Life In 19x19

Hi Ed, good post.

The issue here is why I/we think you advocated for the no-reasoning method, and I hope you see why I/we think you do/did.

Regardless of what you do on KGS or in p2p interaction or in other settings - your arguments here as well as your behavior (the comments you give on games and the answers you give to questions - which are very often of the form of 'just because I say so') - lead me/us to think that. Then, when you start arguing that the 'no-reasoning' method also works (even though nobody ever said otherwise) - this only enforced my/our belief.

I am glad that you understand the value of good explanation, and I am also glad that you try to explain stuff more in other circumstances. This whole part of a discussion could have been avoided if you just said to begin with 'I am so curt on L19 because experience taught me it might not be worth my time or effort to explain more.' I don't think anybody, me included, would have had any problem with that.

EdLee wrote:Bantari, and Daal. I just re-read Daal's original thread What is "the direction of play?"
and this spin-off thread. There is a huge amount of misunderstanding. There's also some
shared experience, some common ground (which is nice).

I'll try my best to eventually answer all your questions, but I cannot guarantee
that I can do it in a very short time -- with a few sentences, with a few posts,
very concisely, etc. -- I may need help with some Q&A (like my "shared experiences"
questions for Bantari earlier) -- this discussion may take some time. I'm OK with it --
taking the time, going back and forth -- if that's OK with you.

First, when I review games on KGS and in real life, when I suggest
a different move/variation than in the real game,
I think in most cases, I give an explanation (which could be
very brief, or longer, depending on the situation).
This may come as a surprise to you.

(In some cases, I will try to explain why I think another
move is better. And they would have no idea what I'm talking about.
In those cases, after some trials, I may give up and say
"Hmm, this is difficult to explain more. Maybe you'll understand this
later, with more experience.") -- (More on this, later.)

Also, when I think of good pro (Go) teachers that I've seen,
when they suggest a move, they also almost always have
an explanation. I also don't know if this experience of mine
comes as a surprise to you.

There are some differences among in-person reviews,
KGS reviews, and forum reviews -- one difference is real-time vs. forum-time.

For in-person reviews, 99.99% of the time I'm referring
to people in our local club. (I very seldom travel to other
tourneys, like the US Open, where there may be in-person
reviews with my opponents.) For our local club members,
we all know each other, our levels, our personalities,
years of history. So I have a good idea what is appropriate
in a review.

For KGS reviews, there are 2 main groups: KGS friends who
I review regularly with, and "strangers". For the regulars,
it is similar to our local club people: we already know
each others' levels, so I know what is appropriate in
a review. For a KGS "stranger", in a review, I have the
luxury of real-time interaction: I can ask questions.
They can ask questions. If I give an explanation, and it is
not clear, I can find out quickly.

On a forum, things can be different. In the past, I've had
some experience where I put in some time in a review,
with some explanation, variations, etc. And afterwards,
there was absolutely no response. In some cases, the user
never even came back to visit the forum. In some other cases,
the user was still active, but there was no feedback on the review.
In some cases, there was a nice "Thanks for the review,"
but no more feedback.

Yes, Bantari noted, most of us here are amateurs. This is all just
"for fun." We volunteer our time and efforts here because we are
passionate about Go. (Otherwise if we don't give a damn, then we
wouldn't even be having these long heated discussions to begin with.)
So requesting a review (on KGS or here or elsewhere) is "free" --
this cuts both ways. If the poster is serious about their game
and about improving, and the reviewer gives some nice comments,
and the poster benefits as a result, this is a very good scenario.
But it's not always so good. Some posters are serious, and
the reviewer is serious, but alas, as Bantari noted, most of our
"low-level" amateur moves and understanding have lots of problems,
and even when we try our best, sometimes (often?) we still give out
bad advice (more on this later.) Sometimes, the reviewer is serious
but the poster is not. "You get what you pay for," -- this is true sometimes.

Bantari wrote:I am glad that you understand the value of good explanation, and I am also glad that you try to explain stuff more in other circumstances. This whole part of a discussion could have been avoided if you just said to begin with 'I am so curt on L19 because experience taught me it might not be worth my time or effort to explain more.' I don't think anybody, me included, would have had any problem with that.

I agree with this. Ed, you perform an great service to the online go community with the number of reviews you write. More than just the benefit to the reviewed player, you are reassuring other players who have not yet posted games that one of us will eventually get around to reviewing their games, and that they will not be ignored because they are too new to the forum, too new to the game, or too anything else. We are go players after all - make the efficient play, and then tenuki!

Bantari, as I mentioned earlier, there is a huge amount of misunderstanding.
It's going to take me some time to discuss all these interesting points.

Jumping around a bit:

Bantari wrote:So let me ask you a counter-question:
Have you seen the method I speak of applied and *not* producing results?
Have you tried to ask for (or give) some more reasoning behind moves, and did that knowledge ever hurt you in your learning? Or hurt anybody else?

Yes, to both.

Bantari wrote:And when we go into reasoning two things happen: 1) the student has a much better chance to not form a bad habit,
and 2) we ourselves have a chance to realize our error and thus become better players and better teachers. So its a win-win scenario for me.

What if both points are debatable. What if bad habits can actually form because of
bad understanding and faulty reasoning, and that not only do we not become better teachers,
but we could become worse, who in turn "teach" others to be the same, from faulty reasoning?

Bantari wrote:As a matter of fact - I would bet that 90%+ of all the bad habits were acquired
because of taking things on blind faith rather than by accepting possibly faulty reasoning.

From another (unrelated) thread -- viewtopic.php?f=11&t=9038&start=120

PaperTiger wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:Although I've never had the problem, I can imagine others do have it. Can you quote numbers? What percentage of teachers have reported this problem? What percentage of their students had trouble in this area? You called it a "very good chance", so I assume it is a large percentage?

You've got me there. I haven't done a statistical study. ... I can't give you statistics.

What if the opposite is true: that in fact 90% of bad habits are formed because of faulty reasoning?
(I don't have the stats, and I bet neither do you.)

But wait, there's more -- one more question after this...
Here's a quote from one of our PM chats, I hope you don't mind that I quote it here:

Bantari wrote:Because of my 'principles' (never charge or pay for Go lessons)
I have had very few personal experiences with formal teaching, most of it second-hand.

My last what if question for this post. What if, to better appreciate what I wrote above,
it takes personal experience studying with a good pro teacher for at least one year ?

You don't have to reply to any of these what if's. Just food for thought.
Keep them in mind for now; I'll come back to them later.
To start to clear up so much misunderstanding, I'll start from first principles. Next post.

EdLee wrote:Bantari, as I mentioned earlier, there is a huge amount of misunderstanding.
It's going to take me some time to discuss all these interesting points.

Jumping around a bit:

Bantari wrote:So let me ask you a counter-question:
Have you seen the method I speak of applied and *not* producing results?
Have you tried to ask for (or give) some more reasoning behind moves, and did that knowledge ever hurt you in your learning? Or hurt anybody else?

Yes, to both.

Well, then we have the same applied to *both* methods.
The question remains - where is the danger of misfire greater.

Lacking any solid numbers, one way or the other, we have to rely on logic and reasoning. I feel my posts are spilling over with logic and reasoning (even in this post I go into it all over again), while all you give are examples, if even that.

So - I challenge you - give me good logical reasons why no-explanation my be better in teaching than yes-explanation? And don't give me outliers and examples like: there can be a case where... Using both methods there can be bad cases, we already know that. Tell me simply and logically - what do you think is the advantage of withholding simple explanations from your students?

I am interested what you say, especially after you already admitted than when you teach outside of L19 you pretty much do give some explanations.

Bantari wrote:And when we go into reasoning two things happen: 1) the student has a much better chance to not form a bad habit,
and 2) we ourselves have a chance to realize our error and thus become better players and better teachers. So its a win-win scenario for me.

What if I were to say both points are debatable. What if bad habits can actually form because of
bad understanding and faulty reasoning, and that not only do we not become better teachers,
but we could become worse, who in turn "teach" others to be the same, from faulty reasoning?

I would say you need to explain it some more.

I agree that bad habits can be formed anyways, so the fact that they can is not an issue here.

My claim is that:
Knowing the reasoning, even when its faulty, makes it easier to avoid bad habits. Not to mention - faster progress, less problems with barriers, and so on.

And my reason for this claim is:
Reasoning can be dealt with at conscious level, and fault reasoning can be logically proven to be faulty when you think about it enough. On the other hand, when you just blindly follow a 'better move' - the chance of you finding out the move is actually no good at all takes much longer - you need to gather experience with this move failing before you even have a chance to reject it. Faulty reasoning you have a chance to reject much sooner. Which does not mean you always do - there is just a better chance.

And another very important point:
Also, knowing the reasoning allows you to do two very important things right off the bat:

• generalize - apply the same reasoning to other problems without having to be explicitly shown the moves, and
• reject other moves based on similar reasoning when you realize the reasoning is bad

When you deal with single moves rather than ideas or reasons - the above is impossible. At least until you internalize it enough to come up with the ideas and reasons by yourself. And what do you think the chance is that this ideas and reasons will be as good as the ones of a stronger player?

The one thing I am uncertain about:
If you are aiming at the absolute to of the world, to become the best pro, and you have conditions nobody here has (many hours a day study, strong competition, strong discussion partners, and top-pro teachers) - maybe then the no-explanation and blindly-follow-and-no-questions might ultimately produce better results, even if the way is slower.

This would be, for example, in an insei school, or some other such place - or at least this is how I imagine it, having red some descriptions. But - even in such environment, when a teacher just shows a move without explanation, I bet he is counting on the students then discussing it in study-groups and coming with explanations themselves. So explanations and understanding and reasoning are still necessary, its just that they do not come from a teacher but from discussions with peers.

In most everyday cases when we learn or teach - such possibilities are not open to us, all we have is the teacher and very seldom any kind of appropriate study group which would substitute for the teacher explaining stuff. Maybe some pro teachers do not realize it? In any case, when teaching western low-level amateurs, or even beginners, I still think that the onus to provide explanation lies on a teacher. Especially if you pay for the lesson.

But wait, there's more -- one more question after this...
Here's a quote from one of our PM chats, I hope you don't mind that I quote it here:

Bantari wrote:Because of my 'principles' (never charge or pay for Go lessons)
I have had very few personal experiences with formal teaching, most of it second-hand.

My last what if question for this post. What if, to better appreciate what I wrote above,
it takes personal experience studying with a good pro teacher for at least one year ?

You don't have to reply to any of these what if's. Just food for thought.

No problem, I reply.

And I grant you - I might not have the experience with a pro being paid for a lesson. And if I had more experience in this regard, maybe I would change my opinion. But I seriously doubt it. You would have to give me some good reasons why you think that in the long run giving no explanation is better than explaining. I have not really seen such claim made in any other discipline I can think of, so some very good reasons are needed to think so.

Anyways - I thought we have already agreed that some explanation is a good thing to have, and even you admitted that in non-L19 settings you do provide explanation. So I really do not understand what we are arguing about here.

Further thoughts:

I have a *lot* of experience with ama teaching, on both ends, and I know quite a lot of people who did take pro lessons. And from what I hear - not very often did the pros just point out the moves with absolutely no explanation - which would indicate to me that they too understand the meaning of some more insight. I also watched some pro lessons on videos, youtube, and stuff, as well as read many many books written by pros. Same goes - very seldom there was no attempt at explanation.

In my 40 or so years of teaching and learning, I have had overall *much* better results when I explained things then when I didn't. The trick remains to be really honest in the explanations, and if you play a move without being sure - you say so openly. The damage, when its done, is not done because of explanation - but because of crappy explanation.

When you don't have a clue why a move is good, you just know it is, but you still try to come up with some bogus reasons which make no sense - this is what's bad, and this is what creates bad habits! Because you teach bad reasoning, one that does not make sense even to you, and is most likely contradictory. So you only give reasons you yourself believe in - and those are most likely good, or at least - honest.

You still cannot prevent bad habits from forming (not even the pros can do that, to be sure) - but you offer a fighting chance.
Speaking et cathedra and expecting the student to blindly follow - this offers no chance at all, imho.

Bantari, I just had a nice chat on KGS with Daal and another L19 person.
It was pointed out to me that perhaps you and I "are talking past each other."
To the point where they don't even know what we are arguing about.

So, here are two points from me (there are more, but I put them aside for this post).

- The idea or thinking that everything we do (in this particular case, we're
referring to Go moves) must have a rational, conscious, intellectual reason
or explanation -- is flawed.

- I gave 2 scenarios (the two cases with X, Y and P). I didn't say
anything about whether I think they are good or bad. But suddenly,
you (and topazg) made me an "advocate." This is very strange to me.

It's like I showed 2 moves (just to use a Go analogy): one makes an empty triangle,
and the other is a nobi. I didn't say anything about whether the
empty triangle is good or bad; or whether the nobi is good or bad.
All I said is, from my experience, I've seen these 2 moves.
I showed 2 examples. That's it.

And suddenly, you, "getting all huffy and puffy," said:
"Oh my! He is advocating all empty triangles are bad! We must always nobi!"

That's how I felt. I felt the above is a fair analogy of your first reaction:

Bantari wrote:In other words: we have no clue why we do what we do, we just follow what the pros do or say - like a mantra, and who cares about understanding?
And out teaching method is: do what I say, it is correct, and if you want to try something else - its your problem?
And good student is one who does not ask questions we cannot answer, he just follows?

That's why I thought it was very unfair, over-simplied, and over-generalized from two examples.

EdLee wrote:- The idea or thinking that everything we do (in this particular case, we're
referring to Go moves) must have a rational, conscious, intellectual reason
or explanation -- is flawed.

I find this to be the most interesting aspect of this thread. At what ranks is this true? 30k? 10k? 1d? 7d? 2p?

If a stronger player coaches each of the above, does he need to explain why a move is better? Will the pupil be able to understand why if the teacher tries to take the time to explain? Are there concepts that are too complicated for each of the above ranks?

He Ed,

Great idea, lets bring some focus here. I will deal with your two points separately, if you don't mind.

EdLee wrote:- The idea or thinking that everything we do (in this particular case, we're
referring to Go moves) must have a rational, conscious, intellectual reason
or explanation -- is flawed.

I think that when we play a move, there better be *some* idea behind it, or we just swimming without a clue. In other words - if you do not know why you play a move, why do you play it? I think even the pros agree that each move you play should have a clear purpose and a good reason, or you better play a different move. With each move, you should be trying to accomplish something specific, or you are wasting moves. And this should happen on the conscious level - you devise plans and have ideas, and then pick moves which fit within these plans and ideas. Or don't you agree with that?

True - you might not always be sure why, for example, you choose this extension over that one, or this pincer over that one, but you definitely should have good reason for playing a pincer instead of an extension, or vice versa. Or you are just playing random moves because what?... they look cute on the board? I don't accept that.

So, we might have two levels of 'understanding' here:

• The overall, big picture, plan idea behind a move, and so on - this all simply *has* to happen on a conscious level, or your whole game is pointless.
• The nitty-gritty of the exact point might be guided by subconscious a little, but even here I doubt the value of that - its just that we do not know any better, so this is the best we can do at times - but its certainly not a good thing. I would argue that even there you have to understand why, for example, in this position a far pincer is better than a narrow one. Or, if not better - at least better fitting with your plan.

Consider the pros. Do you think they think so much about almost each and every move they make because they make decisions subconsciously? I think not... they calculate variations, as many as they need and as deep as they can... to have more and better reasons to make conscious decisions where to play next. And chances are, who can calculate better and deeper and more precisely - wins.

Where I believe our subconscious (and experience) plays a large role is in three areas:

1. positional evaluation - the end-points of our calculations, we are not always able to consciously assess the position, so we have to 'guess' if this sequence will end up in more favorable position or that one... will the thickness outweight the profit, or will the aji be game-deciding, stuff like that
2. pruning - limiting the number of branches we decide to look ahead and calculate before we make a move. As said before, depth and precision of our calculation can easily decide the game - and so it stands to reason that if we can focus on calculating 2 branches rather than 5 we gain great advantage.
3. reading depth - deciding where we can stop reading - evaluating a position along the branch to decide - this is deep enough, this branch is good or bad, no need to read deeper.

The subconscious decisions we make when we do the above are based on accumulated database of shapes, whole games, and experience - often stored and organized subconsciously. And I believe it is very hard, and possibly much less efficient to try to make those decisions consciously. And I also believe that these decisions are of crucial importance to the game.

But yes, I think when it comes to making a specific move - we should have a reason for making it.
Even if the reason is only: this move allows me to reach this position which my subconscious tells me is good for me, or which fits into my plan, or whatever. Usually you should have more than that.

But I think you should definitely have a conscious reason for making a move, and you should know what you are trying to accomplish with that move.

EdLee wrote:- I gave 2 scenarios (the two cases with X, Y and P). I didn't say
anything about whether I think they are good or bad. But suddenly,
you (and topazg) made me an "advocate." This is very strange to me.

Both scenarios you gave looked to me like the teacher thought explanation were not important, or maybe the teacher did not know himself. The difference between the scenarios, as I have seen it, was that in case #1 the student asked around a little before not getting any answer, in case #2 the student didn't even bother to ask.

My reading of that was that you presented both scenarios to emphasize how more efficient case #2 (don't even ask) is. If this understanding is wrong, you need to explain what you meant by giving those two scenarios.

And you are right - you gave the two scenarios without saying if you think they are good or bad. The implication being - you left it to the reader to guess and make their own mind. So I did. And now you have an issue with that.

Maybe it should be a lesson to you that when you want to say something, when you mean something - it is best to explain it clearly. Or there are problems, misunderstanding, accusations, and offended people.

See - here we have the value of explanation at work illustrated perfectly, great example!
Same goes for Go moves.

Bantari wrote:Maybe it should be a lesson to you that when you want to say something, when you mean something - it is best to explain it clearly.

Or not. Maybe there's a lesson for you.

Bantari and EdLee:

You both seem to believe the existence and ill effect of bad habits. You're not the only ones. Is the list of bad habits very long? Are they hard to get rid of? If so, why?

I can think of some:

• Optimistic reading (not thinking from opponent's point of view)
• Strengthening opponent's group inappropriately (aji keshi and the like)
• Greed (expecting too much)
• Not reading critical situations
• Territorial jealousy (counting opponent's position without realizing what you have)
• Not counting or not playing consistently when you know you are ahead or behind
• Following opponent around / trusting opponent's moves
• Unwillingness to sacrifice stones
• Defending too much / too little
• Attacking too much / too little
• Playing to trick opponent (relying too much on trick moves / wishful thinking)
• Invading too early
• Invading too late
• Not weighing option of reduction vs. invading
• Starting unfavorable fights
• Not considering whole board
• Knee-jerk moves (e.g. automatically connecting ataris or peeps)

I'm trying to include things that are more about bad mindset than lack of knowledge. I think of a bad habit as something you know is wrong, but you have a hard time stopping. Otherwise it's just ignorance and much ignorance could fall into the category of being easily fixed, in which case I think habit is the wrong term.

Bantari wrote:
But I think you should definitely have a conscious reason for making a move, and you should know what you are trying to accomplish with that move.

I often have a conscious reason for making a move. Often that reason is utterly wrong.

We also shouldn't forget, that the context is not playing but teaching. If you are the teacher and I am the student, to what extent is your reasoning applicable to my ability? For example, if a pro says that a move is bad because 20 moves down the line of a forced sequence a bad ladder appears, is that a reason for me not to play it? What if instead, a 5d tells me that the same move is bad because its ignoring the direction of play. Hm... that's something I've been thinking about - does that make it a better reason? What if the 1d comes along and tells me its a bad move because it makes bad shape?

Are any of these reasons objectively correct, as in the reason that I shouldn't play the move? Doesn't the answer depend on who I am and what issues I am struggling with?

Maybe the correct advice would be to say that the move is bad because it makes bad shape, but more importantly it ignores the direction of play but ultimately it is bad because with perfect play it doesn't work. Is this the best way to teach? Sounds like overkill to me.

So what then? Perhaps the teacher just says: "This is bad" and leaves it for the student to figure out why. Maybe that's ok too.

dumbrope wrote:Is the list of bad habits very long? Are they hard to get rid of? If so, why?

Hi dumbrope, very good questions.

More common ones:
- reducing your own liberties for no good reason
- bad sentes (for example, reducing your own liberties for no good reason ,
ataris or peeps that help fix all of your opponent's bad aji , etc.)

dumbrope wrote:I think of a bad habit as something you know is wrong, but you have a hard time stopping.

That's not what I think of in go. (But it may be so, in real life.)

dumbrope wrote:Otherwise it's just ignorance and much ignorance could fall into the category of being easily fixed, in which case I think habit is the wrong term.

If you think ignorance is easy to fix...

To me, bad habits are like weeds. (Not only in Go, but elsewhere too.)
If left unattended, they will naturally grow and spread.
It's very natural to have bad habits -- not having any bad habits is very unnatural, to me.
Like gardeners for weeds, it takes an active external force to curb bad habits.
In Go, the only people who have no bad habits, as far as I know,
are those very lucky few who have had good pro training from the very beginning.
Otherwise, most of us amateurs have bad habits. (Until we meet a good teacher.)

EdLee wrote:

Bantari wrote:Maybe it should be a lesson to you that when you want to say something, when you mean something - it is best to explain it clearly.

Or not. Maybe there's a lesson for you.

Ed - if there is a misunderstanding, it is (almost always) caused by insufficient explanation, not by explanation which is too clear.
Please - do not just bounce the ball at me like that, its hard to have a constructive conversation when you do.

EdLee wrote:Like gardeners for weeds, it takes an active external force to curb bad habits.
In Go, the only people who have no bad habits, as far as I know,
are those very lucky few who have had good pro training from the very beginning.
Otherwise, most of us amateurs have bad habits. (Until we meet a good teacher.)

The implications here are that one wants to get pro-like strength.

It all depends on what you're aiming for. I saw many badminton players frustrated by their own performance plateaus that I tried to help out as best I could. And at first I tried to show them 'perfect' technique. How and where to place your feet, the exact 'how-to' sequence of any piece of footwork, finger placement for the right grip in the right situation, arm pronation/supination, etc.

Turns out nobody wants that level of detail. None of these people were aiming for pro or top competitive levels, after all.

So I started teaching the way I approach teaching in Go. I look at what they're doing, find the quickest, easiest performance boost I can think of, and give it to them in a natural manner. I found in badminton, it's enough to say "Try keeping your whole court movement fluid. Focus only on returning quickly to the center" to see them play twice as well.

Of course in Go you have to go the extra mile. It's not enough to say "bad move, this move better" and punctuate that with grunts. By the same token, as pointed out earlier, it would be ridiculous to show a beginner a 20-move sequence neither they or their opponent will work out ahead of time. You have to do two things: find out which moves are okay at slightly above their level and criticize only the ones which aren't, and give a reasoning they can understand and put into practice.

And yes, everyone will have bad habits. But the approach taken in correcting these habits depends on how much effort one wants to put in and how far they want to get. It also depends whether they're happy with their level and if they play for fun or have a more competitive edge. I would tell the same badminton player how and where to place their pinkie finger and what sort of tension, exactly, they should feel in their racket elbow and at what angle their front foot should land, if they were competitive and wanted to go far.

Again, Go is based on understanding and reasoning. Mental skills are acquired slower and are more difficult to apply, and must be pyramided on top of each other. Don't bother to stress a DDK out about overconcentration, for example, because then they won't know what is or isn't overconcentrated, and will worry at the expense of more important immediate concerns. Territory, for example.

daal wrote:

Bantari wrote:
But I think you should definitely have a conscious reason for making a move, and you should know what you are trying to accomplish with that move.

I often have a conscious reason for making a move. Often that reason is utterly wrong.

We also shouldn't forget, that the context is not playing but teaching. If you are the teacher and I am the student, to what extent is your reasoning applicable to my ability?

You are very right here, daal, and I was thinking the same thing - we have digressed a lot from the original topic, which was teaching, and the whole conversation got diluted.

So, to focus back on the topic, let me state that the context is teaching and let me simply remove the following cases from the discussion:

• you have no reason to play a move
• you have only subconscious reason to play a move
• you have a reason to play a move which is too advanced for the student to understand
• and so on...

And instead concentrate on one single case, for simplicity:

• You have a logical reason for playing a move, and the reason is such that the student can easily understand

Now the problem is:

• Do we think it is of any value to share this reason with the student, or should we withhold it from him/her? Which is better?

It is my strong belief that it is good to share this reason with the student. What's more, from what I see in pro teachings, and pro-written books - this belief is shared by pro teachers as well.

I have stated the reason why I believe this is better than not saying nothing already many times in this thread, so instead of writing it all over again, let me just give you a series of examples of what I think complies with my conviction:

• Kageyama does not only differentiate between ladders and nets in his book, he explains in detail the reasons why you should think of the net first. You can go thought his book and find more such examples, and in books by other pros as well.

• Pro commentaries - I think there is a tremendous value in knowing *why* a pro made a move he made - this is why pros get paid, sometimes handsomely, to comment their games. And why commented games are usually more sought-after than bare game records. There is a tremendous value and a lot of learning possibilities in those comments, and the more detailed they are, the better. This is why books like 'Invincible' with detailed comments will always have more value than a mere collection of Shusaku's kifu.

• On-line resources, like the GTL or L19 game reviews - all dedicated to explain, at least in part, reasons for moves, not just blindly point out mistakes. And, from what I hear, the commentators/teachers who do more than just point out mistakes are valued more and sought after.

• The tremendous success of the Malkovich-style games on L19 - which pretty much are *dedicated* to exposing the reasons behind the moves players make - a tremendous resource and learning opportunity. I don't think anybody can deny that, or say that bare game records would be more beneficial for learning.

I could go on and on and on... But what for - this should be enough.

The only possible reason I see for *not* giving any reasons is the fear that the reason is bad. But, if the reason is bad, the move is most likely bad as well. And in this case, bad reason is easier to see through and evaluate as bad than a move you know nothing about, I think.

What's more - and I have said that before, but lets repeat, I think it is important:
Realizing that a reason is fundamentally bad often corrects a whole bunch of bad moves and misconceptions at one go. This is why dealing with reasons rather than moves is an advantage. If you realize the move is bad - you stop playing it, but it tells you nothing about the rest of your game/moves.

This is, pretty much, what I think. Together with all the other reasons I have given.
Now - discuss.

PS>
Pushing this et cathedra argument to the extreme:
I am a much stronger player than Ed, with much more experience, so when I say 'this is better' he should just say 'yes sir' according to his own convictions, no? Instead - he asks for reasons, argues, and explains why he thinks I am wrong. Basically - he applies the very approach he seems to be arguing against. This is great, and I really like such attitude. Ask, ask, ask - and this is the only way any understanding is possible. I don't see why in Go the same principle should not hold.