Life In 19x19

John Fairbairn wrote:One is called (I think) self-identification - how you see yourself as a chess or go player. You may think of yourself as, say, an aggressive player. That will get you into the bad habit of learning only things that reinforce your self image. This is not only a severe limitation but may be the biggest problem of all. As we can see for ourselves on L19, many weaker players like to mention that they try to play like Shuwa, or whoever. Apparently the same syndrome exists in chess.

The other problem is over-confidence in one's reasoning, especially when it comes to drawing conclusions. Weaker players tend to be much more confident than strong players. The very strongest players actually are very wishy-washy. Time and again the chess writers report (and you can see this on chess sites where kibitzers are allowed, but of course also in go on kgs) that on being shown a new position weak players say things like, "White is winning" but a strong grandmaster will say,"Maybe White has chances". A very strong grandmaster will just say, "Hmmm". Actually this paradigm (which I gather applies to other fields of endeavour) seems to work so well that I suspect it may be how pros assess the grade of players they meet for the first time.

Ebooks are wonderful things. Now that I've actually read "Chess for Zebras" (at least at the very superficial level I can as a non-chess player) I see where you are coming from with those ideas. It reminds of those old books I haven't read in years, like Gallwey's "Inner Tennis" and "The Inner Game of Music." (I think the skiing one really did help me ski better.) I hadn't thought about those ideas in a while, maybe because they were based on early notions of left-brain / right-brain differences. But whether the physiology is correct or not there is something to the idea that too much thinking can get in the way of skill acquisition. I definitely think Go is more like a sport or like music than like an academic discipline.

John Fairbairn wrote: Among perennially weaker players it is common for them to learn one significant item, such as a proverb, a formula or a new way of looking at things, and then to experience a surge of improvement. Almost invariably, however, they soon fall back to their old grade.

If there is a real surge, then that would be something quite interesting to investigate. However, at first blush it sounds like normal variability plus selection. Case 1: Aha! experience, followed by better results, followed by return to baseline. Case 2: Aha! experience, followed by worse results, followed by return to baseline. The better results in case 1 are attributed to the Aha! experience, while the worse results in case 2 are not, and case 2 is ignored or forgotten.

RobertJasiek wrote:O. is not the most important skill. O. without understanding is as misleading as a purely visual perception of the position (without, e.g., understanding connection). So understanding is a more important skill than O. Where does understanding come from if O. as its origin is by far insufficient? Besides the agreement "from reading", some claim "from self-organisation of subconscious thinking" - I claim "from conscious knowledge".

You can have all the understanding a human could have, but if you`re not carefully the position in hand, how are you supposed to make use of it? And do you think people found go principles before they them in play?

Speedy Gearchange was the world`s most skilful racing driver. Unfortunately, on the 15th lap of last week`s Grand Prix he failed to the oil patch ahead of him. Now Ron McCautious is the world`s most skilful racing driver.

RobertJasiek wrote:O. is not the most important skill. O. without understanding is as misleading as a purely visual perception of the position (without, e.g., understanding connection). So understanding is a more important skill than O. Where does understanding come from if O. as its origin is by far insufficient? Besides the agreement "from reading", some claim "from self-organisation of subconscious thinking" - I claim "from conscious knowledge".

Understanding doesn't help much if one can't deliver on it. For example, having a subtle understanding of thickness is not useful if, due to looking on the wrong part of the board, one is not paying attention to the implications of thickness elsewhere. Understanding (in the sense of knowledge that one comes in to the game with) is also insufficient.

There is preparation and performance. Both are crucial. You've spent many years reading go books and accumulating and consolidating knowledge. That's great. But a number of players do that to differing degrees with varying results, so there's also the question of what it takes to "bring it." Are you going to make the claim that you review all of your knowledge before every move? If not, then there is some aspect of selection of what's relevant and I think that part is a very important skill. How to improve that, though?

Tami wrote:As for the stuff about emulating famous players. It is indeed seductive to try to copy people we admire. But with my skills, trying to copy the players I like is comparable to trying to copy Leonardo with a pack of felt-tip pens and frostbitten hands

I would not be too quick to dismiss emulating famous players. "Where would X play?" can be a good guide. Years ago I read about a primitive fisherman, who fished with a spear, pretending to be the god of fishing. In our modern society, as adults, we have forgotten the power of pretending. We are afraid that we will pretend to be Fred Astaire and fall on our face.

Bill Spight wrote:

If there is a real surge, then that would be something quite interesting to investigate. However, at first blush it sounds like normal variability plus selection. Case 1: Aha! experience, followed by better results, followed by return to baseline. Case 2: Aha! experience, followed by worse results, followed by return to baseline. The better results in case 1 are attributed to the Aha! experience, while the worse results in case 2 are not, and case 2 is ignored or forgotten.

Yes, this is all valid and is discussed at length by Daniel Kahneman, author of "Thinking, Fast and Slow" which I see one of our major bookshops in London is currently highlighting, so its contents may soon become mainstream. Kahneman mentions the skills needed by a chess player several times, but as regards the above his framework is a convincing discussion of "Regresssion to the Mean", although elsewhere in the book there is also much about the fact that our brains are apparently set up to ignore or forget or avoid what we don't like.

Tami wrote:Anyway, here`s the thing:

Observation

Along those lines, I have recently started recommending to people who want to study tsumego intensively that they practice recreating the problem on an empty board. If you don't know what the problem is, what good does it do to know the answer?

Tami wrote:if you`re not carefully

What I do carefully is analysing / evaluating / judging. Nothing of these is o.

And do you think people found go principles before they

No. That something precedes everything else makes it a necessity but not the most important.

snorri wrote:due to looking on the wrong part of the board

One must always be aware of the whole position.

Understanding [...] is also insufficient.

Ok, good argument:) (Anyway, I have not said that understanding alone would do.)

You've spent many years reading go books and accumulating and consolidating knowledge. [...] there's also the question of what it takes to "bring it."

Knowledge must be (about) correct and relevant. So profit from knowledge, one must identify which is correct and relevant and discard the superfluous, wrong knowledge. (Even little relevance (such as a minor principle for connections) suffices but knowledge essentially irrelevant for strength improvement (such as a precise knowledge of Japanese rules) can be ignored, although fun to study for its own sake.)

Furthermore, one must be able to learn from knowledge identified as correct and relevant. Recall it, apply it, keep recalling it, so that you can keep applying it.

Are you going to make the claim that you review all of your knowledge before every move?

As I have explained several times, my knowledge is STRUCTURED. I call only that knowledge that needs to be consulted as possibly relevant for the current position. Besides my knowledge includes decision making knowledge (how to apply several principles, contradicting principles etc.).

If not, then there is some aspect of selection of what's relevant

Yes.

and I think that part is a very important skill.

Yes.

How to improve that, though?

Acquire correct and relevant knowledge for structuring knowledge and for decision making.

… somehow this reminds me of many discussions between Captain Jean-Luc Picard and Commander Data

Bonobo wrote:… somehow this reminds me of many discussions between Captain Jean-Luc Picard and Commander Data

I completely disagree that observation (or "listening" in music) is "the most crucial thing to do" --
of course, observing is very important, as is listening (in music, in drama/theater),
but there is still no such thing as "the most crucial thing to do."

There are multiple things that are important, and in fact there is no way to quantitatively (objectively)
compare the different levels of importance in them.

If observing (or listening, in music) is the most crucial thing for you, Tami, that's perfectly OK;
I cannot argue with that -- that's your subjective opinion.

But I completely disagree there is anything that is objectively "the most crucial thing to do"
in Go, in driving, or in music. That's entirely subjective.

Addendum to the pretend post:

One of the golfing greats (Walter Hagen, IIRC) told of playing golf with the other caddies when he was a kid. When they were putting out they would say, "This is for the US Open." Later, when he actually was putting for the US Open, he said that that experience helped him sink his putt under the pressure.

Guinan might say: “When you walk, walk. When you talk, talk.”

If there is anything crucial to grok in anything, I guess for me it is to immerse myself in whatever I’m doing.

EdLee wrote:
If observing (or listening, in music) is the most crucial thing for you, Tami, that's perfectly OK;
I cannot argue with that -- that's your subjective opinion.

But I completely disagree there is anything that is objectively "the most crucial thing to do"
in Go, in driving, or in music. That's entirely subjective.

Cheap shot maybe, but I wouldn`t accept a ride from you if you didn`t at least look where you were going.

In playing go, as opposed to theorising about it, you need some practical skills. People often say "I didn`t see that!", but as the game is a complete information game, the only explanation can be that they simply weren`t looking. After all, the moves are not hidden under rocks.

But, really, I`m taking Jim Kerwin as my authority, in a very indirect and second-hand way. In another thread, viewtopic.php?f=12&t=7004, gowan referred to his remark in an AGA Journal article about the difference between pros and amateurs as being seeing what is really there. I reflected on this and thought "Wow!"

All time you see people trying to kill living or unimportant stones, or protecting against imaginary dangers or generally playing by what they imagine is there or wish were there. If only you make the effort to look at the board, then surely you are more likely to see things much more reasonably. Of course, how much you see actually depends on your level of specific go skill, but at the risk of starting a chicken-and-egg debate, I can only assert my opinion that no amount of skill will help you unless you`re first paying close and wide attention to the situation before you. Like Speedy Gearchange, if you`re not looking where you`re going and seeing the dangers, then you`ll have a nasty accident.

Anyway, if there is one thing I have decided to do without fail, it is to try my best to observe the situation, in order to give my limited skill the greatest chance to succeed. If nothing else, I find it makes playing go enjoyable, like driving, because it hushes my ego.

I`m surprised at the amount of disagreement, but it`s okay. Even if I were 9p, I still wouldn`t expect everybody to agree with me. Still, I`d he amazed if training your powers of observation did not help a lot with everything else.

Indeed, it appears that prior knowledge and principles can sometimes be an obstacle. For instance, most of us have read James Davies`s book on tesuji, and probably can find crane`s nests, slapping tesuji, nose tesuji and all the other things he gave useful names to. Again, most of us can invoke some principle or another to justify making a move. But what about all those occasions we miss opportunities because they fell outside our narrow set of expectations? Chances we might have found if only we were looking! Isn`t that what is meant by "illusion of understanding"? In many respects principles and shapes with names give us a feeling of making inroads into go, but then we miss thousands of possibilties simply because we never even thought to look for them, because they were filtered out by our systems.

Tami wrote:but I wouldn`t accept a ride from you if you didn`t at least look where you were going.

Correct, nor if I am a bad driver, nor if my brakes are dying, nor if it's raining cats and dogs and the road conditions are very dangerous, ... etc.
There are a million other things that would make you not accept a ride from anyone.
Which is precisely the point. To say "observing" is "the most crucial" is to say everything else is less crucial,
which is simply false.

To observe is very important, but it is not the only important thing, nor is it the most crucial.
There are many other things that are AT LEAST AS CRUCIAL, if not more.

Tami wrote:I`d he amazed if training your powers of observation did not help a lot with everything else.

Again, nobody here (including me) disagrees that observing is very important.
In fact, I think everybody here agrees that observing is very important.
I only take issue with the extreme position that it is the most crucial thing.