Life In 19x19

Charles Matthews wrote:

jts wrote:Would it be fair to say your position is something like this? "If you took the easiest bits of the best volumes of the Elementary Go Series, they would fit into two volumes, and then you would have a volume left over to treat miscellaneous topics like ko or probes or whatever else a 5k should know."

I think I'm beginning to see the logic of your position now - something along the lines of, only a hardened bibliophile will buy more than four books despite being only a weak amateur. But I think adult players are quite willing either to buy more books than they can afford, or to swap with members of their club for things they haven't read; whereas the real potential for Western Go lies in 10 years olds, who are not ever going to buy as many as three $25 books.

"Basic Techniques of Go" was not the greatest Ishi Press book, but I learned plenty from it, and it had that ambition to cover multiple areas. (The problems were to do with the writing itself.) In particular you can learn tesuji from a book that doesn't have tesuji in the title.

The issue with kids is not that they should study directly from books. They should learn in an environment where the go knowledge is implicit: their contact being with others whose coaching is well-informed. As far as I can see this is still much more the case in, for example, communities with a Chinese background.

The statement in bold face (mine) reminds me of Kato's description of the Kitani dojo where it seems that Kitani didn't do much direct instruction in the form of playing games with his students. The students played each other and Kitani's main contribution was to provide a supportive environment.

Bill Spight wrote:Still, it boggles my mind to try to think, well this is a 25 kyu technique and that is a 15 kyu technique.

I'm sure that, with careful study even of a small handful of 25 kyu and 15 kyu games, you could work out the differences between them and teach them both something. In a sense, it doesn't matter what a "19 kyu technique" is - an author can make that up as they go along. The only requirement is that you continue to get stronger, you learn the right things in roughly the right order (increasing in difficulty over time), and that you don't miss anything important out. Some things that DDKs consistently do wrong include things like playing atari on a stone just because they can, regardless of whether they can capture it / it's important / playing atari will weaken a group of their own, but I imagine most go authors would find it thoroughly embarrassing to write about things like that.

gowan wrote: The statement in bold face (mine) reminds me of Kato's description of the Kitani dojo where it seems that Kitani didn't do much direct instruction in the form of playing games with his students. The students played each other and Kitani's main contribution was to provide a supportive environment.

This is very interesting, and something I heard as well. It always made me think...

Kitani school is known for producing quite a few amazingly outstanding players... Takemiya, Kato, Ishida, Cho, Otake, and so on... it almost reads like who-is-who of this specific couple of decades in Japanese go. But if Kitani himself only 'provided the supportive environment' - what made his school so much more successful than other schools? Did other teachers provide less supportive environment? Or was it just the luck of a draw - Kitani just happened to attract some exceptionally gifted students who would blossom wherever they went... they just happened to go to Kitani.

I always liked to believe that Kitani somehow did teach his students directly, if not through games then through analysis and discussions of specific ideas and stuff... Something that made his school special and personal to him. In spite all the things I hear to the contrary. The same pretty much goes for other pro teachers.

To me, a parallel of Kitani and his school in the western world was Botwinnink in chess. He also had a famous school (chess school in his case, of course), which also produced great many outstanding players - Karpov, Kasparov, etc... But from what I read he did spend a lot of time studying with his students, having sessions with them, in groups and one-on-one, and possibly playing many games with them as well. Teaching them specific skills and techniques unique to Botwinning at that time - like details analysis and preparation.

Another example can be martial arts teachings. Even if the sensei rarely (if ever) spars with the student, there is a lot of joined training, and the instructor puts a lot of his own sweat to teach the student.

So I don't get the Kitani school... there simply must be more to it than just the 'supportive environment'. Or was there?

Bantari wrote:Or was there?

Maybe that he was one of the two (three?) outstanding players in his time lead to a lot of aspiring Go players wanting to train in his dojo and so he could separate the wheat from the chaff by chosing the more talented ones out of the mass?

Bantari wrote:there simply must be more to it than just the 'supportive environment'. Or was there?

My experience of being a mathematics student was that I learnt more from (hours upon hours per week of) discussions with enthusiastic fellow students than I ever did from (small amounts of contact time with) lecturers, and when the discussions abated I learnt very little. Ultimately, the bulk of the effort has to be on the part of the student; if a teacher is going to do one single thing to help their students, fostering a supportive environment is probably the most effective.

billywoods wrote:

Bantari wrote:there simply must be more to it than just the 'supportive environment'. Or was there?

My experience of being a mathematics student was that I learnt more from (hours upon hours per week of) discussions with enthusiastic fellow students than I ever did from (small amounts of contact time with) lecturers, and when the discussions abated I learnt very little. Ultimately, the bulk of the effort has to be on the part of the student; if a teacher is going to do one single thing to help their students, fostering a supportive environment is probably the most effective.

Hmm...
Then why are some professors considered good teacher while others are not?
If what you do is all by yourself and with fellow students, and forget the prof, why even take the courses? Or why go to the lectures? It certainly does not take a good pedagogue to create an environment and then stand aside. Even I could teach you math in such case, easily!

I mean - I have been in these shoes as well, and while what you described is accurate, I think it is only a part of the picture, important as it may be. Professors, when they are good, provide something very important - guidance and direction. You have to have a starting point and a general understanding what the endpoint is for any given problem you study. And it certainly does not do any harm to have some gentle clues as to where and how to look for any ideas. And enforce competence. Otherwise when you get together with your fellow students, you are more likely to talk about yesterday's game than do any studying. I have been in these shoes too, heh.

If all there was to it was a 'supportive atmosphere' then what professors would do would be to just say: 'There is the sofa, you kids talk and discuss while I bring you some hot tea and cookies.' But then we would call them grandmas, not professors, yes?

Although... maybe you are right.
This would certainly explain why so many graduates (at least in America) don't really know very much of what they have supposedly learned. And why freshmen need to learn to write a proper sentences and paragraphs or add fractions after a dozen years (yes, this is 12 YEARS!) of formal education. Have seen it with my own eyes.

Bantari wrote:If all there was to it was a 'supportive atmosphere' then what professors would do would be to just say: 'There is the sofa, you kids talk and discuss while I bring you some hot tea and cookies.' But then we would call them grandmas, not professors, yes?

But that's exactly it. "Supportive" here doesn't mean in some wishy-washy pastoral sense - it means that they are supporting your development as go players (or mathematicians). One of the most supportive things a teacher can do is gather together a group of students and set the ball rolling, e.g. by saying "so what did you learn in my lecture (or your game) last week?" or setting appropriate questions or topics for discussion, or starting an effective study routine, or something.

Two years ago, I attended some 'study groups' (in mathematics). These study groups were entirely student-run, and every student was completely new to the whole endeavour, and the study groups had no guidance or leadership whatsoever. Needless to say, the study groups more or less failed and disintegrated. Last year, with that experience under my belt, I volunteered to lead and part-organise a few of the same study groups, and some had very mild success.

This year I moved elsewhere. In my new location, I saw two separate, very effective study groups (one large, one small) both formed in the same way, as follows: a professor gathered together a bunch of students (some younger, some older) who thought they might be interested in learning a topic, and gave a brief (hour-long, maybe) broad overview talk of that topic, basically making clear how much ground there was to cover and showing us why we should want to learn it. The professor then asked for volunteers to give a term's worth of talks.

Sure enough, here's what happened in both cases: almost all of the students volunteered and were assigned something to talk about, and the talks were generally of very high quality, and almost all of the people who turned up to the first meeting then turned up to basically all subsequent meetings. The organisers were present at both meetings, but basically didn't ever intervene except to occasionally ask an interesting or confusing question - the older students knew the drill already, and the younger ones picked it up quickly, and I got the feeling that it would have worked fine even without the organisers there. I learnt a lot, and (as a younger student) got to know a lot of people.

As you may guess, I am a strong believer in the claim that a little push in the right direction is enough.

Are we talking about how to train adults or children? The future of Go does not rest on the shoulders of adults, but of kids. Most kids can't sit still long enough to benefit from a "supportive environment" aimed at cultivating enlightening discussion between highly motivated students with a lot of self-discpline.

But all that seems rather besides the point to me. The unfortunate fact is that kids aren't interested in ancient board games with hour-long playing times and zero "twitch" skills to master. Until we figure out how to attract kids to the game, debating over how best to teach/train them is putting the cart before the horse.

zslane wrote:Are we talking about how to train adults or children? The future of Go does not rest on the shoulders of adults, but of kids. Most kids can't sit still long enough to benefit from a "supportive environment" aimed at cultivating enlightening discussion between highly motivated students with a lot of self-discpline.

6-year-olds, sure. 12-year-olds, though? I'm not so certain - I think a lot can be done just by putting them in a regular class with a good routine, an atmosphere of working and some older students who will be highly motivated and have a lot of self-discipline, plus a teacher to keep the mood set right. Anyway, of course, the methods I outlined above need adapting according to the audience, but I think they're basically sensible. A large part of becoming good at go is, after all, overcoming an inability to sit still or a tendency to break focus and stop concentrating, even for adults.

billywoods wrote:

Bantari wrote:If all there was to it was a 'supportive atmosphere' then what professors would do would be to just say: 'There is the sofa, you kids talk and discuss while I bring you some hot tea and cookies.' But then we would call them grandmas, not professors, yes?

But that's exactly it. "Supportive" here doesn't mean in some wishy-washy pastoral sense - it means that they are supporting your development as go players (or mathematicians). One of the most supportive things a teacher can do is gather together a group of students and set the ball rolling, e.g. by saying "so what did you learn in my lecture (or your game) last week?" or setting appropriate questions or topics for discussion, or starting an effective study routine, or something.

Two years ago, I attended some 'study groups' (in mathematics). These study groups were entirely student-run, and every student was completely new to the whole endeavour, and the study groups had no guidance or leadership whatsoever. Needless to say, the study groups more or less failed and disintegrated. Last year, with that experience under my belt, I volunteered to lead and part-organise a few of the same study groups, and some had very mild success.

This year I moved elsewhere. In my new location, I saw two separate, very effective study groups (one large, one small) both formed in the same way, as follows: a professor gathered together a bunch of students (some younger, some older) who thought they might be interested in learning a topic, and gave a brief (hour-long, maybe) broad overview talk of that topic, basically making clear how much ground there was to cover and showing us why we should want to learn it. The professor then asked for volunteers to give a term's worth of talks.

Sure enough, here's what happened in both cases: almost all of the students volunteered and were assigned something to talk about, and the talks were generally of very high quality, and almost all of the people who turned up to the first meeting then turned up to basically all subsequent meetings. The organisers were present at both meetings, but basically didn't ever intervene except to occasionally ask an interesting or confusing question - the older students knew the drill already, and the younger ones picked it up quickly, and I got the feeling that it would have worked fine even without the organisers there. I learnt a lot, and (as a younger student) got to know a lot of people.

As you may guess, I am a strong believer in the claim that a little push in the right direction is enough.

I understand the importance and value of study groups, believe me.

And while I also understand what you sau (and even agree with that) - I see it more of a failing of modern study methods rather than a virtue. Throughout history, and even right now - people always strive to find the most knowledgable and the strongest teacher they can find. I think that this is because the knowledge of the teacher has (or - should have) a great impact on the way you learn. All other aspects being equal, of course.

But then... I am not really a high authority on anything, so this is only my personal opinion. I am more then open to adjust it once confronted with some convincing facts or ideas.

PS>
In terms of Go:
Why would Go players want to learn from the best possible pro? Any pro knows infinitely more than me (or, say, any other low dan ama) - so why would I (and most other people I guess) rather study with the Meijin than with some random 2p? Why do lectures by high-ranking visiting pros on congresses draw more crowd than the local sherif?

PS>
And for the hopeless ones among us:
Would Hikaru get so good so fast if he had a weak pro in his head rather than Sai?

And anyways - what does it have to do with Kitani?

Bantari wrote:Throughout history, and even right now - people always strive to find the most knowledgable and the strongest teacher they can find. I think that this is because the knowledge of the teacher has (or - should have) a great impact on the way you learn. All other aspects being equal, of course.

It's not really their knowledge you can get knowledge from static sources like books, it's that you can ask them questions and get something of an answer, or a direction towards where to go to find an answer for yourself. The problem is: this is pretty useless if you can't ask good questions (even defining good in this context is immensely tricky, it does not necessarily mean advanced) and it usually will take you quite some time and a lot of work before you can figure out some.

Speaking generally rather than about go.

Boidhre wrote:It's not really their knowledge you can get knowledge from static sources like books

What are you trying to say here? That knowledge in books is not really the knowledge of the book authors? Why not? What else would it be? Of course, it often is only part of their knowledge.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Boidhre wrote:It's not really their knowledge you can get knowledge from static sources like books

What are you trying to say here? That knowledge in books is not really the knowledge of the book authors? Why not? What else would it be? Of course, it often is only part of their knowledge.

In a book you get knowledge laid out according to what the author thinks you need to know and in the best way the author knows to explain it. This may or may not meet your needs.

Bantari wrote:In terms of Go:
Why would Go players want to learn from the best possible pro?

Don't know. I don't especially agree with that mindset. A low dan amateur is perhaps different, but I'll never get past 4 dan or so myself anyway, so any 5-6 dan is more than sufficient for the rest of my life.

Bantari wrote:Would Hikaru get so good so fast if he had a weak pro in his head rather than Sai?

That's a very good question. I think there was more to Hikaru's rapid improvement than just Sai's strength. I think the nature of their relationship (best friends, for all intents and purposes) and the fact that Sai was literally present 24/7 had a lot to do with it as well. I don't know anyone who has ever had that kind of access to a world-class mentor for two years straight (to say nothing of the nearly obsessive drive to catch a rival, in Toya).