Life In 19x19

EdLee wrote:I want to get a whiff of what pros see.

Me too. I want to seeeeee

p2501, exactly. To see.

Apart from the dream goals "strongest player" and "solving go completely", I have goals I consider (more) realistic:

1) Becoming 6d, then trying 7d.

2) Write down all not too specialised, not pure reading-dependent knowledge of go theory explicitly. All my current knowledge is a subset of that. Where there are gaps in current go theory, fill them by inventions. Knowledge about how to read and how to make decisions (including how to solve life and death) in general must also be written down. Writing down everything implies filling all current gaps in literature about not yet explicitly described or not at all in writing described knowledge. (I am optimistic because there still is not / need not be too much of not too specialised knowledge of go theory and because I have an ability to invent.)

3) Find precise and accurate descriptions of all still ambiguous concepts and methods of go theory from terms to decision-making. (Is there anything more difficult than defining 'ko threat'? If that is the peak of difficulty, then I have a real chance to define everything.)

4) Explain all still not explained rulesets unequivocally.

In terms of rank, I got stuck with the idea of becoming 6D KGS (a real one) or 5D EGF.

In terms of overall understanding, I'd love to be able to comment on old games of masterplayers the way Bill Spight does to illustrate certain points.

SoDesuNe wrote:In terms of rank, I got stuck with the idea of becoming 6D KGS (a real one) or 5D EGF.

Is that 2, 3, or 4 stones from pro?

Good question. My best guess would be around three stones. (Zen is 6D on KGS which is roughly 5D EGF and he beats pros on 4H).

SoDesuNe, 3H is a nice goal. Good luck!

EdLee wrote:

SoDesuNe wrote:In terms of rank, I got stuck with the idea of becoming 6D KGS (a real one) or 5D EGF.

Is that 2, 3, or 4 stones from pro?

Which pro?

topazg wrote:Which pro?

Good question. How about the current top 300.

Realistic?

6D or stronger kgs

Goal?

9p

I'd like to improve some.

I've taken a fairly slow path in Go (I started playing regularly in 2005), and despite my activity on the boards, I haven't done a lot of studying since 2008. I hope I'm not done getting better (edit: I'd like to get back to studying more. Maybe that is already a goal).

I'd also like to create tools that help people study and collaborate on Go.

To understand the game.
To become consumed in the sheer complexity, simplicity, and beauty of the game.
To challenge myself.
To strengthen my intellectual and cognitive capacity.

I'm here to have fun and play. My "studying" is typically more play. I tried to be more serious at one point, but it just makes the game less fun for me.

It'd be nice to improve beyond where I stand right now, but I'm pretty comfy at the level of skill I've currently obtained. Eventually my experience will bump my skill level up, ever so slowly ...

SoDesuNe wrote:Good question. My best guess would be around three stones. (Zen is 6D on KGS which is roughly 5D EGF and he beats pros on 4H).

People underestimate the strength of professional players:

http://www.361points.com/blog/2010/03/2 ... l-players/

Winning once isn't "beats pros on xy". The amateur players in the blogpost by Sorin are among European strongest with handicaps ranging from 2 (for 7 dan) to 4 (for 5 dan) all but one lose their games.

tapir wrote:

SoDesuNe wrote:Good question. My best guess would be around three stones. (Zen is 6D on KGS which is roughly 5D EGF and he beats pros on 4H).

People underestimate the strength of professional players:

http://www.361points.com/blog/2010/03/2 ... l-players/

Winning once isn't "beats pros on xy". The amateur players in the blogpost by Sorin are among European strongest with handicaps ranging from 2 (for 7 dan) to 4 (for 5 dan) all but one lose their games.

The more I read books and articles by professionals, the more I get the sense that they're baffled - completely baffled! - by the way we amateurs mistreat our groups and seem to willingly disregard 'obvious' key plays.

They're in a world of their own, and I think for the most par, in order to be that generalized, it has to be a difference not only in attitude, but instruction as well. This sharpness and understanding among pros has to come out of somewhere else than repeated tsumego.