Life In 19x19

Bantari wrote:On the other hand, where such physical limitations are not present, the "full featured" game is usually taught. Chess is conceptually probably the closest "western" relative to Go, and beginners sure are not taught on half board with limited number of pieces. You don't teach poker with half a deck. When teaching guitar, you might give the kid a smaller model, but it still has 6 strings. And so on...

I have taught chess to children AND adults using H.G. Wells "limited game" approach: http://www.online-literature.com/wellsh ... atters/30/

Aidoneus wrote:

Bantari wrote:On the other hand, where such physical limitations are not present, the "full featured" game is usually taught. Chess is conceptually probably the closest "western" relative to Go, and beginners sure are not taught on half board with limited number of pieces. You don't teach poker with half a deck. When teaching guitar, you might give the kid a smaller model, but it still has 6 strings. And so on...

I have taught chess to children AND adults using H.G. Wells "limited game" approach: http://www.online-literature.com/wellsh ... atters/30/

Good for you.
But this is not the usual method, and from my experience - very rarely used. There is a reason for that.

In every field you will find outliers. This is why I said "usually" in what you quote of my words.

Bantari wrote:[..]

Knotwilg wrote:[..]

This is really a pile of hogpoo. [..]

Uhm … do you really believe this is the way to have a decent discussion? I for one think this is extremely rude behaviour.

Bonobo wrote:

Bantari wrote:[..]

Knotwilg wrote:[..]

This is really a pile of hogpoo. [..]

Uhm … do you really believe this is the way to have a decent discussion? I for one think this is extremely rude behaviour.

Really? My apologies then.

But please let me explain.

I really think it is a pile of hogpoo to discredit a good teaching method by pointing out at some teachers with apparently unresolved issues mistreating their students for unrelated reasons. As an argument, this was hogpoo to me, sorry. In *any* discussion.

There might be good and reasonable arguments made against teaching beginners on 19x19. Some of them were made, for example the complexity which might confuse beginners. But the fact that the teacher can act out his/her ego is definitely not one of them. Pointing out how this brings out the "coaches' arrogance" or his inner need to show off "how smart he is"... Especially since all this can be said about teaching on any board size, from 1x1 to 100x100. What can I say? I find it intellectually dishonest. Hogpoo was the first word that came to mind. Not very diplomatic, you are right, but I thought it fitting.

If this, or my previous post, offended somebody, again - my apologies.
Maybe I should have put a smiley somewhere in my post.

From what I remember a raw beginner may not have the mental stamina needed for a 19x19 game. So 9x9 is usually recommended, with 13x13 for experienced beginners. Even so, a particularly determined novice can begin on the 19 board.

I agree with Bantari's assertion.

Why not just say: here is the proper board, this is how you play, and you either like it or not, you're a big boy/girl.
And beginners will either like it and play it, or look for some other game which is more to their liking.

I would not say that free club culture as a failure. If the objective was to expose ordinary people to the game of Go, then it has proven rather useful. (I first learned Go in a club setting.) If the objective was to sustain popularity of the game, then by itself it is not so useful. If free club culture projects an image of Go as being a mere pastime and not a game that can be life-changing for those that pursue it earnestly, then the popularity of Go will not increase. Clubs should remain open as an option for those playing Go for pleasure and not on a formal basis.

As well, I agree that there should be settings in which beginners start off on the 19x19 board. However, as mentioned above beginners usually lack the mental stamina to play a game over 200 moves long. Also, there is the all-too-common "Where do I start off" problem. I believe this can be remedied by having the beginner spend a week replaying pro games before playing the first actual game. Of course the beginner is more than likely to lose the game, but at least he/she will have an initial impression as to how the game is played, thanks to those first few pro game records.

Unless you are setting up a boot camp style weeks long gathering for formalized training, it is probably best to treat everyone as they come. Determine their comfort level (perhaps consider asking them) and then try to work always slightly ahead of them to pull them forwards.

Bantari wrote:Why not just say: here is the proper board, this is how you play, and you either like it or not, you're a big boy/girl.
And beginners will either like it and play it, or look for some other game which is more to their liking.

I would rather say that Go has different variations: There is the official 19x19 board, but 9x9 is also part of it as there are even 9x9 tournaments, where (besides of the numerous computer engine contests) also strong players participate. Thus, at least, I would let a beginner have his/her choice. I can remember that I was overwhelmed with my first 19x19 games and my brain tends to switch into a kind of "standby/safety mode" during midgame or early yose, where I was no more able to play any reasonable move at all. Playing some hundreds of 9x9 games against KGS bots etc. helped to come over this phase. Of course there are beginners (especially younger beginners) who get faster in touch with the 19x19 board; thus YMMV.

I am not sure why there is this tendency to treat Go beginners with such kid gloves. Its almost like we try to mislead them, or lure them into our web by showing them something like 9x9 and teaching on that. Or even start with something as silly as "atari go". And then, step by little step, once they are firmly hooked (by putting time and effort into it) start "unveiling" the *real* game. After atari-go or 9x9 games - they might not even like real Go.

I agree there is a risk of beginners thinking that this must be a silly game. But I'm quite sure that beginners find 19x19 too complex to even appreciate the game. So I prefer to err on the silly side.

If I was treated like that as a beginner, I would have been offended, honestly.

Why not just say: here is the proper board, this is how you play, and you either like it or not, you're a big boy/girl.
And beginners will either like it and play it, or look for some other game which is more to their liking.

As long as you use 5x5 and 7x7 for the first few days of instruction and move on to 9x9 fairly quickly, including an occasional 19x19 for the feel of it, there should be no issue. Taking offense for not being treated like a master from the start sure is a Western thing to do.

As a matter of fact, I see it as a laziness of the teacher to teach on 9x9 board rather than the proper game. The teacher willing to spend time and effort and who is considerate and sensitive can have wonderful results teaching on 19x19, usually much faster. And I believe it will also benefit in the long run.

I'm sure many teachers are honestly trying to teach Go on 19x19. It just takes too long and there is no need for it ... on a small board. All comes from one rule.

You are correct when you say 19x19 is more complex, and beginner can get lost in that complexity. But this is why the teacher is important, to cut through this complexity and help the student along. It is not always an easy job to do that as a teacher, but this is why teaching can be so rewarding in and of itself.

Teaching should not be rewarding for the teacher but for seeing good results. Teachers take themselves too seriously.

On the other hand, 9x9 is a cookie-cutter method. First let me *quickly* crush you on 5 handi and maybe explain a thing or two, then go and play some other beginners while I can do more interesting things. Come back when you are ready to get *quickly* crushed on 4 stones and get few more things pointed out. Rinse, repeat. This is not teaching, this is avoidance. And 9x9 is very teacher-friendly in this respect. Lazy or mediocre teachers *love* 9x9. This is why it is so popular, and so many use it, I think.

Not at all. Reducing the size of the board is precisely meant to remove the handicap. Crushing beginners with big handicaps is not part of the method. You must have been projecting something else onto my thoughts about teaching.

Teaching on 19x19 takes more effort and dedication and knowledge, and so many shy away from that.

This is not at all what I observe. I see diligent teachers drowning their pupils in information.

I mean - there is nothing wrong with not being a good teacher, not everybody has that skill. And there is certainly nothing wrong with recognizing that fact and admitting it. In such cases, teaching on 9x9 might the best you can do, and that's that. Better than nothing, I suppose. Heck - sometimes even good teachers don't have the time, or the will, to get invested in yet another student. So 9x9 has its place.

HAHAHA! That's the best one. There's no teaching, my friend, only learning. I can clearly see from your report that you teach for the sake of teaching and for the wellness of the teacher. As a teacher you should choose the best way for people to learn. In my opinion, this removes the teacher as much from the process as possible. You can call that sloth if you wish, I call it modesty.

Bantari wrote:But this is not the usual method, and from my experience - very rarely used. There is a reason for that.

IMHO, there is no good reason to set up the chess board, take a "couple" minutes to explain the rules, and start playing a game with a total beginner. Unless it's to stroke the teacher's ego. And yes, I've seen people teaching the game this way too often. Unlike Go, which I am not discussing, chess has a simple goal of checkmating the opponent. Thus, letting a new player see how to achieve this with limited material--starting with giving them, say, queen and rook versus lone king--is far more effective (again, IMHO) than crushing them in a full game. The quick success that they experience with simple mates encourages them, while the slow introduction of new pieces and rules does not overwhelm them. BTW, I have personal experience teaching and coaching chess in elementary public schools in Tucson and Gary.

Aidoneus wrote:

Bantari wrote:But this is not the usual method, and from my experience - very rarely used. There is a reason for that.

IMHO, there is no good reason to set up the chess board, take a "couple" minutes to explain the rules, and start playing a game with a total beginner. Unless it's to stroke the teacher's ego. And yes, I've seen people teaching the game this way too often. Unlike Go, which I am not discussing, chess has a simple goal of checkmating the opponent. Thus, letting a new player see how to achieve this with limited material--starting with giving them, say, queen and rook versus lone king--is far more effective (again, IMHO) than crushing them in a full game.

Emmanuel Lasker talked about teaching beginners how to mate until they could mate with king, knight and bishop vs. lone king.

The handicapping system of go allows the teacher to play roughly 50-50 games with the student. Each game presents a challenge that is neither too easy nor too hard for the student.

Bill Spight wrote:The handicapping system of go allows the teacher to play roughly 50-50 games with the student. Each game presents a challenge that is neither too easy nor too hard for the student.

Yes, I think that the handicap system in Go is far superior to giving chess odds, which have the effect of distorting play to a much greater extent, at least for substantial odds.

Edit: After rummaging about on the internet, I found a pdf copy of Lasker's Common Sense in Chess (1896-97)--a book that I must have given away at least a dozen times to aspiring near beginners. In that book, he starts right off with game records, though. (The reason I double checked my memory with the pdf, first.) Perhaps Lasker mentioned starting with mates in his earlier lectures (c. 1895), which formed the basis for this work? If so, this does predate H.G. Wells' Certain Personal Matters (1898). In fact, it makes me wonder if Wells attended Lasker's London lectures!

You can all go back to arguing about Go pedagogy, now.

Knotwilg wrote:

Bantari wrote: You are correct when you say 19x19 is more complex, and beginner can get lost in that complexity. But this is why the teacher is important, to cut through this complexity and help the student along. It is not always an easy job to do that as a teacher, but this is why teaching can be so rewarding in and of itself.

Teaching should not be rewarding for the teacher but for seeing good results. Teachers take themselves too seriously.

I disagree. Teaching in and of itself can be rewarding, just like anything else, when well done. What you are talking about is that good teaching is measured only by good results. There is some grain of truth to it, but I find this too simplistic and a materialistic-type of approach. There are other factors.

To me, reward in teaching can be can be measured in "reaching" the student, making this personal connection, and seeing the proverbial light go on when there is understanding. It takes a very specific approach and tailored to each individual student. If that translates into measurable results, like skill improvement and such, is quite another story. usually it does, but sometimes it does not, so I rather not use that as a measure.

For example - when somebody explains the finer points of chinese fuseki to me, this does not translate in my increased strength, I do not start winning more games, and generally do not really play stringer. And yet I have learned something, and if the teaching was good I appreciate it - and assume it was also rewarding for the teacher. As long as it is, he might continue to do it for other players, which would be great - we all benefit.

And as for teachers taking themselves too seriously... I dunno. This is all volunteer-basis-like, when I teach you it is because I have fun doing it, or want to do it for other reasons. I give my time and effort for free, so I see no reason why I should not expect it to be rewarding for me in some non-monetary way. I have always found teaching to be a pleasure when done right, and very rewarding. Might be just my personal view, though.

I know many players see teaching as a chore, especially teaching beginners. Some others use it to tickle their egos, or whatnot. But none of that is really teaching, and this is certainly not what I am referring to. It seems this is the kind of people you keep running into. My condolences.

Knotwilg wrote:

On the other hand, 9x9 is a cookie-cutter method. First let me *quickly* crush you on 5 handi and maybe explain a thing or two, then go and play some other beginners while I can do more interesting things. Come back when you are ready to get *quickly* crushed on 4 stones and get few more things pointed out. Rinse, repeat. This is not teaching, this is avoidance. And 9x9 is very teacher-friendly in this respect. Lazy or mediocre teachers *love* 9x9. This is why it is so popular, and so many use it, I think.

Not at all. Reducing the size of the board is precisely meant to remove the handicap. Crushing beginners with big handicaps is not part of the method. You must have been projecting something else onto my thoughts about teaching.

Why is reducing a handicap of any value in this respect? I can crush a beginner with 9h on 19x19 or with 5h on 9x9 with equal ease - does not matter to me. In both situations the beginner would have no clue why he was getting crushed, possibly not even *that* he was getting crushed. What does it matter how many handicaps he gets?

I thought small boards were meant to shorten the game time and lower the complexity.
And if so, it serves dual purpose:
- lower the load on the teacher (less time involvement, explanation easier, issues smaller, done faster)
- lower the complexity on beginner so the teacher can send the beginner off to play other beginners sooner

To me, this all has a value. But for teaching seriously - I think 9x9 is a joke.
But your mileage might vary, it is just my opinion.

Ultimately, we would have to settle it with a teaching duel. You have a beginner for a week and use only 9x9, while I have a beginner for a week and use only 19x19. Then we send them to a tournament and see which one does better. I bet on my beginner, any amount.

Maybe one day...

Knotwilg wrote:

Teaching on 19x19 takes more effort and dedication and knowledge, and so many shy away from that.

This is not at all what I observe. I see diligent teachers drowning their pupils in information.

There is good teaching and bad one, regardless of the board. You seem to be willy-nilly mixing those two together and blaming the board size for quality of your teachers. I would bet the bad experiences with teachers and teaching you have had would still be there regardless of the board, if the teachers were serious. The only thing that skews this assertion is that teaching on small boards takes much less effort on the part of the teacher, and thus his involvement in the process is much smaller and certainly less intimate. And so the possible damage is less.

As I said - 9x9 is better for mediocre or lazy teachers. And if this is the teachers you have, then 9x9 is indeed the preferred method.

Knotwilg wrote:

I mean - there is nothing wrong with not being a good teacher, not everybody has that skill. And there is certainly nothing wrong with recognizing that fact and admitting it. In such cases, teaching on 9x9 might the best you can do, and that's that. Better than nothing, I suppose. Heck - sometimes even good teachers don't have the time, or the will, to get invested in yet another student. So 9x9 has its place.

HAHAHA! That's the best one. There's no teaching, my friend, only learning. I can clearly see from your report that you teach for the sake of teaching and for the wellness of the teacher. As a teacher you should choose the best way for people to learn. In my opinion, this removes the teacher as much from the process as possible. You can call that sloth if you wish, I call it modesty.

Then, according to you, the best teacher is the one who just gives you a book or says "go practice, shoo!"
No teaching, no involvement, why even bother talking to the guy?

I guess we just have to agree to disagree on the value and involvement of a teacher in the learning process. Maybe the difference is that I was fortunate enough to have a few very good teachers in my life, ones who got deeply involved in the process and made a huge difference and impact - but they had to invest quite some time in me, and they did. I hope they did find the experience rewarding, regardless of my improvement or lack thereof. And I hope they continue doing the same for other players.

I guess not everybody is that lucky. But don't give up hope, maybe you run into a good teacher one day.

PS>
Anyways, I think maybe I have said enough on this topic for now. If it is still not clear what I mean, I am not sure what else to say. If you still disagree, then so be it, everybody is entitled to an opinion. Unless something sparks my interest anew, I am bowing out of this conversation.

Bantari wrote:Then, according to you, the best teacher is the one who just gives you a book or says "go practice, shoo!"
No teaching, no involvement, why even bother talking to the guy?

Sounds like an Oriental teacher

IMO a teacher who simply gives material to the student for his study wants him/her to struggle and become familiar with the material enough to ask questions about it, at which point the teacher will provide additional information. (The asking of questions is a sign that the student is beginning to understand the material.) Afterwards the student is left by herself to struggle with any new concepts. To most Westerners, this sounds like a cold, distant approach. Of course it has the advantage of allowing the student much freedom in pursuing a discipline, but for a student accustomed to asking for information prior to learning something this approach can seem intimidating, as there are many unknowns and the student will often be afraid of doing the wrong thing.

In Western pedagogy the standard approach is to provide all necessary information before the student does her own learning, so as to reduce the margin of error; reduced margin of error makes for a more efficient learning approach. Which is often preferred since life in Western societies is often strictly rationed in terms of time for most people. The higher level of personal involvement on the teacher's part is encouraging to the student, but the teacher should remember to encourage the student's autonomy through this approach, as there are cases in which the student might feel as if she need not do anything on her part to advance in understanding of the material.

I conclude by saying that the best approach is individualised and combines the best of both worlds, in varying proportions, of course.

I'll leave the thread alone for now. Not many fish biting here

tekesta wrote:

Bantari wrote:Then, according to you, the best teacher is the one who just gives you a book or says "go practice, shoo!"
No teaching, no involvement, why even bother talking to the guy?

Sounds like an Oriental teacher

IMO a teacher who simply gives material to the student for his study wants him/her to struggle and become familiar with the material enough to ask questions about it, at which point the teacher will provide additional information. (The asking of questions is a sign that the student is beginning to understand the material.) Afterwards the student is left by herself to struggle with any new concepts. To most Westerners, this sounds like a cold, distant approach. Of course it has the advantage of allowing the student much freedom in pursuing a discipline, but for a student accustomed to asking for information prior to learning something this approach can seem intimidating, as there are many unknowns and the student will often be afraid of doing the wrong thing.

In Western pedagogy the standard approach is to provide all necessary information before the student does her own learning, so as to reduce the margin of error; reduced margin of error makes for a more efficient learning approach. Which is often preferred since life in Western societies is often strictly rationed in terms of time for most people. The higher level of personal involvement on the teacher's part is encouraging to the student, but the teacher should remember to encourage the student's autonomy through this approach, as there are cases in which the student might feel as if she need not do anything on her part to advance in understanding of the material.

I conclude by saying that the best approach is individualised and combines the best of both worlds, in varying proportions, of course.

I'll leave the thread alone for now. Not many fish biting here

I have absolutely no proof for that, but I have always though that the typical western and eastern approach (at least in Go teaching, the way you describe it above) simply differs in what the final goal is.

In western teaching (explain, make logical, make them understand, put effort and time, etc) - the goal is to expose/teach/reach as many as possible so there is a broad field.

In eastern teaching (by imitation, or give material and leave students to themselves) - the goal is to find/foster the individuals who have exceptional talent and can thrive with such method. All others might sink-or-swim and most likely drop out at some point, but this is no worry as long as the absolute best are caught. And they, since eventually when they reach the top their approach to the game will have to be more intuitive than scientific (more like a child learns a language than like an adult does) - they might as well start off the right way.

But that's just my theory.

I think the Eastern-Western difference you're talking about is also partly the difference between teaching general subjects to students who are more or less required to be there vs. teaching a profession to apprentices.