Life In 19x19

Posted: **Wed Nov 02, 2011 9:04 am**

tetron wrote:I suspect that you are moving much deeper into game analysis than you realise.

What you might have meant to discuss for learning purposes is experience versus analysis. However, I am going to answer the more interesting question you pose with regards to intuition.

I am a very strong games all-rounder because of my ability to play intuitively. I am what is known as a shape player. This is an entirely different skill set to counting positions and analysing.

Thinking ahead can still be done intuititively, have you seen Gary Kasparov's eyes flitting over the board when he was playing deep blue.

You always have an image of a position in your mind, when you can see an actual position a stronger image is formed. This is why blindfold play is weaker than normal play. So a level of thought is needed to safeguard against mistakes.

To progress to the very top of any game requires that you add extra information to your skill sets to gain the extra edge. However, most of the time this is a waste of time as your instinctive move remains unaltered but sometimes it will decide the game.

Shape recognition represents the strongest of all game skills and is in effect a measure of someone's natural ability. The top go players in the world must be strong at shape recognition. However, you can't just increase your shape recognition by playing games. You can improve rapidly as you find patterns that your opponent uses but this is a subtley different skill. Similarly analysis can be improved by practise.

So back to the original question. if you are the most natural go player ever born you could become a professional dan player without ever studying any analysis but you will never reach the top of the game on intuition alone.

The strongest natural games player ever, I saw draw with a top chess GM rated over 700 points higher than himself with black and he used less than 5 minutes on his own clock. He is the only human player I have ever met who I will lose to if I try to keep tempo with him. However, the players which beat him (at any game) had to not only have natural ability but the discipline to think too.

Nicely said. I suppose it's not the best method. And that point was proven when I tried to kill an opponent's group with....dead stones. Only realized they were dead after it was too late and I lost the game as a result. I think I could have won had I evaluated the situation more. So yes, I can see why so many people say intuitive play isn't the best.

At the same time, it's hard for me to really concentrate on games like this because I have ADHD. (Lame excuse) But, really, it's easier for me to play point and play style rather than trying to focus on a game like Go for too long. I figure my normal attentiveness for a game will last about.....10 minutes. Then I gradually lose focus. It's also why I usually only play 1 or 2 games in a row, and then stop for awhile.

Again, I can't necessarily blame my methodology on the fact that I have ADHD, but like I said, it's just easier to play the way I do. I suppose I could look into some mental training and see if I can ease the strain of remaining concentrated over long periods of time.

Posted: **Wed Nov 02, 2011 9:06 am**

ez4u wrote:
hailthorn011 wrote:...

Actually, I rarely play blitz games. However, when I do play, I tend to dominate my opponents. I've probably played a grand total 0f 10 or so Blitz games over 2 years. And I've played around 700 total...

LOL! Good one H! Essentially all your games posted here are blitz. You start with 25 minutes main time and finish the game in 15 minutes.

I play fast, but my opponent always doesn't. That's typically a disparity you wouldn't have in the form of blitz games that are popular these days. However, I shall clarify.

I meant I usually don't play games with blitz settings.

Posted: **Wed Nov 02, 2011 9:18 am**

I don't understand the difference between "intuition style" and "not knowing how to use your time."

Everyone uses intuition to come up with plausible looking moves. 75% of the game is then using your time to calculate, reason, and determine which of those moves seems best. By stopping at step 1, I don't think you are playing a different style -- you are just playing worse.

For what it's worth, I had a very difficult time calculating and analyzing productively in chess when I was about 18 -- my attention would drift and I would find myself thinking in circles constantly -- but over the next few years I worked pretty hard at it and became much better; I also very noticeably improved my ability to concentrate and think about other things, like detailed technical writing and mathematical arguments. So you may find this change about yourself if you work hard at it. (I have never been diagnosed with anything, though.)

Posted: **Wed Nov 02, 2011 10:08 am**

I must admit I'm also in the camp of not being able to spend time - I'm just too impatient.

Cata's anecdote is certain interesting, but whether being better at other things is caused by the effort spent in calculating and analyzing productively or is merely correlated with it may not be clear :p

Posted: **Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:53 am**

cata wrote:I don't understand the difference between "intuition style" and "not knowing how to use your time."

Everyone uses intuition to come up with plausible looking moves. 75% of the game is then using your time to calculate, reason, and determine which of those moves seems best. By stopping at step 1, I don't think you are playing a different style -- you are just playing worse.

The difference is that the longer you look at a move, the more likely you are to filter instincts away.

The heart of an intuition-based style (that is to say, heavily intuition-based play) is to focus on improving your instincts. It is not a method for winning, but rather a method for learning.

You indeed will play worse a good deal of the time, but, since you are playing moves that come naturally to you, you will also improve your ability to read ahead because you will have a "feel" for certain branches of the tree. Over time the calculation will follow, but you need to start by going out and making natural mistakes.

I'm an intuition player, I played fearless, stupid, blitz for my first year of the game. And it took me to 1d.

Posted: **Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:35 pm**

hailthorn011 wrote:...
Well, I learn by repetition. If I repeat a mistake enough times, eventually I'll make it less and less. So with my style, if I actually go back and review the game, I can learn where I should have played in a given situation. I'll admit it's probably not the most effective way to rank up, but that's essentially how I've gotten from 21k to 8k.

And you will make shodan sometime before the sun grows cold...if you play at least 100 games per day.

Posted: **Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:26 pm**

Joaz Banbeck wrote:
hailthorn011 wrote:...
Well, I learn by repetition. If I repeat a mistake enough times, eventually I'll make it less and less. So with my style, if I actually go back and review the game, I can learn where I should have played in a given situation. I'll admit it's probably not the most effective way to rank up, but that's essentially how I've gotten from 21k to 8k.

And you will make shodan sometime before the sun grows cold...if you play at least 100 games per day.

100 games per day? Wow, I might as well shoot myself now. Kidding. But I dunno, I've reached 8k pretty fast for how much effort I've put into go. I mean, I've had at least 3 months with very little activity. If I actually took improving more seriously than I do, I think I could improve to an amazing degree. But that's all speculation. lol I'm not trying to overestimate my ability or potential ability.

Posted: **Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:42 am**

I don't agree with Joaz - back when I was playing regularly on KGS without really studying the rate of progress with about 1 month/stone in the 5-9k range and maybe about 2 months/stone in 3k to 1k (I don't recall the precise times, having been stuck around 4k for a few months but then becoming 1k fairly soon after making 3k).

I don't recall actually actively studying for those months. I was perhaps averaging about 2-3 games per day (probably less because I didn't play as much in real time after 4k).

Posted: **Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:05 pm**

shapenaji wrote:The difference is that the longer you look at a move, the more likely you are to filter instincts away.

I'm glad you're calling them instincts rather than intuitions. One of my pet peeves is that "intuition" has become a synonym for "instinct", i.e., a thought that is almost completely divorced from the object of thought, when in fact the Latin intuitio refers to gazing, staring at, focusing on an object - which is why (iirc) it also refers to thinking about something, in general. How intuition acquired its current connotation is a bit of a mystery to me.

Anyway, back to go: an intuitive style, properly speaking, would involve spending a long time staring at the board, absorbing all of its features and nuances, like the fact that that group has three liberties, these stones are weak, those stones aim to expand there, and so on. You spend a while focusing on, intuiting, becoming absorbed by the board. It's like intuiting a flower, or a painting. "Taking it in at a glance" actually requires a long, highly focused "glance". The opposite style, where you glance at the board and then react based on the first move that pops into your head, would be properly called a reactive or an instinctive style.

Posted: **Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:46 pm**

I have a definition of "intuition" that is informed by my programming experience. When programming, the majority of the small decisions I make are guided entirely by intuition, and by intuition, I mean I don't decide consciously; I just "know" what's likely to work out best based on some vague patterns and ideas. Then, occasionally, there are some large decisions I need to think through rationally.

However, I could never have this intuition without a great deal of conscious reflection upon what I do, before and after I make intuitive decisions. I look at what my intuition guided me to do and I try to come up with rational reasons why my intuition was good, bad, or mixed. I use this reflection to decide which parts of my intuition are good, and which parts are bad, and to form new intuitions using what I learn.

The same is true for me in Go. I play most moves mostly by intuition, because I don't play games that are long enough to read all the time. But if I played my games without any reading or without reviewing carefully and reading in the review, all my intuitions would be bad and they would not reliably get better. The primary process by which I improve is using the time after the game to observe my intuition and refine it.

Your mileage may vary!

Posted: **Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:45 pm**

jts wrote:I'm glad you're calling them instincts rather than intuitions. One of my pet peeves is that "intuition" has become a synonym for "instinct", i.e., a thought that is almost completely divorced from the object of thought, when in fact the Latin intuitio refers to gazing, staring at, focusing on an object - which is why (iirc) it also refers to thinking about something, in general. How intuition acquired its current connotation is a bit of a mystery to me.

You're several hundred years too late, unfortunately. The original definition you refer to has been obsolete for quite a while according to the OED. As for how it got here, it seems to have passed through this definition (still current) on its way to similar lay meanings:

OED wrote:4. Scholastic Philos. The spiritual perception or immediate knowledge, ascribed to angelic and spiritual
beings, with whom vision and knowledge are identical.

I think it does differ from "instinct" though, in that it seems to require there to have been actual apprehension or knowledge or insight, whereas instinct need not.

On the go topic, seeing interesting possibilities and ruling out uninteresting ones quickly is surely desirable, as then your reading can focus on the interesting ones. I don't know that blitz should help more than any other activity with developing this sort of pruning.

Posted: **Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:18 pm**

jts wrote:... The opposite style, where you glance at the board and then react based on the first move that pops into your head, would be properly called a reactive or an instinctive style.

I basically agree with everything you said except that (like prokofiev) I think fighting the common usage of a word is rather pointless. Hundreds of millions of English speakers have already unconsciously ruled against you... Your distinctions are useful and interesting, so make up new terms for them.

Posted: **Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:52 pm**

jts wrote:
shapenaji wrote:The difference is that the longer you look at a move, the more likely you are to filter instincts away.

I'm glad you're calling them instincts rather than intuitions. One of my pet peeves is that "intuition" has become a synonym for "instinct", i.e., a thought that is almost completely divorced from the object of thought, when in fact the Latin intuitio refers to gazing, staring at, focusing on an object - which is why (iirc) it also refers to thinking about something, in general. How intuition acquired its current connotation is a bit of a mystery to me.

Anyway, back to go: an intuitive style, properly speaking, would involve spending a long time staring at the board, absorbing all of its features and nuances, like the fact that that group has three liberties, these stones are weak, those stones aim to expand there, and so on. You spend a while focusing on, intuiting, becoming absorbed by the board. It's like intuiting a flower, or a painting. "Taking it in at a glance" actually requires a long, highly focused "glance". The opposite style, where you glance at the board and then react based on the first move that pops into your head, would be properly called a reactive or an instinctive style.

Whoops. You're right, I totally used the wrong word and didn't even think about it. Valid point. You're right, I did mean instinctual play. :oops:

Posted: **Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:03 pm**

OED wrote:4. Scholastic Philos. The spiritual perception or immediate knowledge, ascribed to angelic and spiritual
beings, with whom vision and knowledge are identical.

Actually, the scholastic use is still the one I have in mind. Keep in mind that what they mean by "immediate" isn't immediate like "A whiskey ginger, and make it snappy," id est instantaneous, but immediate as in "lacking a medium." But I'm almost positive that intuition acquired its colloquial sense before it lost its technical sense.

daniel_the_smith wrote:Your distinctions are useful and interesting, so make up new terms for them.

The new term I have chosen is... drum-roll please... "intuition," derived from the Latin intuitio. :mrgreen:

I agree with you in general about bowing before popular usage, but when you're opposed to an attitude rather than to a word, per se, you can't just invent a new language and go off and talk to yourself in the corner. If you think the planets revolve in perfect circles around the Earth and I think they revolve in ellipses about the Sun, I won't resolve our agreement by calling the things that revolve in circles planets and the things that revolve in ellipses anetplays. At the end of the day our dispute is still about cosmology, not grammar. Likewise my distinctly minority position on the meaning of the word "intuition" is ultimately about the status of reflection, and letting people run together "guess", "hunch", "gut feeling", "instinct", "reflex", "snap judgment" and goodness knows what else under the dignified title of "intuition" is too much of a concession to the enemy.

Posted: **Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:39 pm**

jts wrote:The new term I have chosen is... drum-roll please... "intuition," derived from the Latin intuitio.

I agree with you in general about bowing before popular usage, but when you're opposed to an attitude rather than to a word, per se, you can't just invent a new language and go off and talk to yourself in the corner. If you think the planets revolve in perfect circles around the Earth and I think they revolve in ellipses about the Sun, I won't resolve our agreement by calling the things that revolve in circles planets and the things that revolve in ellipses anetplays. At the end of the day our dispute is still about cosmology, not grammar. Likewise my distinctly minority position on the meaning of the word "intuition" is ultimately about the status of reflection, and letting people run together "guess", "hunch", "gut feeling", "instinct", "reflex", "snap judgment" and goodness knows what else under the dignified title of "intuition" is too much of a concession to the enemy.

OK, for better terms, we can switch to more objective ones. Read the sample of this book. But read the rest of this post FIRST (I give a quiz that everyone here will want to take!).

"System 1" is automatic, unconscious thinking:

Daniel Kahneman wrote:In rough order of complexity, here are some examples of the automatic activities that are attributed to System 1:

* Detect that one object is more distant than another.
* Orient to the source of a sudden sound.
* Complete the phrase "bread and..."
* Make a "disgust face" when shown a horrible picture.
* Detect hostility in a voice.
* Answer to 2 + 2 = ?
* Read words on large billboards.
* Drive a car on an empty road.
* Understand simple sentences.
* Recognize that a "meek and tidy soul with a passion for detail" resembles an occupational stereotype.

"System 2" is conscious, effortful processing: (read the rest of the sample on the page I linked above for better definitions AFTER you read the rest of this post).

Daniel Kahneman wrote:The highly diverse operations of System 2 have one feature in common: they require attention and are disrupted when attention is drawn away. Here are some examples:

* Brace for the starter gun in a race.
* Focus attention on the clowns in the circus.
* Focus on the voice of a particular person in a crowded and noisy room.
* Look for a woman with white hair.
* Search memory to identify a surprising sound.
* Maintain a faster walking speed than is natural for you.
* Monitor the appropriateness of your behavior in a social situation.
* Count the occurrences of the letter a in a page of text.
* Tell someone your phone number.
* Park in a narrow space (for most people except garage attendants).
* Compare two washing machines for overall value.
* Fill out a tax form.
* Check the validity of a complex logical argument.

I left out an item in one of the above two lists. It is: "Find a strong move in chess (if you are a chess master)." Which list would you expect it to be in?

Hint:

Life In 19x19

Intuition Style

Re: Intuition Style

Re: Intuition Style

Re: Intuition Style

Re: Intuition Style

Re: Intuition Style

Re: Intuition Style

Re: Intuition Style

Re: Intuition Style

Re: Intuition Style

Re: Intuition Style

Re: Intuition Style

Re: Intuition Style

Re: Intuition Style

Re: Intuition Style

Re: Intuition Style