A question about goproblems.com

[Monadology]

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?

I do use the board as a kind of spatial reference. As I mentioned before, I myself favor a visual approach generally, though I sometimes use a kinesthetic approach in a chaotic local situation where keeping track of the order of the plays is especially important. I don't think even kinesthetic learners, except perhaps someone who is blind, could function just as well with absolutely no visual data. Humans, in practice, are more muddled than that.

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

And I think you were at least partially right about what you thought I was arguing. I agree that it's important to be able to, in a game, 'read out' a sequence without putting anything on the board. But if someone is kinesthetically oriented, I think it may well be that they will more effectively learn to be able to do this by actually playing out the problems on the board (as long as they are not doing so mindlessly, of course). The motor associations have to be developed, and that can only be done by actively doing it.

Think about something that more naturally requires this kind of learning, like martial arts. Obviously if you are facing down an opponent, it is very good and important to be able to consider possible counterattacks to your approach and the like. But doing exercises to take care of the fitness side of things and then simply sitting cross-legged and imagining doing drills or sparring is not going to work. You have to actually do the drills to develop the muscle memory.

[Kirby]

...

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.

Perhaps, but wouldn't you say that tsumego is a more direct study of reading than the other topics you mentioned? When I do a tsumego problem, I focus primarily on reading.


If I'm studying joseki, well, there are a few ways I've studied joseki before.

1.) Consult a joseki book.
2.) Look at pro games.
3.) Do joseki problems.

Only the last of these approaches focuses mainly on reading, I think. The other areas of study are still good, but do not focus on reading as much.

If I spend an hour of reading a joseki book, the entire hour is not spent on reading. But if I spend an hour doing tsumego problems, just about all of the time is spent on reading.

I think that tsumego - or more generally, go problems - allow you to focus purely on your reading ability.

Reviewing games and the other things you mentioned are nice to do - and require reading. But they are not as pure of a study of reading as tsumego (or other types of go problems) are.

[Kirby]

But if someone is kinesthetically oriented, I think it may well be that they will more effectively learn to be able to do this by actually playing out the problems on the board (as long as they are not doing so mindlessly, of course).

"Mindlessly" is the key. It is essential to develop the ability to predict what will happen on the go board, before playing. This is what happens in a real game.

The motor associations have to be developed, and that can only be done by actively doing it.
...

Think about something that more naturally requires this kind of learning, like martial arts. Obviously if you are facing down an opponent, it is very good and important to be able to consider possible counterattacks to your approach and the like. But doing exercises to take care of the fitness side of things and then simply sitting cross-legged and imagining doing drills or sparring is not going to work. You have to actually do the drills to develop the muscle memory.

I think that this is a bad example. In martial arts, the "skill" that you need to acquire is a physical skill. You need to develop your muscle memories. You need to develop your body. Thinking might be important, but the physical aspect is also extremely important.

Go, however, is a mental game. It does not matter if you can put your stone down with finesse, or if you are dexterous with your hands. What matters is that your mental ability has been enhanced.

That's why it's important to practice this mental ability by knowing what's going to happen in a sequence before it happens when you actually play it.

[Monadology]

I think that this is a bad example. In martial arts, the "skill" that you need to acquire is a physical skill. You need to develop your muscle memories. You need to develop your body. Thinking might be important, but the physical aspect is also extremely important.

Go, however, is a mental game. It does not matter if you can put your stone down with finesse, or if you are dexterous with your hands. What matters is that your mental ability has been enhanced.

That's why it's important to practice this mental ability by knowing what's going to happen in a sequence before it happens when you actually play it.

Of course they're different. That's why they are more naturally predisposed to different approaches and have very distinct methodologies.

But sometimes people do not fall within the 'natural' range of norms. Kinesthetic learning requires the development of muscle memory, which requires the physical process of doing. In the case of martial arts, the muscle memory is being used for a number of different physical tasks (and probably some mental), in the case of Go it is being used on a rudimentary level by everyone in placing stones, and then probably by a small number of people as an associative method for representing in their imaginations the placement of stones. But the fact that this is a mental assimilation of the muscle memory does not mean that its development can occur entirely independently of the actual use of said muscles.

[Sverre]

But if I spend an hour doing tsumego problems, just about all of the time is spent on reading.

I think that tsumego - or more generally, go problems - allow you to focus purely on your reading ability.

When I do tsumego, I end up spending about 50% of my time on "oh yeah, it's this shape again", or "x looks similar to y, how about we try...". I'd say shape knowledge is just as important as reading in tsumego.

[Kirby]

But if I spend an hour doing tsumego problems, just about all of the time is spent on reading.

I think that tsumego - or more generally, go problems - allow you to focus purely on your reading ability.

When I do tsumego, I end up spending about 50% of my time on "oh yeah, it's this shape again", or "x looks similar to y, how about we try...". I'd say shape knowledge is just as important as reading in tsumego.

Hmm. I guess my opinion is that tsumego - or go problems in general - are more focused on reading than the other areas of study that you mentioned, which is why they are "special".

I guess you can have a different opinion on this.

[Kirby]

I think that this is a bad example. In martial arts, the "skill" that you need to acquire is a physical skill. You need to develop your muscle memories. You need to develop your body. Thinking might be important, but the physical aspect is also extremely important.

Go, however, is a mental game. It does not matter if you can put your stone down with finesse, or if you are dexterous with your hands. What matters is that your mental ability has been enhanced.

That's why it's important to practice this mental ability by knowing what's going to happen in a sequence before it happens when you actually play it.

Of course they're different. That's why they are more naturally predisposed to different approaches and have very distinct methodologies.

But sometimes people do not fall within the 'natural' range of norms. Kinesthetic learning requires the development of muscle memory, which requires the physical process of doing. In the case of martial arts, the muscle memory is being used for a number of different physical tasks (and probably some mental), in the case of Go it is being used on a rudimentary level by everyone in placing stones, and then probably by a small number of people as an associative method for representing in their imaginations the placement of stones. But the fact that this is a mental assimilation of the muscle memory does not mean that its development can occur entirely independently of the actual use of said muscles.

OK. I don't think my opinion is really changed, but I don't have much else to add.

[Sverre]

Hmm. I guess my opinion is that tsumego - or go problems in general - are more focused on reading than the other areas of study that you mentioned, which is why they are "special".

I guess you can have a different opinion on this.

Ehh, I don't really disagree that tsumego is more focused on reading than other study methods. I'm just not sure I agree that it's always the best way to study, even so. Especially if we are focusing on *solving* tsumego -- IIRC the discussion branched off from a branch discussing whether it's better for some people to do tsumego by playing it out on a board or clicking through the solutions on a computer -- and in both these cases they are still spending their time on reading, wouldn't you agree?

[nagano]

* 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.

I think that studying Joseki or Fuseki is really not necessary most of the time. If you just study professional games, those patterns should be gradually absorbed, but in a realistic, global context. (Or at least that's how it works for me.) I think that it would be almost impossible to learn to read the way professionals do without studying tsumego first. That is in order to read that many moves you must first start with problems that only require reading out several moves, and then eventually move on to problems like the ones in Igo Hatsuyoron, which can have solutions that are 30, 40, even fifty or more moves long. Then you will have had the necessary backround to practice whole-board reading the way professionals do. As for the endgame I completely agree, but let me emphasize that these are problems as well.

[Sverre]

Why do you believe you can learn fuseki from studying professional games but not that you can learn reading from professional games?

I think that it would be almost impossible to learn to read the way professionals do without studying tsumego first.

Why should this even be a goal? For most players it's almost impossible to learn to read the way professionals do, no matter what they do.

A better goal is to improve your strength as it is here and now, to gain another stone or to learn a new concept. To do this you should first find out what method works for you, I don't believe tsumego is the way to go for everyone.

[nagano]

Why do you believe you can learn fuseki from studying professional games but not that you can learn reading from professional games?

Because I think that learning to read by starting with the whole board is too difficult. It's the same rationale behind starting beginners on a 9x9, but I think it is even more important. Starting from the simplest, smallest, local situations and eventually moving on to the most complicated global situations is a natural progression. To start with the second hardly makes sense. Also if you do the right kinds of problems, you will learn the many basic shapes, patterns, and vital points that are prerequisite to dealing with more complex situations.

Why should this even be a goal? For most players it's almost impossible to learn to read the way professionals do, no matter what they do.

A better goal is to improve your strength as it is here and now, to gain another stone or to learn a new concept. To do this you should first find out what method works for you, I don't believe tsumego is the way to go for everyone.

Again, I am talking about what you should do if you want to try to become as strong as possible.

[Sverre]

Because I think that learning to read by starting with the whole board is too difficult.

You don't have to start with the whole board, to start on the whole board. There's plenty of local reading to be done in any game.

Again, I am talking about what you should do if you want to try to become as strong as possible.

OK. If a player spends time and effort doing tsumego but fails to improve, what should he do? More tsumego? If it doesn't work, keep doing it seems like a counterintuitive proverb to me.

[Kirby]

...

OK. If a player spends time and effort doing tsumego but fails to improve, what should he do? More tsumego? If it doesn't work, keep doing it seems like a counterintuitive proverb to me.

I took a poll awhile back on how many hours a day people study go. Based on the results, I doubt that many people are at the level where they wouldn't improve from more go problems.

[Kirby]

...IIRC the discussion branched off from a branch discussing whether it's better for some people to do tsumego by playing it out on a board or clicking through the solutions on a computer -- and in both these cases they are still spending their time on reading, wouldn't you agree?

If they are spending their time reading in both cases, I agree that clicking through the solutions is OK. But this is if they already know what the variations are before they start clicking (i.e. if they have actually spent time reading).

[Sverre]

...

OK. If a player spends time and effort doing tsumego but fails to improve, what should he do? More tsumego? If it doesn't work, keep doing it seems like a counterintuitive proverb to me.

I took a poll awhile back on how many hours a day people study go. Based on the results, I doubt that many people are at the level where they wouldn't improve from more go problems.

If I had 25 hours each day to study Go I'm sure I could improve, but most people can't spend that much time on a hobby. I am more concerned with, given a certain amount of spare time he is willing to spend, how can a person improve most rapidly?

I believe that the answer is not universal but will depend on the player's personality. In other real-life settings people often have substantially different learning strategies, but in Go there is this assumption that tsumego is a one-size-fits-all solution to all your problems. I believe that for some people this solution may not be optimal and I think people should experiment with different study methods to see what works for them.