Life In 19x19

entropi wrote:What you define sounds like a "proper move" that leave as little aji as possible. But is it the same thing as "fundamentals"? It may be one interpretetation but others may very well interpret in a completely different way.

For example flOvermind interpreted it as something like "simple things", which is clearly different than your interpretation. Both interpretations may be valid.

Further interpretations may easily be found all of which may also be valid. But this is a proof (or let's say an indication) that there is indeed no clear definition of the concept of fundamentals. I said it in simpler words like "there is no such thing as fundamentals".

I would say that fundamentals are proper moves, I would say "leaving as little aji as possible" is not at all in my definition and perhaps something that you yourself have added in interpretation (=


Perhaps I need to clarify the principle my definition is starting from -- First of all, I would say it is impossible to make a move that will (by itself) increase your chance of winning. This is because the position prior to your move contains all options available as the position after your move, as well as additional options. This means that if you play a perfectly optimal move, you will maintain your winning chance. When your opponent makes an error, your winning chances improve.

Fundamentals are not necessarily optimal moves (in fact, I would reckon they are rarely optimal moves), however they are moves that will likely suffer only minimal loss. They are moves that will not be blunders. This is not incompatible with "simple things", in fact I would say it is in exactly the same vein -- moves that sacrifice the benefit of an in depth search for optimization, accepting that they are likely sufficiently close given the time, energy and ability available.

If your claim is that different people interpret the exact definition of fundamentals differently, therefore fundamentals do not exist... we can try to play the definition game, however we may end up losing thickness, tesuji, sabaki, etc to this battle, and certainly will find no Scotsman ever playing go (=

entropi wrote:After some deliberations I came to the conclusion that there is no such thing as fundamentals. It's the biggest lie in the go world used for artificially explaining why some people are stronger than others.

It is used in a similar fashion religions were initially used for explaining why some people were richer, stronger, smarter, etc. Rich people were saying "it's god's wish, I pray more, I believe in god more and you see the result". Then, no further questions... But that's not the truth. The bitter truth is that some people are simply stronger, smarter, quicker, etc. No need for other explanations.

The discussion about fundamentals reminds me of that, partially thanks(!) to Kageyama. Weak players (such as myself) think that they are weak because they did not grasp the fundamentals well enough. But that's not the truth. The bitter truth is that some people visualize better, learn the shapes and sequences quicker, can concentrate for a longer time, etc. That's all. Even the slow learners do learn, and that's why they improve, even if it's slow. Then they get a relief by thinking "oh thanks god I must have had a better understanding of fundamentals".

So, my conclusion is that strength has nothing to do with fundamentals, of which a clear definition does not exist anyway.

Unfortunately, I don't have a proof for that. But I think the burden of proof is on those who claim that there is such thing as fundamentals.

EDIT: This thought was initiated by my rereading Kageyama yesterday and watching some korean high dan players crazy fights.

It appears to me that your rationale for not believing in fundamentals is that some people are more talented than others, and simply learn faster.

However, I don't feel that this is inconsistent with the idea of "fundamentals".

When I read Kageyama's discussion on fundamentals, I had a different idea in mind. I didn't think of it so much as, given a body of players, the skill lies in those that know fundamentals.

Instead, I thought of it more like this: Given a particular individual, if he studies the fundamentals, he will advance. This is not the same thing as saying that those that have studied the "fundamentals" are automatically better than those that have not studied the fundamentals.

That being said, I think that the real question comes down to: If I am to study go, will my progress be more efficient if I study "fundamental" topics, or if I study "non-fundamental" topics. If I rephrase this to match my interpretation, I would say that the question is, "Will my progress be more efficient if I study basic topics, or if I study more advanced topics".

I think that it's natural to think that advanced understanding of a topic is easier if one has a solid grasp on the concepts that lead up to that advanced understanding.

So I'm inclined to agree that studying the fundamentals/basics of a particular topic allows one to get a more solid foundation of understanding. The more solid foundation of understanding that you have of the basic topics, the easier it is to understand topics that are more advanced.

In other words, it is natural to understand advanced topics in go if you already have learned the prerequisites well. However, it is difficult to understand advanced topics if you have not learned those prerequisites.

I see Kageyama's advice as simply saying that one ought to learn the prerequisites of go knowledge before moving on to subjects that they don't know well about.

Do you disagree with that?

Kirby wrote:

entropi wrote:After some deliberations I came to the conclusion that there is no such thing as fundamentals. It's the biggest lie in the go world used for artificially explaining why some people are stronger than others.

It is used in a similar fashion religions were initially used for explaining why some people were richer, stronger, smarter, etc. Rich people were saying "it's god's wish, I pray more, I believe in god more and you see the result". Then, no further questions... But that's not the truth. The bitter truth is that some people are simply stronger, smarter, quicker, etc. No need for other explanations.

The discussion about fundamentals reminds me of that, partially thanks(!) to Kageyama. Weak players (such as myself) think that they are weak because they did not grasp the fundamentals well enough. But that's not the truth. The bitter truth is that some people visualize better, learn the shapes and sequences quicker, can concentrate for a longer time, etc. That's all. Even the slow learners do learn, and that's why they improve, even if it's slow. Then they get a relief by thinking "oh thanks god I must have had a better understanding of fundamentals".

So, my conclusion is that strength has nothing to do with fundamentals, of which a clear definition does not exist anyway.

Unfortunately, I don't have a proof for that. But I think the burden of proof is on those who claim that there is such thing as fundamentals.

EDIT: This thought was initiated by my rereading Kageyama yesterday and watching some korean high dan players crazy fights.

It appears to me that your rationale for not believing in fundamentals is that some people are more talented than others, and simply learn faster.

However, I don't feel that this is inconsistent with the idea of "fundamentals".

When I read Kageyama's discussion on fundamentals, I had a different idea in mind. I didn't think of it so much as, given a body of players, the skill lies in those that know fundamentals.

Instead, I thought of it more like this: Given a particular individual, if he studies the fundamentals, he will advance. This is not the same thing as saying that those that have studied the "fundamentals" are automatically better than those that have not studied the fundamentals.

That being said, I think that the real question comes down to: If I am to study go, will my progress be more efficient if I study "fundamental" topics, or if I study "non-fundamental" topics. If I rephrase this to match my interpretation, I would say that the question is, "Will my progress be more efficient if I study basic topics, or if I study more advanced topics".

I think that it's natural to think that advanced understanding of a topic is easier if one has a solid grasp on the concepts that lead up to that advanced understanding.

So I'm inclined to agree that studying the fundamentals/basics of a particular topic allows one to get a more solid foundation of understanding. The more solid foundation of understanding that you have of the basic topics, the easier it is to understand topics that are more advanced.

In other words, it is natural to understand advanced topics in go if you already have learned the prerequisites well. However, it is difficult to understand advanced topics if you have not learned those prerequisites.

I see Kageyama's advice as simply saying that one ought to learn the prerequisites of go knowledge before moving on to subjects that they don't know well about.

Do you disagree with that?

No, such an obvious thing is hard to disagree with But then the question is what does the advice "study fundamentals" tell me apart from repeating the trivial.

If I study math, of course before learning multiplication, I must learn addition and I must understand it as deep as possible. But would my book have the reputation of math's bible for saying that?

I propose a statistical definition of 'fundamentals'.

Let us assume that there are millions of separate ideas that one can learn about go. And that some of those ideas are used more often than others. A common one might be: 'If it has no liberties, it is dead.' ( We use that a lot in games, though we probably do not think about it. ) A very uncommon one might be: 'If you have this ladder from the east, and this fight brewing to the north, and a long geta to the south, you play exactly here, and your opponent's ears will turn red'. ( That, of course, has been used once in the history of go. )

Once we have them ordered from common to rare, we pick a point on that list and say that everything before that point is so common that they are fundamental.


When Kageyama says that one should study the fundamentals, he is not making some mystical statement about the nature of go. Rather, he is saying that one should have a well-ordered list, and that one should start at the proper end.

entropi wrote:

RobertJasiek wrote:A clear definition of fundamentals? An interesting request:)

But a valid one isn't it? If someone tells me "study the fundamentals and you will be xy dan in no time", then I should have the right to ask "ok, what exactly should I study?"

"Graded Go Problems for Beginners"

Sakata's "Killer of Go" series. "Killer of Go" and "Tesuji and Anti-suji" have been translated into English.

Takagawa's "Go Reader" series. Not translated.

Maeda's Tsumego series, vol. 1 and vol. 2.

Ishida's joseki books in English.

BTW, whoever told you that is lying. I do believe that almost anyone can become amateur shodan in 2 - 5 years with a good teacher and the desire to learn.

entropi wrote:...

No, such an obvious thing is hard to disagree with But then the question is what does the advice "study fundamentals" tell me apart from repeating the trivial.

If I study math, of course before learning multiplication, I must learn addition and I must understand it as deep as possible. But would my book have the reputation of math's bible for saying that?

I think that math might be a good example of illustrating the importance of studying the fundamentals. It's hard to jump into a calculus class without first having learned how algebra works.

I guess one question might be, "If I'm having a hard time in my calculus class, would it be useful for me to go back and study algebra some more, even though I've studied it before?". I suspect that Kageyama might say, "Yes".

I don't have solid proof that something like that would work. But it does seem possible. Sometimes I play a "brain training" game on my Nintendo DS. One of the ways you can train is to repeatedly perform simple arithmetic operations every day. Of course it's easy to perform addition and subtraction. But I wonder if studying them intensively trains your brain in some way.

Back on the subject of go, maybe studying simple go problems repeatedly, for example, can be more beneficial to improving than studying a single super-hard go problem for days. Maybe reviewing nets and ladders repeatedly will help you to see them more easily in your games.

It's all speculation, but I don't see a reason to really doubt this possibility, yet.

Bill Spight wrote:...

BTW, whoever told you that is lying. I do believe that almost anyone can become amateur shodan in 2 - 5 years with a good teacher and the desire to learn.

I don't think that "desire to learn" is a binary attribute. With enough desire, a lot of people could probably do a lot more than what they do.

Kirby wrote:Back on the subject of go, maybe studying simple go problems repeatedly, for example, can be more beneficial to improving than studying a single super-hard go problem for days. Maybe reviewing nets and ladders repeatedly will help you to see them more easily in your games.

It's all speculation, but I don't see a reason to really doubt this possibility, yet.

The efficacy of overlearning is well established.

Kirby wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:...

BTW, whoever told you that is lying. I do believe that almost anyone can become amateur shodan in 2 - 5 years with a good teacher and the desire to learn.

I don't think that "desire to learn" is a binary attribute. With enough desire, a lot of people could probably do a lot more than what they do.

I don't either. But a lot of people have a desire to be shodan without much desire to learn go.

It's important, entropi, to remember that for Kageyama, "mastery of the fundamentals" does not explain the difference between the average amateur dan and the average amateur kyu. Amateur dans may have improved their reading abilities, memorized josekis, and built up a lot of chutzpah, but Kageyama's contention is precisely that they get stronger while playing the most outlandish, nonsensical moves.

Whether that's right or not is open to question, but clearly "I saw a bunch of dans playing and I didn't see them playing any fundamentals" doesn't constitute a critique of Kageyama... that's really his point.

Let me have another stab at a definition:

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamental:

fun·da·men·tal
–adjective
1. serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying: fundamental principles; the fundamental structure.
2. of, pertaining to, or affecting the foundation or basis: a fundamental revision.
3. being an original or primary source: a fundamental idea.

I think point 1 is spot on for the go usage. You have to know the basics before moving to advanced things.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:When Kageyama says that one should study the fundamentals, he is not making some mystical statement about the nature of go. Rather, he is saying that one should have a well-ordered list, and that one should start at the proper end.

Well put

Many amateurs (myself included) like to skip some of the fundamentals in order to study more "interesting" things. That's not only true in go, it's the same for basically any skill. E.g., in my other hobby, bowling, most players don't really like to train the fundamentals (free pendulum, straight release, ...), they just like to play. It's understandable, playing is more interesting that standing at the foul line and making pendulum exercises. And you also get better by playing a lot. But if you want to get really good, you have to learn it anyway, and starting with the fundamentals is more efficient than starting with advanced things

Bill Spight wrote:...

I don't either. But a lot of people have a desire to be shodan without much desire to learn go.

I like this quote. I've gotta admit that sometimes I'm guilty of this, myself.

Ironically(?), I find that momentum gets things rolling. When I start studying go more, I enjoy it more and think less about rank. When I start thinking about rank more, sometimes I start studying less, and like go less.

At least with me, this type of momentum has a big effect.

The fundamentals are the most important thing in any skill, the approach is pretty much the same everywhere, that's why Kageyama gives examples from baseball and from cooking. They're basic techniques from which everything else is built, and you need to be really good at them and practice them all the time. In music, scales are one of the fundamental techniques and playing scales is a common way to practice.

The best and most obvious example from Kageyama is the long ladder with which he starts the book. Ladders (i.e. the ability to read long non-branching sequences) are extremely fundamental to go, yet people neglect them. I certainly didn't feel like reading that ladder out! But that's exactly the wrong approach. Instead of working on my fundamentals, like reading ladders, I preferred to read about stuff like advanced opening theory on senseis. Entertaining, but not nearly as useful.

entropi wrote:what does the advice "study fundamentals" tell me apart from repeating the trivial.

- Study all topics WRT fundamentals.
- Get the fundamentals as completely as possible. (E.g., don't overlook particular fundamental principles.)

entropi wrote:The discussion about fundamentals reminds me of that, partially thanks(!) to Kageyama. Weak players (such as myself) think that they are weak because they did not grasp the fundamentals well enough. But that's not the truth. The bitter truth is that some people visualize better, learn the shapes and sequences quicker, can concentrate for a longer time, etc. That's all. Even the slow learners do learn, and that's why they improve, even if it's slow. Then they get a relief by thinking "oh thanks god I must have had a better understanding of fundamentals".

I don't interpret Kageyama that way at all. First, as has been pointed out, reading ability is definitely included among the fundamentals that Kageyama emphasizes. How much of this is the result of hard work vs. innate ability is another topic, but it is still fundamental.

My interpretation of Kageyama is that he is mostly warning against the habit of seeking out increasingly exotic moves and strategies in order to win, rather than working on basic skills (fundamentals that include reading ability) so that it is possible to win with normal moves. I feel that attitude is poignant because there does seems to be skill range where players really try to "out-weird" each other.

I don't think at any point Kageyama suggests that improving the fundamentals is an easy process and he is certainly not the one saying that it is possible to get to xy dan in no time. His "bitter truth" is that improving fundamentals hard but unavoidable if you want to improve. Your "bitter truth" is related to individual differences, which certainly do exist.

If you include reading ability as a fundamental, I think your post actually demonstrates that you have strong faith in this fundamental, but you have doubts about how much working hard can overcome invdividual limitations and you have doubts about the value non-reading fundamentals. I have some doubts about those things myself.

Perhaps you can post one of those Korean games you mentioned and say which moves you think are not following the fundamentals. It will be interesting to see if it is more the loser or the winner that feels the need to deviate from them. Of course you can't tell much from one game, but it is possible that there are more fundamental moves that one might suspect.