Bill Spight made a marvellous new thread:
"The Trivium and learning go". I wanted to answer there but I could not really focus my train of thought, so I just put everything in here and maybe participate later in the original thread.
------------
Years ago I tried to write a small guide on how to learn Go for the newcomers in our club. I also wanted to branch off from the usual "do a bunch of problems" and instead wanted to paint a more wholly picture of Go. And I didn't want to just give them a book list because some young ones where not sufficient enough in English and others did not want to buy a couple of "expensive" books. Besides, I guess beginners can enjoy an overview somewhat more than a complete book devoted to just one aspect of the game.
So I wrote down the rules and made a couple of diagrams for each rule so that it can be understood easily. No problems here. There are no interpretation of the rules, no variations, they are absolute (I omitted bent-four-in-the-corner and also any form of Seki).
Next I was confronted with the question of how to proceed.
My original plan was to focus on two main themes overall: Opening moves and shape with special focus on safety/connection of stones.
So after explaining 3*4 and 4*4 a bit, showing the common corner-side-center-territory-per-stone-efficiency and advising moves on the third and fourth line (plus some easy explanations), I stumbled across the connection of stones.
I always considered a half way extension from a 4*4 or from a Shimari as connected since you can either attack any invading stone and make life in the center or at least two-space-extend the other way. But now that opens Pandora's box: Do I include the concept of Miai, which surely no beginner will have any use for and how do I explain the two-space-extension with regards to safety?
The two-space-extension is such an elementary shape, I felt, it had to be included but I didn't want to state any absolutes like that it's a "safe" extension. So should I be cryptic and just say it's basically safe? Should I include more diagrams which would open yet another box (attack and defense)?
I was afraid that when I say a two-space-extension is safe that players would refrain from attacking it. I myself learnt a lot of wrong absolutes in my beginnings and definitely didn't want to pass that on.
Shortly thereafter I gave up on the project.
In the end I collapsed when deciding between reasoning and stating. There are too many exceptions in Go to really state anything besides the rules. And generalising felt off because it's only just half the truth at best (like "Hane at the head of two stones").
Coming back to Bill Spight's thread - at last ; )
Grammer, dialectic and rhetoric.
I feel
grammer is the least problematic because the rules are easily conveyed. Basic Haengma (jump, keima... etc.) and Tesujis (basic net, ladder... etc.) I also included in my draft back then. You can also quite easily point out the relation between speediness of the moves and their connectivity and write a few words whether net or ladder is better to capture a stone.
I guess this should be taught/known first.
Dialectic is a bit more tricky. As far as Tsumegos, Tesujis and endgame problems are concerned, you cannot go wrong. If the book solution is good (and correct), you just do them repeatedly until you can solve them on sight.
How to learn Josekis and equally important when to learn them is a topic which still eludes me. I'm fundamentally opposed to just memorise Josekis from a dictionairy.
My prefered way would be a fusion of the books "Whole Board Thinking in Joseki" and "Get Strong at Joseki". So on the one side a whole board application of a Joseki with the explanation why other Josekis wouldn't be so good in this situation and on the other side problems which exemplify how to react to e.g. non-Joseki moves.
Both help you
understand the Joseki, which is the important part, I think.
Still this does not answer the question when to learn Josekis. In my opinion, anyone below Shodan has more serious matters to attend to then Josekis.
Rhetoric - super hard!
Since my biggest weaknesses besides the endgame lay here, I feel, I can only speak of why this area seems to be the hardest to learn/teach.
In my opinion everything Bill Spight mentions boils down to positional judgement, which again boils down to experience. You cannot fully judge a situation, when you are unable to spot all the weaknesses/Aji/possibilities in the positions. To spot such weaknesses/Aji/possibilities you have to know the shapes and be proficient enough to read them out in this situation.
So I guess the better your grasp at dialectic the better you do at the rhetoric aspect of Go.
But since you cannot train every position in form of a problem, you have to play through plenty of games and review (better: get reviews from stronger players), so that you learn how to play certain situations better next time.
Each reviewed game might offer a new piece of the rhetoric aspect of Go but rarely will you get an universal applicable piece. It's patchwork.
That's why I think this area is super hard to learn and to teach. It might take a whole game and a review just to learn one thing and chances are you make this mistake a couple of times until it really sinks in. Progress in this area seems really slow compared to the other two areas.
I have a hard time coming up with an on point training here. Of course there are a couple of middlegame problem books and opening problems might also help to a certain extent but overall I feel the best way is playing and getting reviews (while simultaneously working on the dialectic aspect).
Of course there a books like "Opening Theory Made Easy" and "Attack and Defense", which are very good but they also have the premise that you play a lot to incorporate the presented ideas (and checking them works best again with a stronger player).
In a nutshell: I really like the idea to distinguish between these three aspects, it helps in learning Go, gives starting points.
It also helps in chosing the best learning method, I think. Grammer you have to memorise. For dialectic I think practice and repetition of problems works best. And finally rhetoric, you have to play a lot and get reviews from stronger players.
Of course you can further differentiate, e.g. when to do which problems (endgame seems not the best to start with).
I'm looking forward to what Bill Spight has more to say =)
)
