrote: I learned to read using phonics, and that worked well, despite the vagaries of English spelling. However, teaching kids to read by recognizing whole words caught on in the US, and I suppose, in the UK. Apparently the learning curve is pretty steep at first. In addition, parents were not able to help their kids learn to read by the whole word method. That's why we started seeing ads on TV for aids to teaching phonics. I don't see those ads much these days. Maybe phonics made a comeback in the schools. Or maybe parents who were taught by the whole word method were happy with their kids learning that way.

BTW, the shortened version illustrates the fact that most of the meaning of text is carried by the consonants.

I learned whole word, my kids are being taught in school with phonics. The pendulum has swung back, possibly too far, English doesn't lend itself that well to phonics alone and word lists based on phonics are less useful to children than word lists based on frequency. The linguist David Crystal commented on the pointlessness of having children learn off words they neither will read or write in the next year rather than giving them word lists of the things they will want to write down and read. Kind of like whether you mention "rite" when explaining the difference between "right" and "write" to a learner to take an extreme example.

leichtloeslich wrote:

Uberdude wrote:You mean like this?

How about this:

Curkananotes prisoneens' facaninil brendus iseranced bnoyed paittillabay falilny atbead.

Cantankerous pensioners' financial burdens increased beyond palatability finally abated.

It's not of much help that English isn't particularly phonetic to begin with.

It's also not much help to have non-random strings inside words, to use infrequent words, and to use garden path grammar or headline speak.

daal wrote:For simplicity's sake, let's just look at Black to Kill type problems.

I believe "White to live" is considerably more complex, and that suggests there is something artificial about this business.

Boidhre wrote: I learned whole word, my kids are being taught in school with phonics. The pendulum has swung back, possibly too far, English doesn't lend itself that well to phonics alone and word lists based on phonics are less useful to children than word lists based on frequency. The linguist David Crystal commented on the pointlessness of having children learn off words they neither will read or write in the next year rather than giving them word lists of the things they will want to write down and read. Kind of like whether you mention "rite" when explaining the difference between "right" and "write" to a learner to take an extreme example.

Don't wee want are kids too rite rite?

I thought a bit about learning to read, and I think that the focus on single words may be too narrow. If I were teaching kids to read something I might try is reading stories to them, pausing at certain points to ask them to guess the next word, and then telling them the next word and writing it down for them. Reading involves context. I imagine that I could do without word lists.

I remember that in first grade we thought that our readers were stupid. "Look. See." Nobody talks like that.

Bill Spight wrote:Don't wee want are kids too rite rite?

I thought a bit about learning to read, and I think that the focus on single words may be too narrow. If I were teaching kids to read something I might try is reading stories to them, pausing at certain points to ask them to guess the next word, and then telling them the next word and writing it down for them. Reading involves context. I imagine that I could do without word lists.

I remember that in first grade we thought that our readers were stupid. "Look. See." Nobody talks like that.

We do what our parents did and buy plenty of books for the kids rather than let them to the mercies of a "one size fits all" education system. Ditto every other subject. Context is hugely important yes, so is them wanting to write something or read something. My daughter obsessively copies out text from her books despite not being able to read yet. One day I came across a bunch of lines I couldn't recognise but it looked like text, I showed it to my wife and she recognised it as some kanji from a bag she'd given to our daughter to play with. Enthusiasm is blind.

Charles Matthews wrote:

daal wrote:For simplicity's sake, let's just look at Black to Kill type problems.

I believe "White to live" is considerably more complex, and that suggests there is something artificial about this business.

Well, the last move is always pretty straightforward, no

But seriously, if it helps for black to kill but not for white to live, wouldn't that still be a good thing?

The question for me is, will having some kind of strategic aim help choose good candidate moves? If the answer is no, then the way to solve problems is by relying on your experience. If you don't have much, get more. But while you are gathering it, wouldn't it be good to have some idea and not just randomly pick starting points?

Do we like circular arguments?

Tactical reading presumes an aim; if it fails, the aim can sometimes be modified to become more modest. Strategic reading is possible with or without aim; one can do strategic reading for the sake of finding a good aim...

What good is reading if I don't even know which part of the board I should be playing in next?

Fedya wrote:What good is reading if I don't even know which part of the board I should be playing in next?

You read all parts and play in the one you can figure out.