Life In 19x19

Kirby wrote:

ez4u wrote:...I firmly believe that Go is more like tennis than it is like philosophy or mathematics. Winning and getting stronger is about how hard you have praticed and how much knowledge and skill you can bring to bear on the challenge presented by your opponent, right here and right now.

I like this quote, but it makes me ponder about the real difference between learning tennis and learning philosophy and mathematics. Mathematics and philosophy seem, to me, to be fields that require practice. A skilled mathematician or philosopher should probably also be able to exhibit their expertise in a "right here and right now" fashion.

I know that I agree with the idea of getting stronger simply by practice. But is there something more to acquiring skill in go that is different than getting stronger at math or philosophy? Or is this simply an example of how practical knowledge trumps theoretical knowledge?

It may well be that I do not understand either mathematics or philosophy, being neither an mathematician nor a philosopher. However, my impression is that both disciplines are essentially about abstracting certain information about the world in order to understand it better. In both cases, the abstractions are the essence of the disciplines.

I believe that Go is fundamentally different. While we may often encounter abstract "principles", those are teaching tools at best. Go is exactly about competing with someone else in a small, artificial game environment. The task is to win the game by choosing more successful plays than the opponent over the course of the game. Verbalizing concepts can help us temporarily to look at things differently than we have been able to previously, but it all must return to fine tuning our eyes and our minds to seeing the reality on the board and judging it on its own terms.

ez4u wrote:

Kirby wrote:

ez4u wrote:...I firmly believe that Go is more like tennis than it is like philosophy or mathematics. Winning and getting stronger is about how hard you have praticed and how much knowledge and skill you can bring to bear on the challenge presented by your opponent, right here and right now.

I like this quote, but it makes me ponder about the real difference between learning tennis and learning philosophy and mathematics. Mathematics and philosophy seem, to me, to be fields that require practice. A skilled mathematician or philosopher should probably also be able to exhibit their expertise in a "right here and right now" fashion.

I know that I agree with the idea of getting stronger simply by practice. But is there something more to acquiring skill in go that is different than getting stronger at math or philosophy? Or is this simply an example of how practical knowledge trumps theoretical knowledge?

It may well be that I do not understand either mathematics or philosophy, being neither an mathematician nor a philosopher. However, my impression is that both disciplines are essentially about abstracting certain information about the world in order to understand it better. In both cases, the abstractions are the essence of the disciplines.

I believe that Go is fundamentally different. While we may often encounter abstract "principles", those are teaching tools at best. Go is exactly about competing with someone else in a small, artificial game environment. The task is to win the game by choosing more successful plays than the opponent over the course of the game. Verbalizing concepts can help us temporarily to look at things differently than we have been able to previously, but it all must return to fine tuning our eyes and our minds to seeing the reality on the board and judging it on its own terms.

This is the truth.

ez4u wrote:It may well be that I do not understand either mathematics or philosophy, being neither an mathematician nor a philosopher. However, my impression is that both disciplines are essentially about abstracting certain information about the world in order to understand it better. In both cases, the abstractions are the essence of the disciplines.

One similarity between philosophy or math and Go is that all three involve a mix of detailed analysis and intuition. In both fields, an expert will have a gut sense that a particular claim is true, or that a particular argument/proof strategy will not work, just as a Go player's intuition says that a certain move is right. In all these cases, the intuition can be backed up by detailed analysis, and intuition is often right, but also fallible, all the way up to the professional level. Intuition is also honed through practice. And there's individual variation too. I've had philosophy professors who always proceeded in a very methodical and precise fashion, making all the steps of their reasoning explicit and including details. I've had others who were sketchy in the presentation of their ideas. I know that's true in math, where you have figures like Perelman.

ez4u wrote:I believe that Go is fundamentally different. While we may often encounter abstract "principles", those are teaching tools at best. Go is exactly about competing with someone else in a small, artificial game environment. The task is to win the game by choosing more successful plays than the opponent over the course of the game. Verbalizing concepts can help us temporarily to look at things differently than we have been able to previously, but it all must return to fine tuning our eyes and our minds to seeing the reality on the board and judging it on its own terms.

This sounds right, but there's still an analogous phenomenon: there are no inviolable principles for seeing how to prove a theorem or demonstrate a philosophical claim, once you are past the simplest cases.

ez4u wrote:

Kirby wrote:

ez4u wrote:...I firmly believe that Go is more like tennis than it is like philosophy or mathematics. Winning and getting stronger is about how hard you have praticed and how much knowledge and skill you can bring to bear on the challenge presented by your opponent, right here and right now.

I like this quote, but it makes me ponder about the real difference between learning tennis and learning philosophy and mathematics. Mathematics and philosophy seem, to me, to be fields that require practice. A skilled mathematician or philosopher should probably also be able to exhibit their expertise in a "right here and right now" fashion.

I know that I agree with the idea of getting stronger simply by practice. But is there something more to acquiring skill in go that is different than getting stronger at math or philosophy? Or is this simply an example of how practical knowledge trumps theoretical knowledge?

It may well be that I do not understand either mathematics or philosophy, being neither an mathematician nor a philosopher. However, my impression is that both disciplines are essentially about abstracting certain information about the world in order to understand it better. In both cases, the abstractions are the essence of the disciplines.

I believe that Go is fundamentally different. While we may often encounter abstract "principles", those are teaching tools at best. Go is exactly about competing with someone else in a small, artificial game environment. The task is to win the game by choosing more successful plays than the opponent over the course of the game. Verbalizing concepts can help us temporarily to look at things differently than we have been able to previously, but it all must return to fine tuning our eyes and our minds to seeing the reality on the board and judging it on its own terms.

I had Kirby's instinct too. Learning Go and tennis involves drilling (tsumego, tesuji, endgame...; serves, volleys, running up and down the court, forehand and backhand, bouncing the damn ball on your racket), playing games, and watching other people play. But learning philosophy and mathematics also involves a lot of drilling (especially in proof techniques), a lot of "practice games", and a lot of "watching other people play".

As I was pondering this while I brushed my teeth yesterday, I decided that the main difference is that in all four activities there are a continuum between people who play for fun and people who see themselves as defending the superiority of a certain style of playing. In Go most of the people are mostly having fun (with a small minority fanatically defensive about Korean/Japanese/fighting/territorial/cosmic/tengen styles), while in philosophy most of the people are mostly defending principles (with a small minority sniping off bad argument for fun and profit). Tennis and mathematics fall somewhere in between, I imagine.

hyperpape wrote:

ez4u wrote:It may well be that I do not understand either mathematics or philosophy, being neither an mathematician nor a philosopher. However, my impression is that both disciplines are essentially about abstracting certain information about the world in order to understand it better. In both cases, the abstractions are the essence of the disciplines.

One similarity between philosophy or math and Go is that all three involve a mix of detailed analysis and intuition. In both fields, an expert will have a gut sense that a particular claim is true, or that a particular argument/proof strategy will not work, just as a Go player's intuition says that a certain move is right. In all these cases, the intuition can be backed up by detailed analysis, and intuition is often right, but also fallible, all the way up to the professional level. Intuition is also honed through practice. And there's individual variation too. I've had philosophy professors who always proceeded in a very methodical and precise fashion, making all the steps of their reasoning explicit and including details. I've had others who were sketchy in the presentation of their ideas. I know that's true in math, where you have figures like Perelman.

I think the difference is that in Go intuition is plausibly the preconscious operation of the basic Go skills that you drill (reading, pattern recognition, good shape), whereas what we call intuition in philosophy (and science and math for that matter) isn't plausibly the preconscious operation of the techniques that are then used to defend or refute the intuition.

i agree with ez4u here: Chess is often compared to boxing, and i thing was is common between chess, go, tennis or boxing or golf etc.. and lacks in philosophy and mathematics is that its a game against an opponent, and there is only one final winner.

This adds a whole psychologic dimension : fear of winning, distress when losing, effect of mood and confidence, some other player are "bete noires" (note sure of english translation: bugbear ??) ie you feel you underperform against them, superstition even.


I believe that this psychologic dimension is a huge part of your level in go ,absent in academics.

That is why you might lose 2 stones in rank even though your go knowledge probably doesnt evaporate. or some pro suddently are out of shape, just like some tennisman can be.
to stick with golf, why did tiger woods wins everything at some point and not so much now ? not age but mental attitude, self confidence etc, or maybe you become less focus when you have broken a lot of records (i think of federer in tennis here)
Have you ever heard of an mathematician "not in his peak form this season"? (of course age comes into play)
Have you ever heard of a philosopher trash talking an opponent to win an point (ok bad example ).

i think mental attitude is really underrated as a prerequisite for success in ANY activity when you oppose other humans. i believe self confidence is a prerequisite before becoming a champion and not born out of winning a lot.

So for the original question, how badly do you want to progress ? how badly do your defeats hurts ?
I remember a quote from a strong chess GMI (shortly before he more or less retired):
"at each defeat, you lose a little of yourself".
and also from Fisher who was recognised as putting tremendous psychological pressure on its opponents:

"It’s just you and your opponent at the board and you're trying to prove something." -- Bobby Fischer
"Chess is war over the board. The object is to crush the opponent's mind." -- Bobby Fischer
"I like the moment when I break a man's ego." -- Bobby Fischer
"Don't even mention losing to me. I can't stand to think of it." -- Bobby Fischer

Edit: well i am not 3D or more but here are my 2 cents anyway.

Just to chip in on maths..

Doing "drills" for maths - working through proofs etc is an awful idea beyond a point. If you're teaching 18 year olds basic maths (e.g solving basic differential equations) there is some merit in rote learning but at higher levels you learn through challenge and enjoyment of that challenge.

As a parallel.. you will never become a good writer by learning all the definitions of all words in the dictionary or even being a fully conversant in all the nuances of grammar. You won't even become a good writer by reading lots of good books.

Go has the well known nickname shudan (手談), with the literal translation "hand talk". This describes go in two ways. First, every move you make is a declaration of something to your opponent, so as the game progresses the moves form a conversation of sorts. Second, every move you make shows something about your thinking and state of mind. Because of this a good mental attitude and self-confidence are necessary to play strongly. You need self-knowledge and confidence to hold up your end of the conversation/argument successfully.

perceval wrote:...
This adds a whole psychologic dimension : fear of winning, distress when losing, effect of mood and confidence, some other player are "bete noires" (note sure of english translation: bugbear ??) ie you feel you underperform against them, superstition even.
...

I think that I can understand your point, but I think that I have fear of failure, at least, in other areas of life, including doing a math test, for example (although, I'm not that knowledgeable about philosophy).

I do feel, however, that this feeling is stronger for me in go than in other areas of study.

BobC wrote:working through proofs etc is an awful idea beyond a point.

This is very much false. Working through a bunch of proofs is quite literally the only way to learn higher mathematics.

How high are we talking here?

I've supervised maths students to Phd level and managed at post doc....

BobC wrote:How high are we talking here?

I've supervised maths students to Phd level and managed at post doc....

I'm still an undergraduate, but have been doing proof based courses for two years, and am starting with graduate courses later this month. I'm talking about anything at a similar level.

What would you say is the way to get better than math, if not to work through proofs, and write one's own?

IMO, in mathematics, proofs are useful to get a real understanding of a particular idea.

Without being able to prove something is true (within a system like mathematics), how can you say that you understand it?

i think mathematics are as much an art as playing go. in go you can choose a good move based on intuition and get away with it, in mathematics you have to make an exact proof. but while proving, you often need your imagination and creativity to find the correct way to link your knowledge and given premises with the final result. in a way, i think go requires less creativity than proving mathematical thesis'

as for improving at go, i could shorten my method (analogue to principles already mentioned) to "don't try to approach kami no itte, try to get further from baka no itte"

BobC wrote:You won't even become a good writer by reading lots of good books.

I've never met a good writer who hasn't read lots of good books.

Redundant wrote:

BobC wrote:How high are we talking here?

I've supervised maths students to Phd level and managed at post doc....

I'm still an undergraduate, but have been doing proof based courses for two years, and am starting with graduate courses later this month. I'm talking about anything at a similar level.

What would you say is the way to get better than math, if not to work through proofs, and write one's own?

I think we can square this circle by putting it this way: math students at the master's level are like insei or 1-dan professionals. Most of their drilling is behind them, but they still are plowing through the Igo Hatsuryon. But once they're ABD, even if some continue to drill the basics, that's a personal preference; the main ways to get better at this point are studying pro games (both the classics of the field and the latest uploads to arxiv) and playing your own games.