Life In 19x19

I feel that one thing that has caused me to plateau with my go skill in the past is - to argue about plateaus. Ok, I usually argue about improvement.

I am of the camp that believes that you can improve indefinitely, to any level.

But at the same time, all of the time that I've spent arguing about this is time that was not productive toward achieving any meaningful goal.

topazg wrote:I think a lot of this discussion appears to be drawing parallels that are only true if Go was a memory game. If the game was to memorise 100 pro games I'd believe anyone could learn to do it very well. I don't think for a minute that the brain is that easy to train to do any complex task there is.

Do I think most people, in the ideal learning condition, could be the next Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein? No, I'm sorry, I really don't believe this to be the case. To be truly excellent you need lots of innate talent, lots of encouragement, lots of support (including financially), lots of time to devote to it, and a personality / psychology that perseveres no matter what the setback.

You can train some things, and money can buy others. But to be truly exceptional you need all of them, and most people just haven't drawn that lucky straw.

Memory athletes develop a skill that may be less complex than go, but that's no reason to compare a professional go player to Einstein or Hawking. Didn't some study show that many go professionals have I.Q's that are lower than average?

Without going into an I.Q discussion, the point about the article that can easily be adopted to go is not about memory per se, but rather about the fact that different approaches to a discipline lead to different results.

While your last paragraph is undoubtedly true, it is worth noting that probably very few amateurs actually study like a professional go player does, and those who do probably don't stay in the kyu ranks for long.

daal wrote:

topazg wrote:I think a lot of this discussion appears to be drawing parallels that are only true if Go was a memory game. If the game was to memorise 100 pro games I'd believe anyone could learn to do it very well. I don't think for a minute that the brain is that easy to train to do any complex task there is.

Do I think most people, in the ideal learning condition, could be the next Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein? No, I'm sorry, I really don't believe this to be the case. To be truly excellent you need lots of innate talent, lots of encouragement, lots of support (including financially), lots of time to devote to it, and a personality / psychology that perseveres no matter what the setback.

You can train some things, and money can buy others. But to be truly exceptional you need all of them, and most people just haven't drawn that lucky straw.

Memory athletes develop a skill that may be less complex than go, but that's no reason to compare a professional go player to Einstein or Hawking. Didn't some study show that many go professionals have I.Q's that are lower than average?

Without going into an I.Q discussion, the point about the article that can easily be adopted to go is not about memory per se, but rather about the fact that different approaches to a discipline lead to different results.

While your last paragraph is undoubtedly true, it is worth noting that probably very few amateurs actually study like a professional go player does, and those who do probably don't stay in the kyu ranks for long.

I clearly picked misleading examples, I apologise. I picked people who happened to have decided on a mental pursuit, but it was not at all supposed to imply IQ, merely the comparitive success and achievement of those who have both the natural affinity for their work (whether in the form of IQ or an intuitive understanding of physics etc) who dedicate their entire lives to almost nothing other than their core subject. I could just as easily have picked Michael Schumacher, Roger Federer, or Michael Phelps.

I accept amateur 5 dan is not the same dizzying heights here - I'm picking the Lee Sedols of the world to make the case, but the point still stands: someone with the natural talent has a higher potential that someone without. To assume that "everyone" can hit an arbitrary height of 5 dan is to assume an awful lot about the natural upper bar people can reach, and without a great deal of justification to support it. Sure, everyone can get better by working harder, and by devoting more time to it, but how much better is not an answerable question.

This forum, I suspect, is populated with a lot of "intelligent" people with expertise in logical or spatial awareness fields (such as computer science or engineering) - I suspect there is automatically a correlation here with a natural affinity for picking up skill at Go, and I suspect the average forum member would have a higher "bar" than a randomly selected Joe Bloggs off the street. There are quite a few people on here that have hit the dan ranks without having to put in a great deal of work, and I suspect there are at least as many who have put in a lot more work so far but haven't reached it and who may never get there regardless of how much time, effort, and study they put in.

Believing that this is fine too is, IMHO, more important than any requirement to get past an OK plateau.

Kirby wrote:I feel that one thing that has caused me to plateau with my go skill in the past is - to argue about plateaus. Ok, I usually argue about improvement.

I am of the camp that believes that you can improve indefinitely, to any level.

Apparently we are of different opinions in that respect.

Somebody is stuck at a certain level. This can mean two things:
1-he has reached his mental limits
2-he is training the wrong way (if at all )

You optimistically chose the second options.

But my opinon is the following: One can never know which one is true for each individual case. At least not merely based on the fact that some other people with normal mental capability could endlessley improve. Some people can do it all alone, some others can not even with professional training. May be a bit pessimistic, but it's that simple in my opinion.

Kirby wrote:But at the same time, all of the time that I've spent arguing about this is time that was not productive toward achieving any meaningful goal.

I don't see this discussion as a waste of time. Thinking about these things gives an insight of ones own mindset.

I can come up with the following mindsets:
1-I am trying to improve at all cost.
2-I am not trying to improve but I know my limits are much higher. Maybe I will improve if I go on playing.
3-I am happy at my level (OK plateau). I just want to play and enjoy.
4-I believe I am at my mental limits but I still want to play and enjoy.
5-I believe I am at my mental limits but would want to improve. Therefore I don't enjoy playing any more because is constantly reminds me of the fact that my limts are lower than many people.

I think it is useful to be conscious about ones own mindset. After all, go is just a game it is not your life. If you struggle for improving at all cost, you may be investing your time in a dead business. Those who say "endless improvement is possible" just push you towards a more ambitious but less enjoyable mindset.

If you still choose to struggle for improving it's of course fine, but with the help of such discussions, you at least make your decision consciously.

I think the time spent for this discussion is not more wasted than the time spent for memorizing one joseki variation.

topazg wrote:... and I suspect there are at least as many who have put in a lot more work so far but haven't reached it and who may never get there regardless of how much time, effort, and study they put in.[/b]

I am going off-topic here, but why is this the case? It's pretty simple: they're surrounded by and reinforce their ideas with fellow kyus.

I do not hesitate to believe that anyone lacking a mental disability is capable of reaching dan ranks without reasonable practice and a peer group consisting entirely of dan level players.

cdybeijing wrote:

topazg wrote:... and I suspect there are at least as many who have put in a lot more work so far but haven't reached it and who may never get there regardless of how much time, effort, and study they put in.[/b]

I am going off-topic here, but why is this the case? It's pretty simple: they're surrounded by and reinforce their ideas with fellow kyus.

I do not hesitate to believe that anyone lacking a mental disability is capable of reaching dan ranks without reasonable practice and a peer group consisting entirely of dan level players.

I know of a couple of people who have been studying (albeit as a hobby) for a couple of years, including taking regular professional lessons and weekly tsumego + games, and are delighted to have finally struck mid-SDK. Whatever their failings to hit dan level can be attributed to, it isn't "weak peer groups".

Of course on can never know where the bar lies nor can one measure one's talent. I do however know that my studying bears little resemblance to that of a professional, and as long as I think "6k is pretty darn good for someone of my innate ability and personal constraints," it's doubtful that I will get much stronger.

As to those who put in alot of work and may never get "there" (wherever that is), are their study habits optimal?

entropi wrote:

Kirby wrote:I feel that one thing that has caused me to plateau with my go skill in the past is - to argue about plateaus. Ok, I usually argue about improvement.

I am of the camp that believes that you can improve indefinitely, to any level.

Apparently we are of different opinions in that respect.

Somebody is stuck at a certain level. This can mean two things:
1-he has reached his mental limits
2-he is training the wrong way (if at all )

You optimistically chose the second options.

Kirby wrote:

Nothing optimistic about it.

One cannot know if 1 is true. Unless you are an insei or the equivalent, 2 is most certainly true.

daal wrote:

entropi wrote:

Kirby wrote:I feel that one thing that has caused me to plateau with my go skill in the past is - to argue about plateaus. Ok, I usually argue about improvement.

I am of the camp that believes that you can improve indefinitely, to any level.

Apparently we are of different opinions in that respect.

Somebody is stuck at a certain level. This can mean two things:
1-he has reached his mental limits
2-he is training the wrong way (if at all )

You optimistically chose the second options.

Kirby wrote:

Nothing optimistic about it.

One cannot know if 1 is true. Unless you are an insei or the equivalent, 2 is most certainly true.

Come on, that's the whole discussion. How can you say 2 is most certainly true without any proof? What I am saying is that you cannot know! With which piece of information are you saying "No, I do know"?

entropi wrote:

daal wrote:

entropi wrote:Apparently we are of different opinions in that respect.

Somebody is stuck at a certain level. This can mean two things:
1-he has reached his mental limits
2-he is training the wrong way (if at all )

You optimistically chose the second options.

Nothing optimistic about it.

One cannot know if 1 is true. Unless you are an insei or the equivalent, 2 is most certainly true.

Come on, that's the whole discussion. How can you say 2 is most certainly true without any proof? What I am saying is that you cannot know! With which piece of information are you saying "No, I do know"?

Well, it's no secret how most professionals train. Professionals of any sport spend a mind-numbing amount of time perfecting their basic skills under the watchful eye of a highly competent coach who has devised an individual training regimen for that athlete so that that athlete can compete on a professional level. This often includes mental training to develop the necessary psychological fortitude or attitude. Sometimes it involves foregoing personal relationships. No one in their right mind undergoes this type of training without expecting to earn a living from it. Do you believe that there are amateurs who follow such rigorous discipline who think that they have already reached their mental limits?

daal wrote:...Do you believe that there are amateurs who follow such rigorous discipline who think that they have already reached their mental limits?

Of course not, but this doesn't say anything about what would happen if they did (or even if they "could") follow such discipline.

entropi wrote:Somebody is stuck at a certain level. This can mean two things:
1-he has reached his mental limits
2-he is training the wrong way (if at all )
....
Come on, that's the whole discussion. How can you say 2 is most certainly true without any proof? What I am saying is that you cannot know! With which piece of information are you saying "No, I do know"?

There are many different ways of training employed by amateurs. It is unlikely that they are all perfectly suited to the individuals using them.

What strikes me reading Daal's point is that this is not really how Japanese insei and professionals train. Most of them do not have coaches--even a professional's pupils do not seem to be very closely overseen by them. At least that was the case in the Kitani school. I think the Japanese would do better in international events if they had more coaching and organization. But one can't deny that they reach a very high level ( = higher than western Amateurs) without that sort of oversight.

entropi wrote:
Apparently we are of different opinions in that respect.

Somebody is stuck at a certain level. This can mean two things:
1-he has reached his mental limits
2-he is training the wrong way (if at all )

You optimistically chose the second options.
.....
Come on, that's the whole discussion. How can you say 2 is most certainly true without any proof? What I am saying is that you cannot know! With which piece of information are you saying "No, I do know"?

There is no value in believing 1. There is value in believing 2. That belief alone can be enough to cause someone to improve.

I've plateaued 3 times, once at 5k, once at 1k, and now. Belief that I had not reached my mental limits allowed me to progress beyond each one.

You certainly cannot know, but this is where faith comes in handy.

shapenaji wrote:

entropi wrote:
Apparently we are of different opinions in that respect.

Somebody is stuck at a certain level. This can mean two things:
1-he has reached his mental limits
2-he is training the wrong way (if at all )

You optimistically chose the second options.
.....
Come on, that's the whole discussion. How can you say 2 is most certainly true without any proof? What I am saying is that you cannot know! With which piece of information are you saying "No, I do know"?

There is no value in believing 1. There is value in believing 2. That belief alone can be enough to cause someone to improve.

I've plateaued 3 times, once at 5k, once at 1k, and now. Belief that I had not reached my mental limits allowed me to progress beyond each one.

You certainly cannot know, but this is where faith comes in handy.

We don't need to take "2" on faith alone, either. I, at least, have had the experience dozens of times of "feeling" that I was no good at something, only to later realize that either I wasn't getting instruction, or I wasn't practicing enough, or both. You can only have that experience so many times before it becomes reasonable to completely discount the feeling of natural incompetence.

entropi wrote:Come on, that's the whole discussion. How can you say 2 is most certainly true without any proof? What I am saying is that you cannot know! With which piece of information are you saying "No, I do know"?

I'm not sure what the intended interpretation of 2 is, but I also often wonder if it is too easy to assume that inseis train optimally. It's possible that because of the large amount of time they put in, there are significant sections of their training that aren't as efficient as others, but they don't dare to omit, reduce, or change it, because the whole package has worked in the past. There is also the question of whether there is a difference in what is optimal training for someone in a typical insei age group (i.e., under 18) vs. older players.

Another question is: what is optimal if you have 10 hours a week to study? 2 hours? 50 hours? Some training plans may scale up or down better than others, but at some point no training plan is effective. As an analogy, I often notice that an enormous amount of energy in the U.S. is spent on trying to find the optimal diet for someone who refuses to exercise at all. If people would exercise just a little more, there would be more options, but since they won't, we're bombarded with these absurd shortcut plans.

There is also an amount of training that may be overkill (i.e., so much that it damages your overall physical or psychological health, thereby cancelling out previous efforts.)

There's also the question of what is required to reach, say 80% your potential vs. 95% or 100%. Maybe if a given player trained like an insei she could be 7 dan, but with 1/4 of the effort she could be 5 dan or at 1/10 of the effort be 3 dan. I'm just making these numbers up. The point is that it's hard to know.