Life In 19x19

John Fairbairn wrote:I went from learning to European 2-dan in six months. It was so quick because I studied traditional Japanese books.

Nice. You were also a strong chess player before, or am I mistaken? Still, there are many Japanese go players who clearly have access to the same books (should they choose to use them) and don't make anywhere near that progress. So you might have something else to share regarding the secret of your success.

Both testimonials are just anecdotes, like "I went on this diet and lost 50 pounds in two months." (Even when true, most people who can do that are semi-professional to professional bodybuilders, something the ads neglect to mention.)

I strongly suspect both you are RJ are like those ringers who underplay their die-hard commitment to hang out at the gym all day, at least for some critical period during your development. It's like that quote from Hyunjae Choi. He must be a great ad for Myongji University. "Yeah, I studied Baduk at Myongji and won the WAGC!" True, but then there's that 105 hours a week at a go club cutting his teeth against nigh-professionals and professionals. I'm glad he copped to that...

snorri wrote:I strongly suspect both you are RJ are like those ringers who underplay their die-hard commitment to hang out at the gym all day [...] 105 hours a week

Accurate average figure in my case (but "the gym" was mostly "at home").

RobertJasiek wrote:

snorri wrote:I strongly suspect both you are RJ are like those ringers who underplay their die-hard commitment to hang out at the gym all day [...] 105 hours a week

Accurate average figure in my case (but "the gym" was mostly "at home").

Maybe it didn't match your learning style but that volume could have given similar results to players using other methods of study.

In the end I fear this is going to come down to the success of your students. Students of pros often have insei-level commitment and are pre-selected in many cases, so it may not seem or be fair, but that is the comparison that will be made.

There are some who believe that the best teachers can turn the mediocre into good rather than those teachers who have students so talented and committed they will succeed no matter what. Such teachers can grow from there.

Take a look at the famous trumpet teacher Bill Adam. If you could have that kind of influence in go, that would be beautiful. Bill was never a very top performer but he could help almost anyone. But there is the issue of choices. You have the commitment but the human part...there are more effective paths. You can be 10 times as effective. It costs an ego.

You are more like the technician, Alan Vizzutti, yet I pick Bill Adam to recommend because he is more about the interior, psychological problems players face. And more loved. Don't get me wrong, Vizzutti is amazing, but if you think of moving forward the ability of a large population, well...

snorri wrote:I fear this is going to come down to the success of your students.

Nothing to fear about, except that Teachers/Club Leaders is the right forum for stating success rates. (If you mean the generic pronoun, both kinds of teachers can have similar success rates of the percentage of pupils improving quickly, even for pupils having little time for go besides taking lessons. But pupils should choose the fitting teachers for their best learning style. Pupils learning little from teaching by examples should choose a teacher giving general advice on the pupil's weaknesses, and vice versa.)

So, Robert, having read into two of your books now (which both I have not finished yet, guess I might need a year or two with my current rate of Go reading), and after reading this thread the idea occurred to me that it might be really interesting to see a book written by you, something like “Go for Dummies” (i.e. for complete beginners), perhaps even for kids age 10+, and preferably withouth too much delving into the mathematical parts of your theories, an introductory book that would be the first to read, before your book “First Fundamentals”. I’m really curious what such a book would be like, because, IF you’re right about Go theory, it might be good to plant the correct perspective on Go right in the beginner’s mind. Since I teach Go to kids I’d love to learn more about how to teach them better (i.e. more than just getting stronger myself).

Greetz, Tom

Bonobo wrote:So, Robert, having read into two of your books now (which both I have not finished yet, guess I might need a year or two with my current rate of Go reading), and after reading this thread the idea occurred to me that it might be really interesting to see a book written by you, something like “Go for Dummies” (i.e. for complete beginners), perhaps even for kids age 10+, and preferably withouth too much delving into the mathematical parts of your theories, an introductory book that would be the first to read, before your book “First Fundamentals”. I’m really curious what such a book would be like, because, IF you’re right about Go theory, it might be good to plant the correct perspective on Go right in the beginner’s mind. Since I teach Go to kids I’d love to learn more about how to teach them better (i.e. more than just getting stronger myself).

Greetz, Tom

I second that motion!
Great idea, I think.