Life In 19x19

RobertJasiek wrote:Kirby, you are right that one needs to construct one's own ideas and learn ideas from other persons. However, there is no identity with problem versus theory books, because one can construct also one's own ideas of theory. (Whether they are bad or good, or how much time that consumes, then are other questions.)

I agree that you can construct your own ideas based on theory. However, I personally feel that my ability to think for myself is more actively exercised when presented with a problem. This is because, when you are required to identify a solution on your own, you are directly practicing this ability.

For example, when reading theory someone else has developed, thinking on your own comes second to reading the idea - and is optional. When faced with solving a problem, thinking on your own is necessary and immediate.

In any case, my use of "lends itself to" was not intended as a strict categorization, but rather as the general nature of the learning methods, as I see them. At the same time, I don't feel it's accurate to say that there is "no identity" - perhaps just general tendencies.

People sometimes criticize theory books, but rarely do they have problems with game reviews. I tend to see the two as equivalent, or theory books as vessels of condensed wisdom from reviews on a theme. Kind of a "lots of players at x level have trouble with this idea. Be aware of this in your own games and game reviews." Certainly problems and games support reading skill and are very important, but there is room for both. Players should pick good books and ask themselves and others 'why' any time there is a topic they don't understand fully, but diversified study has merit.

Kirby wrote:when reading theory someone else has developed, thinking on your own comes second to reading the idea - and is optional.

Optional only if one chooses it to be optional. I rather prefer to think whether, inhowfar and why the theory somebody presents in some book is correct.

RobertJasiek wrote:Optional only if one chooses it to be optional.

Boidhre wrote:I believe that the General Theory of Relativity is even more accurate. As in, when they come up with better equipment the error is still within the error bars for the device, and again when they create better measuring devices. It's been like this for quite a while.

Not to derail the conversation, but quantum electrodynamics is much more accurate than general relativity. The relative strength of the electromagnetic force to the gravitational one will likely keep the situation in check even for next generation theories.

RobertJasiek wrote:...
Optional only if one chooses it to be optional. I rather prefer to think whether, inhowfar and why the theory somebody presents in some book is correct.

Yes, I suppose that you have the option of whether or not you want to make it an option to think for yourself.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that when you're presented with a problem and you have to find the solution yourself, then it forces you to practice thinking on your own - there's no text telling you what you should be thinking about. But when you are reading another person's idea, it is easily possible to read without thinking much about why it is or is not correct.

I don't think we are in very much disagreement, except that I do find it easy to read theory books without as much thinking on my own as when I practice problems. This is not a problem that's impossible to overcome - it's just a non-issue when I am faced with a problem to solve.

snorri wrote:I have a naive definition of what a go theory book is. If more space is spent on words than diagrams, it is theory.

Kirby wrote:I do find it easy to read theory books without as much thinking on my own as when I practice problems. This is not a problem that's impossible to overcome - it's just a non-issue when I am faced with a problem to solve.

Hi snorri and Kirby. Can you give me an example of some theory books you've read? I ask because the theory books I remember reading (other than beginner books) were problem books with mostly diagrams. Of course, I prefer to buy books without much text, so I might be unintentionally avoiding these theory books that you guys have read.

lemmata wrote:

snorri wrote:I have a naive definition of what a go theory book is. If more space is spent on words than diagrams, it is theory.

Kirby wrote:I do find it easy to read theory books without as much thinking on my own as when I practice problems. This is not a problem that's impossible to overcome - it's just a non-issue when I am faced with a problem to solve.

Hi snorri and Kirby. Can you give me an example of some theory books you've read? I ask because the theory books I remember reading (other than beginner books) were problem books with mostly diagrams. Of course, I prefer to buy books without much text, so I might be unintentionally avoiding these theory books that you guys have read.

Sure. One English book that I enjoyed a lot was "Direction of Play". I wouldn't classify this as a "problem book", because while there were diagrams, I felt that the concepts were given to me, rather than me having really discovered them on my own.

I also kind of enjoy Yilun Yang's "workshop lecture" books (the couple that I've read). Yilun Yang even goes as far as counting intersections and saying if there are X intersections, it's OK to invade, etc. These are books that I like, and I feel I've improved from them. But I tend to classify these more as "theory" books, because I am digesting what other (strong) people have told me, rather than discovering the ideas on my own.

Considering the example of the number of intersections you can count for a safe invasion, if this were a "problem book", I'd expect maybe just a board position that says, "black to invade and live". I would read out variations and try to develop a method for living.

It may turn out that the method that I had for living was the same as the one that could be achieved by using Yilun Yang's heuristic methods, but reading out the variations allowed for me to discover the path on my own, rather than relying on rules that were given to me.

To be clear, I think both approaches are valuable:
* Knowing that you can invade when there are "X intersections" between a set of stones is useful information.
* Thinking through the way to live from a board position with "X intersections", and learning the way to live yourself is helpful, too.

Both are valuable, which is why I like both "problem" and "theory" books. I tend to practice problem books more, but to be honest, if I'd never read "Direction of Play", for example, I doubt I'd think about the game in the same way. That being said, it's typically easier for me to remember things I've discovered on my own than things I've read from a book.

cyndane wrote:

Boidhre wrote:I believe that the General Theory of Relativity is even more accurate. As in, when they come up with better equipment the error is still within the error bars for the device, and again when they create better measuring devices. It's been like this for quite a while.

Not to derail the conversation, but quantum electrodynamics is much more accurate than general relativity. The relative strength of the electromagnetic force to the gravitational one will likely keep the situation in check even for next generation theories.

*shrugs*

It was something I read in Scientific American I think. It might be down to how one defines accuracy, as a percentage or absolute error?

Kirby wrote:counting intersections and saying if there are X intersections, it's OK to invade, etc.

This replaces theory by guesswork (something that might or might not be right). A good theory book teaches to verify by reading whether an invasion (or its follow-up play) lives or leads to seki or ko, and to judge whether the effect of an invasion is better than a reduction or tenuki.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Kirby wrote:counting intersections and saying if there are X intersections, it's OK to invade, etc.

This replaces theory by guesswork (something that might or might not be right). A good theory book teaches to verify by reading whether an invasion (or its follow-up play) lives or leads to seki or ko, and to judge whether the effect of an invasion is better than a reduction or tenuki.

No. Guesswork is applying the heuristic without attempting to verify it. I won't quote Yang's formula, but of it he writes: "This guarantees that you can either escape into the center or live inside if your opponent cuts off your escape route." Coming from a professional go player, this doesn't sound like "something that might or might not be right," rather it allows the player to view a certain game situation like a tsumego that he knows has an answer. Sorry that it doesn't fit your criteria for a good theory book, but Yang's work is nonetheless quite good. (definition: books that I think are good, i.e., have contents that I want to read).

daal wrote:I won't quote Yang's formula, but of it he writes: "This guarantees that you can either escape into the center or live inside if your opponent cuts off your escape route."

The idea to either escape or live inside (or connect to a nearby group or possibly to get a ko) is right. But what does it have to do with counting numbers of intersections to see if there are at least L intersections? L does not answer whether an invasion can escape or live. Reading can answer this.

If there is more to the formula than "invade if the space has at least L intersections, don't invade otherwise", please let us know. (You don't need to reveal the formula, but you can describe its structure.)

Yang's work is nonetheless quite good.

Interesting topic, but maybe OT in this thread.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Kirby wrote:counting intersections and saying if there are X intersections, it's OK to invade, etc.

This replaces theory by guesswork (something that might or might not be right). A good theory book teaches to verify by reading whether an invasion (or its follow-up play) lives or leads to seki or ko, and to judge whether the effect of an invasion is better than a reduction or tenuki.

Perhaps, but unless absolutely proven, any theory could be argued to be guesswork - something that may or may not be right.

Kirby, I am speaking about a 100% theory (reading determines whether an invasion group lives, except for the sacrifice of non-essential stones etc.) versus a ca. 50% or 60% proverb ("exactly if the space is at least L intersections, the invasion group lives") advertised as "formula" or "theory".

RobertJasiek wrote:Kirby, I am speaking about a 100% theory (reading determines whether an invasion group lives, except for the sacrifice of non-essential stones etc.) versus a ca. 50% or 60% proverb ("exactly if the space is at least L intersections, the invasion group lives") advertised as "formula" or "theory".

There are actually quite a number of caveats to go along with it. I'll paraphrase minus the magic number of spaces, it can be removed if problematic copyright wise (it really shouldn't be without the piece of information that makes the heuristic work).

1) You're invading on the third line.
2) There are x empty spaces.
3) There are no opposing stones within this area that are below the third line. Stones may be on or above it though.
4) There must be a clear route into the centre.