Life In 19x19

Here's lesson two. I'd still be happy to hear comments from any beginners who are trying these lessons.

Maybe this is the wrong place to ask though?

David

That's a fantastic article. Calling situations in which damezumari occur tunnels and dead ends is a very good idea! I really enjoyed to read the article even though I'm no (total) beginner. I'm not fond of using atari go to teach the rules, but the way, you explained it, is great.

singular wrote:I've sent the link to a friend of mine who has experienced such great cognitive dissonance and loss of will when learning to play Go that he avoids the game studiously, narrow-eyed. If he looks at it he'll be a good tester.

(quoted myself for clarity)

My friend went over the tutorial. But I don't have much to report except that he found it easy to grasp, which is a good thing. I discovered that the allergy my friend has towards Go is not, in his words, the "mechanics" found in the tutorial, but in knowing what to do with an empty board. Playing with such openness he finds anarchic and unappealing. I wonder if there is an attractive, pedagogical, and exciting way to make sense of the opening to a beginner? I think once the opening makes basic sense, then the middle game might make basic sense, then the endgame . . .

singular wrote:Playing with such openness he finds anarchic and unappealing.

Maybe he (already) prefers chess.
The beauty of the empty Go board to me is an innate quality, built-in from the start.
As opposed to the "cluttered" chess board. One person's poison is another's elixir.

EdLee wrote:

singular wrote:Playing with such openness he finds anarchic and unappealing.

Maybe he (already) prefers chess.
The beauty of the empty Go board to me is an innate quality, built-in from the start.
As opposed to the "cluttered" chess board. One person's poison is another's elixir.

I hear you. The Go board seduces me. The Chess board . . . not so much.

Nevertheless, if we stop trying to encourage those pre-beginners who aren't seduced by the Go board, they might miss out on what we've got and that would be a shame! The hope is that it will one day click.

Has he played on a 9x9? Is it the empty board itself, or the huge 19x19 board. The latter is more intimidating for many beginners.

singular wrote:... in knowing what to do with an empty board. Playing with such openness he finds anarchic and unappealing. I wonder if there is an attractive, pedagogical, and exciting way to make sense of the opening to a beginner?

not sure yet if it helps, but when I describe the game to beginners or passers-by, I tell them its like the Oklahoma land rush where initially each player places his flag to stake a claim. Then they have claim disputes and once all the fences are connected, the one with the most open area wins.

Akura wrote:That's a fantastic article. Calling situations in which damezumari occur tunnels and dead ends is a very good idea! I really enjoyed to read the article even though I'm no (total) beginner. I'm not fond of using atari go to teach the rules, but the way, you explained it, is great.

Thanks Akura. I've found that using these terms works fairly well with most people. I think it's because it helps people relate what they're seeing with something more real, so the game stops being a confusing bunch of random stones more quickly. I know lots of people many Go players don't like the idea of teaching capture/atari Go. That's fair enough, I just teach this way because it works.

singular wrote:I discovered that the allergy my friend has towards Go is not, in his words, the "mechanics" found in the tutorial, but in knowing what to do with an empty board.

With capture Go on 9x9 in particular, sometimes it helps to get people to start from a cross-cut in the center (four moves with black's first move on tengen). Then the aim of capturing stones becomes clearer. It depends on the person though, so I have hesitated to put something like that in the course so far. I agree with hyperpape that 19x19 can be intimidating at first.

I've also met people (never children though) who have objections like this. Sometimes when people get something like this into their head, it's really hard to change their mind no matter what you say. I usually assumed they just weren't that interested, but the fact that your friend is doing tutorials may indicate otherwise? Try xed_over's analogy and see what he says . In my opinion, the confusing ambiguity of how a game starts and ends is the biggest hurdle for beginners, and the biggest weakness of Go (in terms of how quickly the game can spread by itself). That's why we need to keep working on better ways of teaching.

xed_over wrote:not sure yet if it helps, but when I describe the game to beginners or passers-by, I tell them its like the Oklahoma land rush where initially each player places his flag to stake a claim. Then they have claim disputes and once all the fences are connected, the one with the most open area wins.

Great analogy. Do you mind if I use something similar (maybe modified to be more understandable to non-US people) in a later lesson of the course?

David

gogameguru wrote:

xed_over wrote:not sure yet if it helps, but when I describe the game to beginners or passers-by, I tell them its like the Oklahoma land rush where initially each player places his flag to stake a claim. Then they have claim disputes and once all the fences are connected, the one with the most open area wins.

Great analogy. Do you mind if I use something similar (maybe modified to be more understandable to non-US people) in a later lesson of the course?

David

yeah, I have trouble thinking of a more universal analogy. I guess I saw "Far and Away" one too many times.

I usually only use that description for first-time beginner's who are really struggling to understand the game, or for people who clearly have only a passing interest in the game.

I think it's a good analogy. Maybe just remove the context when you're not talking to Americans: we just landed on the island, we're going to claim the biggest area we can. We're going to set up our little camps, and start fighting later.

Hi David,

I think it's great you're working on these articles for beginners.
(I also really liked your Post #37 in this thread viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4021&start=20
and was going to comment on it, but did not get around to doing it yet. )

Since hyperpape (also) mentioned the island analogy, here's how I've been
showing Go to complete beginners the past few years:

1. I flip the board over. I use the bottom of the board -- no grid lines (important).
So far I've never seen anyone else do this.

2. "Think of this as a small island, with water on all 4 sides."
(I agree with you to stay away from any ethno-centric analogies
and make it as universal as possible. For little kids -- and sometimes
even for adults -- I use the birthday cake analogy: candles would
replace the flagpoles ) Or, a small garden/backyard -- whatever
fits your audience. I also use the fences analogy.

3. "B and W are fighting for land on this island.
You can claim land like this:" Then I show how to grab a chunk
in the center, then the side, then the corner. Since we're free
from the constraints (and confusion) of the grid lines,
the fences can be any smooth curve, as long as all the stones
are connected. The water analogy makes it clear why you don't
need to fence along the edges, without having to explicitly say it.

4. "Whoever has more land at the end of the game, wins."
"Now, if this was the whole game, it may appear not very
interesting, because one would suspect each side would
naturally get 50% of the island."
"So one feature that makes this very interesting and
exciting is that these pieces (I avoid and postpone using
any jargon terms, including even "stones", until as late as possible.)
have a Life of their own. They can live and they can die."
I show them the basic ponnuki capture (without using the term
"ponnuki," of course).
I explain that, after the capture, the capturer gets the little
piece of land on the board, and also a prisoner; then, at the
end of the game, we add up both (I use Japanese counting without
explicitly mentioning it.)

5. After the ponnuki shape, it's natural to show illegal moves
and ko (without mentioning the term "ko", as always).
(Some people will sense the problem with the ko before I mention it,
others will not. I play by ear.)

Up to now, I've explained almost all the most basic rules and
ideas, without any of these jargon terms:
Liberties, stones, ko, eyes, capture race.

6. Finally, I flip the board over and show them the pieces
go on the intersections, not at the centers like in chess.

After this, if they're still interested, I go on to simple capture
exercises so that they see more examples of liberties (still, no need
to use the term "liberties"), and ladders, and then capture go,
if they're still here.

I know from experience all the people (and articles, and books)
use Go jargon almost as soon as possible: liberties, ko, stones, eyes, etc.
I hate it. I believe eyes can and should be discovered naturally
by the beginner from capture Go; eyes are not part of rules of Go,
but merely a logical consequence of them.
I believe the essence of the most basic ideas
and rules do not require the grid lines or any of these Go terms;
in fact, I think they're an obstacle.

My 2 cents, David.

I really like (maybe even love) the flag analogy. And even though my and friend and I aren't American, mentioning Oklahoma isn't going to cause us to short-circuit or anything.

As an aside, I'll be an 'American' soon. Just got my green card and leaving NZ in two weeks.

EdLee wrote:(I agree with you to stay away from any ethno-centric analogies
and make it as universal as possible.

That sounds somehow strange... What on earth is an "ethno-centric analogy" for go supposed to mean?

"Look, on this board we have white men and black men. They do not like each other, so every time a black man is surrounded by white men, the white men will eat the black man." That?

You have interesting education methods

gaius wrote:What on earth is an "ethno-centric analogy" for go supposed to mean?

Oklahoma, for example. I thought this was quite obvious.

Thanks EdLee, you've got some really good ideas there and I like the island/ocean analogy too.

It is difficult with jargon, deciding when (or whether) to introduce it. I try to keep it to a minimum too, though sometimes words like 'atari' are useful, because they avoid having to write 'is about to be captured' over and over. When you're speaking it's easier to delay introducing jargon, I've found.

Another thing we need to consider though, is that we're not just teaching people to play Go. We're also educating them to a level where they're able to understand the text on most Go websites and in Go books. That's part of the teaching process, so once a student has gone far enough I think you do need to introduce all the specialised language. Teaching the basics of how to play should always come first though.

By the way EdLee, you and I used to play on KGS years ago when we were both beginners. I remember that I enjoyed our games. It's funny that we should be having this conversation about how to teach now .

Thanks everyone for a very interesting and thought provoking discussion so far. I've got some new ideas now that I think will change the way I write the course slightly and hopefully improve it. Maybe we should start another more general thread for discussing the best ways of explaining Go? Or would that become too controversial?

By all means continue to discuss things here if you prefer. I don't want to stop the conversation.