Life In 19x19

I solve it by playing it 'hypothetically'. I look at the position on the board and imagine placing the stones on the board. Sometimes I will twitch my middle finger as an aid (in the same way someone who visualizes probably moves their eyes to look).

How is this different from reading?

Monadology wrote:I solve it by playing it 'hypothetically'. I look at the position on the board and imagine placing the stones on the board. Sometimes I will twitch my middle finger as an aid (in the same way someone who visualizes probably moves their eyes to look).

I'm not certain we are even disagreeing, anymore. The process that you describe here is the process that I think is important to practice.

And this practice is overlooked if you do not "read everything through", as nagano originally commented.

The representation (I called this visualization, though it may be possible to do it in a non-visual manner) that you use to do this can occur in various ways, but I didn't think that was what we were discussing.

nagano wrote:How is this different from reading?

It is not. It is, however, different from visualizing. As a result, a different approach may be more effective in cultivating it if it is your preference or proclivity (in this case, doing tsumego by playing them out).

EDIT: I think we still disagree about what gets it in your head. I think in the case of kinesthetic learning, the doing is essential. You have to train the muscle memory to associate with the game position. Then you use the muscle memory as a representation. Similarly, you kind have to have been exposed to what Go looks like before you can start visualizing it.

Monadology wrote:...(in this case, doing tsumego by playing them out).

Putting the stones on the board is fine, but the point is, you visualize/represent/read/whatever the result before putting the stones down, as you did in nagano's example.

Monadology wrote:I solve it by playing it 'hypothetically'. I look at the position on the board and imagine placing the stones on the board. Sometimes I will twitch my middle finger as an aid (in the same way someone who visualizes probably moves their eyes to look).

Actually, I do the "place virtual stones with my hand" thing, despite being a visual thinker. Are you saying you don't look at the intersection where you imagine placing a stone?

Kirby wrote:

Monadology wrote:...(in this case, doing tsumego by playing them out).

Putting the stones on the board is fine, but the point is, you visualize/represent/read/whatever the result before putting the stones down, as you did in nagano's example.

Exactly. My point was, that if you just did problems by playing them out, you would never reach the level to solve a problem such as the one I posted, at least not if the situation occurred in a real game.

Sverre wrote:Actually, I do the "place virtual stones with my hand" thing, despite being a visual thinker. Are you saying you don't look at the intersection where you imagine placing a stone?

I do often look at the intersection, but I do not necessarily imagine seeing a stone there.

nagano wrote:Exactly. My point was, that if you just did problems by playing them out, you would never reach the level to solve a problem such as the one I posted, at least not if the situation occurred in a real game.

You believe one could never reach the point of solving a simple tsumego in a "real game", unless one does go problems? It's impossible to learn to read by simply reading while playing?

I think I thought you were arguing a different thing, Monodology.

Somebody earlier in the thread mentioned the approach of clicking through a go problem - getting the wrong answer - going back, and trying again.

I don't really like this approach, because in a real go game, you are not allowed to click through the game - undo - go back, and try again.

If you practice without this constraint, when you are playing a real game of go, you are adding an extra burden on yourself, which you did not practice with, yet.

This is the main point that I was trying to express.

The way you think about stones or intersections or feelings or whatever when you read is all fine and good. It's not something that I was trying to argue against.

---

The key advantage of being able to "visualize" or "think" or whatever is that you can imagine a hypothetical situation, see how it plays out, and if it doesn't work out, you can "undo in your mind" and try something else - all before you actually make a move.

You cannot, however, play stones out on the board, then take them back. Once you play a move, it is there for good. That's why I think it's good to practice going through hypothetical scenarios in your head before making a move - whatever way you want to represent it.

Sverre wrote:

nagano wrote:Exactly. My point was, that if you just did problems by playing them out, you would never reach the level to solve a problem such as the one I posted, at least not if the situation occurred in a real game.

You believe one could never reach the point of solving a simple tsumego in a "real game", unless one does go problems? It's impossible to learn to read by simply reading while playing?

You might be able to do some, but you have not trained yourself as much as you could have if you otherwise did problems beforehand.

Sverre wrote:

nagano wrote:Exactly. My point was, that if you just did problems by playing them out, you would never reach the level to solve a problem such as the one I posted, at least not if the situation occurred in a real game.

You believe one could never reach the point of solving a simple tsumego in a "real game", unless one does go problems? It's impossible to learn to read by simply reading while playing?

No, but it is a lot harder, and your reading would certainly never get to professional level without it.

Monadology wrote:I do often look at the intersection, but I do not necessarily imagine seeing a stone there.

So you do use the board as a kind of "spatial reference", so to speak? Can you solve go problems with your eyes closed? If you can, how do you perceive the relations between groups and stones without a visual image?

nagano wrote:

Sverre wrote:

nagano wrote:Exactly. My point was, that if you just did problems by playing them out, you would never reach the level to solve a problem such as the one I posted, at least not if the situation occurred in a real game.

You believe one could never reach the point of solving a simple tsumego in a "real game", unless one does go problems? It's impossible to learn to read by simply reading while playing?

No, but it is a lot harder, and your reading would certainly never get to professional level without it.

* You will never get to professional level without studying and reviewing your own games
* You will never get to professional level without studying and reviewing professional games.
* You will never get to professional level without studying and learning joseki
* You will never get to professional level without studying the endgame
* You will never get to professional level without playing a lot of games

What makes tsumego more important that these? For most players, maybe tsumego is best, but I don't believe it is necessarily the right answer, always, for everyone.

Sverre wrote:...
* You will never get to professional level without studying and reviewing professional games.
* You will never get to professional level without studying and learning joseki
* You will never get to professional level without studying the endgame
* You will never get to professional level without playing a lot of games

What makes tsumego more important that these? For most players, maybe tsumego is best, but I don't believe it is necessarily the right answer, always, for everyone.

I think you bring up a good point - those aspects of study are certainly important. But I think that reading ability is a very general purpose skill that can be used throughout the game - and can even be integrated with the different areas of study that you mentioned, which is why a lot of people think it's the most important.

E.g. If I only learn reading, I might be able to figure out a joseki by myself. If I only learn joseki, I don't think it follows that I can figure out reading just as easily.

But you're right, all of those skills are important. But I do think that reading is "special" in that it is a general purpose tool that can be used in many contexts.

Kirby wrote:

Sverre wrote:...
* You will never get to professional level without studying and reviewing professional games.
* You will never get to professional level without studying and learning joseki
* You will never get to professional level without studying the endgame
* You will never get to professional level without playing a lot of games

What makes tsumego more important that these? For most players, maybe tsumego is best, but I don't believe it is necessarily the right answer, always, for everyone.

I think you bring up a good point - those aspects of study are certainly important. But I think that reading ability is a very general purpose skill that can be used throughout the game - and can even be integrated with the different areas of study that you mentioned, which is why a lot of people think it's the most important.

E.g. If I only learn reading, I might be able to figure out a joseki by myself. If I only learn joseki, I don't think it follows that I can figure out reading just as easily.

But you're right, all of those skills are important. But I do think that reading is "special" in that it is a general purpose tool that can be used in many contexts.

But I'm not criticizing reading, I'm criticizing tsumego as the one and only way to learn reading. Reading is the most important tool a go player has, and every one of the study topics I mentioned will teach you how to read.