Life In 19x19

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

Hi again, daal,

I can perfectly understand what you are saying here, and I think it is very important aspect. This is why I would like to say a few words exclusively about that in this separate post.

I think what you are hinting at is the fear that, when your reasons can be 'utterly wrong' - you are reluctant to disclose them to the student and so lead him/her astray. Very understandable.

However - don't you have the very same fear when you just label moves as 'good'? I mean - a lot of those labels can be 'utterly wrong' as well, and where does it leave you or the student?

In both cases the scenario of being 'utterly wrong' is very realistic. It is my belief, as I stated before, that giving reasons even if wrong reasons, gives a student better chance of figuring it out that taking moves on blind faith. But even if we disagree on this thing... I think we could discuss the following:

Unless we figure some way to handle that issue, maybe we should not be teaching at all then?

The solution I found is - be careful not to teach 'above your level'.
In other words, do not tach moves or reasons you are not absolutely sure about, and certainly do not package those moves in such absolute terms as 'good' or 'bad' without also qualifying to some extent the level of your certainty.

What I try to do, is - if I feel I have to try to explain something I am unsure about - to say something like 'I think here is a good reason to play this move, and this is why *I* play it...' or 'I think this move might be good because...' Sometimes I just say 'I *think* this move is good/better but I am not sure.' or something like that. I think this is only fair to the student to let him know when I myself am unsure rather than hide this fact. And when I do that, giving reasons for what I do, as long as they are honest and don't pretend to be what they are not, is not very dangerous in terms of forming bad habits. I think just the opposite - it pushes the student to think for himself more, and make his own judgements, based on the direction I might be giving.

I usually see very little of that from your average teacher, mostly nothing but authoritative statements, and mostly without much justification. When I see a kyu player stating with authority that a move is 'good' - I certainly wonder what goes through his head, and why he thinks it is good - when I myself am not so sure. And *this* to me is the true danger of teaching, and the root of bad habits.

On the other hand - there *are* cases when I am sure of the correct move. For example - when making two eyes. And in such cases - I think it is important to impart this knowledge on the student, and not let him dangle wondering 'what the heck?...'

Another example:
Kageyama's case of ladder vs net from my previous post. I *know* why in vast majority of the cases catching a stone in a net is superior. Should I 'hide' this knowledge from a student? Kageyame didn't. Will this knowledge be any better understood if I let the student bumble along for another 6 months before the light goes on and he/she comes up with that his/herself? I don't believe that.

This is why I stress *honest* teaching - something I see very little of, in general.
If you try to teach 'above your level' and if you are aware when you are unsure or your reasons are suspect - make sure you also pass this lack of certainty on your student. Then he has a chance not to form the uncertain ideas you present into bad habits.

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

I'm sorry, but I don't follow. And I read what your badminton example:

Phoenix wrote:It all depends on what you're aiming for.

Yes.

Could you show step by step how you got from what I wrote to "one wants to get pro-like strength." ?

Bantari wrote:

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.

You missed my point, so here's another try: an intellectual explanation is not always the only way to say or to express something.
Or to communicate, in general.
People paint (that's the Van Gogh reference, in case it's still not clear).
People sing. People dance. (Sometimes, *gasp*, people even play Go.)
In some cases, a very simple action -- a handshake, a hug, even just a look -- can express infinitely more than any words.
In some cases, no words can fully express what we're trying to communicate.

So when you said "when we/I want to say/mean something, it is best to explain it clearly," this is not true.
This is not to say we should never explain things clearly, intellectually or otherwise.
But an intellectual explanation (words) is not always the only means, let alone the best means.
In some cases, other means could be better than a verbal explanation. For example, by examples.

Even when we restrict ourselves to only verbal communications, a direct explanation
is far from the only approach to say or express something. For example, Nineteen-Eighty Four.

Bantari wrote: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

Before I comment, I would like to say that I have read your post justifying explaining one's reasoning to a student assuming the above, and I agree with most everything you wrote. I do however question the premise.

How much in go is truly logical? I think it's safe to say that in most situations during a go game, perfect play is impossible. Sure there are some times when an "only move" exists, but even then, I bet a pro could be found who disagreed with the assessment. If we are not talking about perfect play, is it right to use the word "logical?" I'm not nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. What I'm getting at is that at any level, reasoning is necessarily faulty. One's reasoning takes into account what one is able to take into account and no more. Often much less.

The problem I see is that there is rarely one reason for a move. We choose a move based on a huge sum of reasons and experience, and I am fairly sure that any verbalization of our reasoning can only represent a fraction of what goes into the actual decision making process. Even if we assume that that fraction is 90%, the 10% is not irrelevant. Maybe even 1% could have led you to choose another move.

I do understand that it probably doesn't make much sense to ponder the 10% if one doesn't have a handle on the 90%, but nonetheless, 90% is not the whole story. As dumbrope pointed out, the implict danger for the student is that he acquire bad habits. How does this happen? I think that when a student hears "the reason I would play this move is x" from a stronger player, it is ridiculously difficult to discern when exactly this advice applies. How important is this reason, and when is it important? What the student is left with is a hammer which can then be put to work pounding screws.

What is our goal when we teach? We want our pupils to get better, but at the same time, we want to lead them away from the dead end streets that are bad habits. I suppose some of these detours are easier to avoid than others, but aren't we all stuck in some big spiraling traffic jam? I suppose if one looks at it like that, one will never get anywhere, and indeed the scenery is more interesting than the destination. I love hearing great mind blowing ideas about go and I also enjoy hearing reasons why a move is good or bad, but more and more find it hard to actually believe what I am hearing. That's not necessarily a bad thing though. It's always good to have something to discuss.

daal wrote:

Bantari wrote: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

Before I comment, I would like to say that I have read your post justifying explaining one's reasoning to a student assuming the above, and I agree with most everything you wrote. I do however question the premise.

How much in go is truly logical? I think it's safe to say that in most situations during a go game, perfect play is impossible. Sure there are some times when an "only move" exists, but even then, I bet a pro could be found who disagreed with the assessment. If we are not talking about perfect play, is it right to use the word "logical?" I'm not nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. What I'm getting at is that at any level, reasoning is necessarily faulty. One's reasoning takes into account what one is able to take into account and no more. Often much less.

The problem I see is that there is rarely one reason for a move. We choose a move based on a huge sum of reasons and experience, and I am fairly sure that any verbalization of our reasoning can only represent a fraction of what goes into the actual decision making process. Even if we assume that that fraction is 90%, the 10% is not irrelevant. Maybe even 1% could have led you to choose another move.

I do understand that it probably doesn't make much sense to ponder the 10% if one doesn't have a handle on the 90%, but nonetheless, 90% is not the whole story. As dumbrope pointed out, the implict danger for the student is that he acquire bad habits. How does this happen? I think that when a student hears "the reason I would play this move is x" from a stronger player, it is ridiculously difficult to discern when exactly this advice applies. How important is this reason, and when is it important? What the student is left with is a hammer which can then be put to work pounding screws.

What is our goal when we teach? We want our pupils to get better, but at the same time, we want to lead them away from the dead end streets that are bad habits. I suppose some of these detours are easier to avoid than others, but aren't we all stuck in some big spiraling traffic jam? I suppose if one looks at it like that, one will never get anywhere, and indeed the scenery is more interesting than the destination. I love hearing great mind blowing ideas about go and I also enjoy hearing reasons why a move is good or bad, but more and more find it hard to actually believe what I am hearing. That's not necessarily a bad thing though. It's always good to have something to discuss.

Ok, I hear what you say, and a lot of it makes sense.

To support my case, lets give a very basic example:

• Student's group dies because he failed to make two eyes. He failed to make two eyes because he is a beginner and has no clue about two eyes yet.
  Do you explain the concept of two eyes to the student? Or do you point at the move and say 'better' without any explanation?

If we can agree that at least in such basics cases explaining is better than not explaining - we will be pretty much on the same page.
To simplify: The rest might be more-or-less covered by the concept of 'honest' teaching I described before.

If we do not agree on this basic example, then we really have a fundamental difference of opinion, and we either dig deeper or agree to disagree.
But I would be interested what do you think is the advantage of just pointing the move out without any explanation at all?

EdLee wrote:You missed my point, so here's another try: an intellectual explanation is not always the only way to say or to express something.
Or to communicate, in general.

Oh, yes, I see. Sorry - my bad.
And you are right, there are whole areas, like art, where we try to communicate by other means.
I was blinded by the fact that my understanding was we were talking about Go. Again - my bad.

So - back to Go.
I think In Go there simply *must* be a conscious component to almost every move you make. It might not always be all there is to the decision you make, but at least a big chunk of it must be conscious. If for no other reason that a move must fit into a plan, and a plan has to be decided on consciously. Otherwise we are just guessing instead of making decisions.

But Ed - I feel we are arguing in circles here. Let me make a post with the major points and where I think we stand on the and you can say 'agree' or 'disagree' so we bring some focus back. I am really beginning to lose track here, as my snap at you for the Van Gogh testifies.

"Ed vs. Bantari" discussion points (boy, there are a lot of points for one thread, heh):

• teaching by example and by problem is good - we agree
• teaching using the no-explain method works - we agree
• teaching using the also-explain method works - we agree
• both methods can also fail at times - we agree
• teaching using the also-explain method is better - we agree (or at least I assume we do from the fact that you said you explain things outside of L19, and only don't do it on L19 because of bad experiences - if I misunderstand or misinterpret, please correct me here)
• both methods can lead to bad habits (as can anything else) - we agree
• the also-explain method can lead to less bad habits - I shink so, not sure you agree
• subconscious plays a large part in Go and is important - we agree
• subconscious is in certain aspects better and more efficient than conscious reasoning - we agree
• there is *also* a strong 'logical reasoning' aspect to Go - I think so, not sure if you agree
• each move *also* has (or should have) a well reasoned out purpose and clear goal on a conscious level - I think so, not sure if you agree
• outside of Go, there are whole areas where subconscious communication is emphasized over conscious one - we agree

I think this is where we are right now. I marked the contested points in red, for more clarity.

Bantari wrote:Oh, yes, I see. Sorry - my bad.

Apology accepted.

Bantari wrote:I feel we are arguing in circles here.

Yes, the other night when I was chatting on KGS with Daal and another L19 person,
I said I feel like I'm in the "Who's on first?" routine.

The bullet point list is nice -- my comments in italics:

• teaching by example and by problem is good - we agree. ( As long as we agree it sometimes fails, as the 4th bullet below, yes. )^{1 yes}
• teaching using the no-explain method works - we agree. ( As long as we agree it sometimes fails, the same bullet below, yes. )^{2 yes}
• teaching using the also-explain method works - we agree. ( As long as we agree it sometimes fails, the next bullet below, yes. )^{3 yes}
• both methods can also fail at times - we agree. ( Yes. In fact, I think all teaching & learning methods fail at some point; highly depends on the teacher and student. )^{4 yes}
• teaching using the also-explain method is better - ... ( Difficult. The whole time, I explicitly avoided saying whether it's better or worse. This is one area with a huge amount of misunderstanding. I need time to discuss this part. )
• both methods can lead to bad habits (as can anything else) - we agree. ( Yes. )^{5 yes}
• the also-explain method can lead to less bad habits ( Difficult. Same as above difficult point. Huge misunderstanding here. )
• subconscious plays a large part in Go and is important - we agree. ( Yes. )^{6 yes}
• subconscious is in certain aspects better and more efficient than conscious reasoning - we agree. ( Yes. )^{7 yes}
• there is *also* a strong 'logical reasoning' aspect to Go ( Yes. )^{8 yes}
• each move *also* has (or should have) a well reasoned out purpose and clear goal on a conscious level ( There's a trap here. At least for kyu and low dan levels, when playing a move, yes. The trap is in teaching & learning; difficult, misunderstanding. )^{8-ish yes}
• outside of Go, there are whole areas where subconscious communication is emphasized over conscious one - we agree. ( Yes. )^{9-ish yes}

If you have the time (and energy)...it's been a very long discussion...
if you go back to read everything I wrote in this discussion, including
in Daal's original thread, you'll see I explicitly avoided saying
certain things are better or worse. In particular, some points where
you said I "seem to object," if you read carefully what I wrote,
you'll see I never explicitly said whether those certain aspects are better or worse.
The reason is those areas are actually very difficult, with a lot of misunderstanding --
they are not black-or-white, yes-or-no, better-or-worse situations.
They are not binary. There are a lot of grey areas; a continuum.
So I kept saying "more on this later," because it takes a long time to discuss.

The bullet list is nice, thanks. I feel there's progress.
Out of the 12 bullet points, we got 9+ yes'es.
I hope this clears up parts of my position, and also lets you know
the areas where I feel are not so cut-and-dry, but are actually very fuzzy and difficult (to me).

Ok, great, we *are* getting somewhere.
Lets make bullets again, this time dropping all we agree upon:

1. teaching using the also-explain method is better than no-explain method
   
   • I say: yes, it is better
   • You say: Difficult. This is one area with a huge amount of misunderstanding. I need time to discuss this part.
2. the also-explain method can lead to less bad habits
   
   • I say: yes, it is can
   • You say: Difficult. Same as above difficult point. Huge misunderstanding here.
3. each move *also* has (or should have) a well reasoned out purpose and clear goal on a conscious level
   
   • I say: yes, it is has (or should have)
   • You say: There's a trap here. At least for kyu and low dan levels, when playing a move, yes. The trap is in teaching & learning; difficult, misunderstanding.

The points #1 and #2 are about preference of one teaching method over another.
The point #3 is about how we view the game, and possibly how we play it.

I feel that the points #1 and #2 are actually on-topic here, while point #3 was created as a result of a tangential mini-discussion that arose while discussing #1 and #2.

Bantari wrote:Ok, great, we *are* getting somewhere.
Lets make bullets again, this time dropping all we agree upon:

1. teaching using the also-explain method is better than no-explain method
   
   • I say: yes, it is better
   • You say: Difficult. This is one area with a huge amount of misunderstanding. I need time to discuss this part.
2. the also-explain method can lead to less bad habits
   
   • I say: yes, it is can
   • You say: Difficult. Same as above difficult point. Huge misunderstanding here.
3. each move *also* has (or should have) a well reasoned out purpose and clear goal on a conscious level
   
   • I say: yes, it is has (or should have)
   • You say: There's a trap here. At least for kyu and low dan levels, when playing a move, yes. The trap is in teaching & learning; difficult, misunderstanding.

The points #1 and #2 are about preference of one teaching method over another.
The point #3 is about how we view the game, and possibly how we play it.

I feel that the points #1 and #2 are actually on-topic here, while point #3 was created as a result of a tangential mini-discussion that arose while discussing #1 and #2.

Since point #3 is the least on-topic, lets deal with it, get it off the table one way or the other.

So... first of all, I did not really make this point wrt teaching. The connection to teaching was only that 'there *are* reasons for moves, conscious, at least sometimes' - and the rest flowed from there. I think we can safely assume that there are conscious reasons for moves 'at least sometimes.' This should clear up this point in the meaning I intended it to have.

Now - you introduced something else, the idea that kyus and low dans have more conscious reasons for their moves then stronger players. I sort-of agree with this, although I think I misses the point slightly, and here is why (at least from my personal experience, and other high dan players, please chime in if your experiences differ):

There are certain reasons which are really basic. The stronger you get, the more reasons you see this way. For example - making two eyes. A beginner will have to consciously think when making a move about two eyes and what it means, because this knowledge is still shaky. A more advanced player will not have to think about it consciously - he just makes the moves, seemingly subconsciously. But - and this is the big BUT - even if he does not have to consciously make such decisions, he *does* know the reasons for the move. Its just that the reasons are so deeply ingrained they do not have to be accessed on a conscious level each time anymore.

But the bottom line it - the reasons are *known* to the player.

Same goes for ideas like ladder vs net, or tight vs. loose capture, or playing close vs far from strength, and so on...

So you are right - I do not have to think consciously when making such decisions, or at least - not more consciously than evaluating possible sequences and looking for tactical pitfalls. But this does not mean I do not *know* the underlying reasons for my moves. And if I don't, or I realize my reasons are wrong, I try all I can to figure out a (better) reason.

Now, it might be that players above 5d level view things differently still... I cannot really answer this from personal experience, I have never been that strong. But, from talking to stronger players, and even pros on occasion, I was usually surprised that when they do have reasons, these reasons are exceptionally clear and logical and though-out.

Thus, coming back a full circle - even such very strong players seem to have very good reasons for their moves, which they can consciously access when needed - at least sometimes. And wrt to teaching - it is at least those times when you can (but should you?) try to explain those reasons to your student.

Which brings us back to points #1 and #2.
I feel I have stated most of my reasons, some of them repeatedly, why I think giving explanations, at least sometimes, is much preferable to just pointing out a move and walking away. When you have good explanation, share. I am interested in your take on things. Unless you wish to take a break from all this - while I go and re-read all your post on this topic, as you asked for.