Life In 19x19

Bill Spight wrote:Well, it's OK if you can't figure out why the pro made a play.

And -- if you have absolutely no idea about the "why" -- simply do not copy that move in your own games

Cassandra wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:Well, it's OK if you can't figure out why the pro made a play.

And -- if you have absolutely no idea about the "why" -- simply do not copy that move in your own games

Oh, I dunno. There is a lot to be said for experimenting. You might learn something.

This is not a "one size fits all" question.

Some people learn very well from books but perhaps not so well from "just try it and see what happens". Other people do not learn well from books and need hands on if they are to learn at all. That's why general advice like "quickly lose 100 games" isn't always the right advice to give any more than recommending this or that "starting with go" book.

Well, at the very least we can categorically affirm that in order to play go, one must in fact play it.

tentano wrote:Well, at the very least we can categorically affirm that in order to play go, one must in fact play it.

I do wonder whether someone could reach a KGS 10k level without ever playing a game just by diligent study.

Boidhre wrote:

tentano wrote:Well, at the very least we can categorically affirm that in order to play go, one must in fact play it.

I do wonder whether someone could reach a KGS 10k level without ever playing a game just by diligent study.

I think that's theoretically possible, but also enormously pointless. Why skip the fun part until you are "ready" when there's no clear evidence of harm from indulging? Unless you're in an emergency where time efficiency is vital, this sort of practice seems silly.

You'd certainly need at least a hundred hours of study before you'd get to play.

Maybe if study is more fun to someone than actually playing? Given the diversity of the human condition, such people might exist.

tentano wrote:

Boidhre wrote:

tentano wrote:Well, at the very least we can categorically affirm that in order to play go, one must in fact play it.

I do wonder whether someone could reach a KGS 10k level without ever playing a game just by diligent study.

I think that's theoretically possible, but also enormously pointless. Why skip the fun part until you are "ready" when there's no clear evidence of harm from indulging? Unless you're in an emergency where time efficiency is vital, this sort of practice seems silly.

You'd certainly need at least a hundred hours of study before you'd get to play.

Maybe if study is more fun to someone than actually playing? Given the diversity of the human condition, such people might exist.

Some people just really hate feeling like a beginner in front of other people. If they can bypass that without anyone seeing them do it then they might try. Personally, yeah I'd agree with you but I can imagine someone short on suitable time for go play but suitable time for study (say a long commute each workday) trying something like this. If you allow playing an AI then I think a fair few people do this evidenced by people asking on here if they really need to play humans.

After I returned to the USA from Japan I improved mostly by reading books and playing through pro games. This was before there was any way to play online and, near where I lived, there were not many people who could play go. I improved several ranks this way.

Re: Boidhre

That makes some sense.

Especially the bit below 20k isn't particularly glorious, and nobody seriously suffers from taking on the free version of igowin or gnugo or whatever during that stage. Especially if interruptions are often, playing a timed game is not an option at all.

I've had a lot of fun playing while from 19k to 10k though. I was much worse than I am now, and used to look upon sdk players with great envy and awe, but I really enjoyed myself. There were the occasional trolls, but it really wasn't so bad. I would never advise anyone to remain a recluse at that stage.

Come to think of it, I've heard before that many Japanese retired gentlemen will first spend some time to learn up to at least 1d before daring to show their faces at a go parlour. I imagine they play online for a while first, though. It's about as anonymous as playing an AI if you don't give out any personal details.

Wonder what that's like in Korea or China.

Re: gowan

That's quite a high level of dedication. I don't know if I could do that, without some very certain knowledge that I would be playing again within the foreseeable future. I might not even bother to keep a set to play with under those circumstances.

For me the entire game is completely meaningless without human opponents.

Internet really is such a good thing. I might go months without a game without it.

Boidhre wrote:

tentano wrote:Well, at the very least we can categorically affirm that in order to play go, one must in fact play it.

I do wonder whether someone could reach a KGS 10k level without ever playing a game just by diligent study.

No, because they could not get a KGS rank without playing.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Before I started reading books, I was stuck in the DDK range. As soon as I started reading books (mainly theory books), I jumped to 3 dan within 17 months. My later improvement to 5d was mainly due to books. So do I recommend reading books and especially theory books? Of course.

A few books were sufficient to become 5k. To 1k, I read probably over 100 books but I think that many are not necessary because over 90 of them contained less information altogether than then best 10. From 1k to 5d, I must have read another 400+ books but the problem is that there were hardly any theory books for dan players (nowadays, it is slightly better), so it was similar: 360 books conveyed less contents altogether than the best 40 books. Hence, while it is not necessary to read that many books, it is essential to read the right books.

Especially from 1k to 3d, I read also problem books for improving my tactical reading skill. For this purpose only, problem books are also necessary - otherwise theory books are much more valuable.

Books is not the only means to become stronger. Other important means include playing, discussing one's own play, reviewing one's own games, teaching, replaying pro games, improving one's go-game-related psychology especially for reducing blunders.

Is it possible to live without books? I have heard of one 6d who is reported to never have read any go book. Are you that one person? Unlikely. For almost every player, books are your bread and butter. If a player does not improve despite reading good books, it can mean that he does not apply their contents well, he has other weak go skills that block his improvement, he has reached his permanent skill limit, he does too little else for go or he invests too little time for go in general.

The worst advice I ever got (as a DDK) was not to read go books yet, funnily it came by the same club teacher who gave me the best advice ever: to learn from my own mistakes.

The answer to your question is: ABSOLUTELY.

I agree, books are important.
I myself have had a 2-year period in which I have not played a single game but have read a lot, and made a jump from 5k to 2k. So books by themselves can definitely help you get stronger. At the very least, they can help preventing you from getting (much) weaker during the period of inactivity.

Two things I am curious about in what you say, though:

1. About good vs not-so-good books:
Do you think your evaluation of good books vs. not-so-good books might be personal? In other words, the few books you found helpful, the 10% which conveyed 90% of the knowledge to you, might not be the same 10% which will speak to somebody else? I ask this because I made this observation with teachers in general - some of the teachers I have had in the past and who taught me the least, I was told they taught others the most. And vice versa. Same can be said about textbooks in general, although I have not really heard it about Go books in particular. Which might be because the selection was very limited until quite recently.

If the above is true, then it is not sufficient to just read 10% of the books because of somebody's recommendation. You need to read a big chunk of what is available, and then decide for yourself which 10% are the most useful to you personally.

2. About getting to be strong without reading books:
Do you have any data about all the strong asian amateurs/pros and how many books have they read? It almost feels like a lot of players in the world (not necessarily in Europe, though) get very strong by not reading very much, or even not reading at all. For example, all I know about insei training is that there is no reading at all, other than maybe solving tsume-go or replaying pro games. I have been told the same by some of the very strong Asian players I have run into, mostly Japanese and Koreans - they say they had little use for books, never read them much, only for tsume-go and replaying pro games. It further seems to me that most of the strong players I know of, at least afaik, got strong without putting very much emphasis on what you call "Go theory". So while I am not sure that this is the best way to get strong, it is certainly a viable way.

In any case, since neither of us here is really strong, its more like a blind leading a blind.
Still, interesting.

DrStraw wrote:There is another form of study beyond reading books, which is often overlooked. I read a lot of books on my way to 1d but I also spent a lot of time just putting stones on the board by quickly playing out made up games. That way I got to control what aspects of my recent reading showed up on the board and I was able to expose myself to more situations. I would just play out one of these games in ten minutes, clear the board and start again. I really think that this helped me a lot when I was trying to digest the new ideas presented in the reading material. During my kyu days I would think the division was 30-40% playing, 50-60% reading any printed material I could find (there wasn't a lot back then) and about 10% just throwing stones out onto the board.

This throwing stones out allowed me to see many mistakes which I would not have seen in real games. It helped me decide what to avoid in a game as well as what did work.

yes, I have been doing a lot of that too.

Before the internet, even though I was an active club player, i was doing it actually much more often than play real games.
I guess as an opponent I was more often available to myself that most of my friends were... and I also was approximately the same level as myself, so them were pretty good games!

But joking aside, I think this is actually a very good exercise.

Bantari wrote: I have been told the same by some of the very strong Asian players I have run into, mostly Japanese and Koreans - they say they had little use for books, never read them much, only for tsume-go and replaying pro games. It further seems to me that most of the strong players I know of, at least afaik, got strong without putting very much emphasis on what you call "Go theory". So while I am not sure that this is the best way to get strong, it is certainly a viable way.

Almost none besides some tsumego books. However, they do have professional teachers letting them know certain ideas that amateurs are going to get from books.

I do remember one author basically saying it would be bad for sales, but he would have never looked at the type of book he just wrote as he was learning Go. It was a funny comment.

oren wrote:Almost none besides some tsumego books. However, they do have professional teachers letting them know certain ideas that amateurs are going to get from books.

I do remember one author basically saying it would be bad for sales, but he would have never looked at the type of book he just wrote as he was learning Go. It was a funny comment.

I don't think it's a funny comment really, he was aiming to become a pro, his audience just wants to gain a stone or two. Different goals have different methods.

Bantari wrote:1. About good vs not-so-good books:
Do you think your evaluation of good books vs. not-so-good books might be personal? In other words, the few books you found helpful, the 10% which conveyed 90% of the knowledge to you, might not be the same 10% which will speak to somebody else?

Most go books I read were Asian books with very little text. I do not read Asian languages, but the texts mostly were extended captions and contained short diagram number, move number or short variation sequence hints. (It is very easy to perceive such if only one can identify arabic / Asian numbers, latin / Asian letters denoting intersections and kanji saying "diagram" or "variation".) When I read books, I try to get as much from their contents as possible. So regardless of what the authors try to teach, I also parse, in each diagram, each move, each strategic line, each sequence, each group, each strategic choice, each positional judgement, each global relation, each strategic concept and each strategy I can perceive or verify by my own tactical reading.

There are limits to my perception because it is very hard to perceive new concepts that the book author does not teach explicitly, that no personal or public teacher (of those teachers I have seen or whose books I have read) anywhere has ever mentioned and that I missed completely thus far.

So although it is possible that a few readers might perceive a particularly well hidden concept faster than me, this is unlikely for most readers because otherwise I would have seen some of them mentioning those concepts some time. What every reader can get out of books must be similar to or less than what I can get out of books because, see above, I really try to be exhaustive. (There is, OC, the difference that Asian books teaching significant context in non-trivial text offer those readers significantly more than me that can understand the Asian text.)

So what I see in by far the most books is the same boring contents I see in most other books. I already felt lucky on discovering just one move in a book teaching me a new detail, a move that the author did not emphasise but that was merely part of a sequence meant to teach something else.

However, 10% (probably less) of the books are different: they teach important, essential concepts explicitly, concepts entirely neglected in the other 90% of the books.

So, no, I do not think that my assessment is too subjective.

(Instead, IMO, my description is an understatement. Go to Asian book shelves and notice the very many beginner / school books with even much less contents. I never read such; it would be a complete waste of time. Sort of books for the 40 kyu.)

2. About getting to be strong without reading books:
Do you have any data about all the strong asian amateurs/pros and how many books have they read?

No.

have been told the same by some of the very strong Asian players I have run into, mostly Japanese and Koreans - they say they had little use for books, never read them much, only for tsume-go and replaying pro games.

Of course. This is so because there are almost no theory books for very strong players. I have been stuck at my current playing level also because I have reached the end of "easy" learning by just reading suitable theory books. (Tsumego and pro games offer something for also the strongest players. So these I study and learn from because there is not the much more efficient study source books. However, discovering further hidden concepts equals doing research and so is very slow.)