Life In 19x19

tentano wrote:The concept of a snapback is useful and all, but what I need in a timed game is the ability to instantly see a snapback several moves away from the board position.

You wish to be a pro.

Having a well-rehearsed song and dance about snapbacks in my mind doesn't allow me to see it.

Really?

What I need is to rehearse many times how to cause a snapback to arise, and how to avoid it, so that I can control whether we go there today.

So while I don't have anything against people who want a nicely worded explanation of the concept, I don't actually care. Being able to articulate it doesn't meaningfully aid how well I play.

Really?

Repetition is quite boring as an adult, though. I imagine that this is the biggest factor limiting adult go players' development, rather than any mental degradation.

Why is repetition boring?

My mind craves variation, even when that is not a good thing.

I get very restless, even to the point where I have to split up especially boring tasks in small chunks so I do them with the necessary care. If I don't do that, there is a big risk that things will be done hastily, poorly and I might get so fed up with it that I don't finish the task at all.

I don't think I can be a pro though... That requires more effort than I think I am capable of. But I'm very happy to be able to see many snapbacks 3-5 moves away (still working on making that "all"). I didn't get that ability from understanding the concept of snapbacks as explained in words. It's all from playing and tsumego.

I prefer to call snapback a "shape technique" instead of a "concept". All techniques together form one of the concepts.

tentano wrote:Having a well-rehearsed song and dance about snapbacks in my mind doesn't allow me to see it. What I need is to rehearse many times how to cause a snapback to arise, and how to avoid it, so that I can control whether we go there today.

I remember very well learning about snapbacks. I first encountered the concept in Graded Go Problems for Beginners. I tried to solve that problem for a long time then gave up and looked at the solution. After the book explained the concept to me, I could see it and I noticed it in my games many times. Each example of course offered me a new variation and insight on the concept and expended my experience about it. But without initially learning the concept, I could have stumbled on it a hundred times and not see it was there.

What I need is to rehearse many times...

I don't believe anything can be learned deeply without building up experience, which is a result of both repetition and variation (encountering the same concept in many different circumstances). But it doesn't mean initially reading about it is wrong or unhelpful.

While I'm sure there must be differences between the way adults and children can learn, I think they are much exaggerated.

The basic difference is that adults talk too much. If you put an adult in a learning situation where they can't talk back, such as in the army, they learn by being shown, by doing, by repeating, just like children and do it well. I have heard countless stories from people of an earlier generation than mine who say they learned many things (bayonetting, driving, carpet-laying, peeling potatoes) profoundly well from their time during national conscription.

We see the same thing in learning to drive in ordinary life. Through having to concentrate so hard out of sheer fear, the adult stays stumm and just does over and over what he is told, and within a few weeks he can drive.

But where the learning environment mistakenly allows the adult pupil to keep asking questions of the teacher, the tuition just degenerates into a conversation. It may be enjoyable but it's not effective.

I actually saw the difference in action in a taiji class. A large group of people who were normally used to chatting with the English teacher during class, and who were frankly not very good, invited a world-class Chinese lady for a day's seminar on a form they had never seen before. Within that one day the clumsy class, including geriatrics, had learnt to do passably well a complex and novel form with an implement (a fan) they had never used before. The difference was that the Chinese lady allowed no chit-chat ("if you do not practise you are not my friend") during the lesson and simply drilled the moves over and over again with no distractions. What astonished me most is that this new form stuck - or so I was told and when I saw the class some months later for a follow-up session with the same lady they did seem still to have the first part off pat.

At the other end of the scale, there is much exaggeration about kids just picking things up. I think that's mostly stuff and nonsense. They have to be shown or told what to do, just like adults. Where they appear to have picked it up from the ether, it's because kids are great at earwigging. They pay more attention to adults' words than the adults do. To use the example above, a kid might overhear two adults laughing over missing a snapback. That's enough for him to learn the concept and he will then relentlessly try and create it in every game until he gets it just right - and the growns-ups are impressed.

In contrast, in most situations teaching an adult about a snapback, he will be desperate to show how intelligent or affable he can sound by asking where else snapbacks can occur, what other snapback shapes exist, how do the various rule sets treat snapbacks, are there any similar shapes, what's the price of fish today, do you fancy a drink later... Of course the adult learns nothing, but he may have networked a new friend.

John Fairbairn wrote:While I'm sure there must be differences between the way adults and children can learn, I think they are much exaggerated.

The basic difference is that adults talk too much. If you put an adult in a learning situation where they can't talk back, such as in the army, they learn by being shown, by doing, by repeating, just like children and do it well. I have heard countless stories from people of an earlier generation than mine who say they learned many things (bayonetting, driving, carpet-laying, peeling potatoes) profoundly well from their time during national conscription.

We see the same thing in learning to drive in ordinary life. Through having to concentrate so hard out of sheer fear, the adult stays stumm and just does over and over what he is told, and within a few weeks he can drive.

But where the learning environment mistakenly allows the adult pupil to keep asking questions of the teacher, the tuition just degenerates into a conversation. It may be enjoyable but it's not effective.

I actually saw the difference in action in a taiji class. A large group of people who were normally used to chatting with the English teacher during class, and who were frankly not very good, invited a world-class Chinese lady for a day's seminar on a form they had never seen before. Within that one day the clumsy class, including geriatrics, had learnt to do passably well a complex and novel form with an implement (a fan) they had never used before. The difference was that the Chinese lady allowed no chit-chat ("if you do not practise you are not my friend") during the lesson and simply drilled the moves over and over again with no distractions. What astonished me most is that this new form stuck - or so I was told and when I saw the class some months later for a follow-up session with the same lady they did seem still to have the first part off pat.

At the other end of the scale, there is much exaggeration about kids just picking things up. I think that's mostly stuff and nonsense. They have to be shown or told what to do, just like adults. Where they appear to have picked it up from the ether, it's because kids are great at earwigging. They pay more attention to adults' words than the adults do. To use the example above, a kid might overhear two adults laughing over missing a snapback. That's enough for him to learn the concept and he will then relentlessly try and create it in every game until he gets it just right - and the growns-ups are impressed.

In contrast, in most situations teaching an adult about a snapback, he will be desperate to show how intelligent or affable he can sound by asking where else snapbacks can occur, what other snapback shapes exist, how do the various rule sets treat snapbacks, are there any similar shapes, what's the price of fish today, do you fancy a drink later... Of course the adult learns nothing, but he may have networked a new friend.

LOL! You hit the nail on the head! IN martial arts it's the same. We get used to hearing the instructor EXPLAINING what they are doing/will do in words 'Keep your weight more on the back foot, rotate and slide the foot ...etc etc", whereas people who have stidied in China or Japan are surprised when 'all' they get is to watch the movement several times, then (perhaps!) get someone who lifts their arm slightly, pushes their foot to one side more etc...

It's quite interesting....When you read back through the last few posts, you get words like 'rehearse', 'repetition', 'building up experience', 'DO' them with the necessary care' etc... These are very much words we use to talk about developing a skill, not about memorizing knowledge.

One of my favorite quotes (about learning any skill really) is "Don't ask..., practice!" Ask too early and you don't understand the answer, practice enough and you may not even need to ask...

tentano wrote:Repetition is quite boring as an adult, though. I imagine that this is the biggest factor limiting adult go players' development, rather than any mental degradation.

Yes I agree, not wanting to repeat, or as stated above diverting yourself into TALKING about learning rather than acutally doing it (makes me think I should stop spending so much time here and get my Go set out more... )

Bill Spight wrote: Labels like thickness and kikashi, for example.

Bill Spight wrote: And so the answer is to subject adults to repetition to the point of boredom and beyond?

No, that's a horrible way of trying to learn...I agree. BUT...in language learning it means encouraging learners to fix their own objectives, do tasks that have real meaning (and so value) to them, work with native speaker materials that they've always been told are 'too hard' for them, and basically spend more time 'USING' the language they need than 'LEARNING' (which IS how they earn it in fact ).

Funnily enough adults don't disike ALL repetition...think of people who play golf, table tennis, tennis, archery....repetive to the point of obsession but NOT boring for people who practice these activities. Kids are fascinated by physcial repetition AND repetitive use of language, but adults much prefer to be producing novel sentences and saying 'interesting' things. This impatience with 'just doing things' until you can do them well is a big part of what makes learning so ineffective for adults. Kids actually work really hard to learn,...but tend to enjoy it. Adults often feel that learning necessarily invovles (unpleasant!) EFFORT! (and so it ends up involving just that: )

Interesting that you mention Bruner. Here's what he says about knowledge and skill "Skill is a way of dealing with things, not a derivation from theory. Doubtless skill can be improved with the aid of theory, as when we learn about the inside and outside edges of our skis, but our skiing doesn't improve until we get that knowledge back into the skill of skiing. Knowledge helps only when it descends into habits".

Amelia wrote:I remember very well learning about snapbacks. I first encountered the concept in Graded Go Problems for Beginners. I tried to solve that problem for a long time then gave up and looked at the solution. After the book explained the concept to me, I could see it and I noticed it in my games many times. Each example of course offered me a new variation and insight on the concept and expended my experience about it. But without initially learning the concept, I could have stumbled on it a hundred times and not see it was there.

If you had encountered that first snapback in a game, where you were working hard at the board, and someone sprung it on you...don't you think you would have understood it as well as seeing it in an exercice the first time? Getting burnt really stings!

I was burnt plenty of time on the board without understanding why or what happened to me. Perhaps a snapback is simple enough that I could derive it on my own, but what more complex positions? How long would it take me to understand it with no other help than things that happened in my games?

Shako wrote:

Bill Spight wrote: And so the answer is to subject adults to repetition to the point of boredom and beyond?

No, that's a horrible way of trying to learn...I agree. BUT...in language learning it means encouraging learners to fix their own objectives, do tasks that have real meaning (and so value) to them, work with native speaker materials that they've always been told are 'too hard' for them, and basically spend more time 'USING' the language they need than 'LEARNING' (which IS how they earn it in fact ).

I am glad to hear you say that, but also a bit puzzled. I don't see what repetition has to do with what you just said. It's more like playing the game.

Anyway, back when I was teaching English as a second language, there was a school of language teaching that relied heavily upon massive repetition of patterns, with no particular concern about whether what was being repeated made sense.

Kids are fascinated by physcial repetition AND repetitive use of language, but adults much prefer to be producing novel sentences and saying 'interesting' things. This impatience with 'just doing things' until you can do them well is a big part of what makes learning so ineffective for adults.

I think that that is largely unwarranted and lays blame upon the students.

Adults often feel that learning necessarily invovles (unpleasant!) EFFORT! (and so it ends up involving just that: )

Well, they have been to school.

Interesting that you mention Bruner. Here's what he says about knowledge and skill "Skill is a way of dealing with things, not a derivation from theory. Doubtless skill can be improved with the aid of theory, as when we learn about the inside and outside edges of our skis, but our skiing doesn't improve until we get that knowledge back into the skill of skiing. Knowledge helps only when it descends into habits".

There are many skills in go, and there are good and bad habits. But I do not think that it is advantageous to push the analogy to physical sports too far. Consider the snapback again. It is knowledge that is useful in go, without descending into anything like physical habits. ("Habit" in psychology does not mean the same thing as it does in the vernacular.) In driving a car, one may know about accelerating when making a turn, but the skill of making that acceleration must still be learned. The skill involved in making the plays in a snapback is something that go players have already learned before taking up go. At a higher level of skill, it is generally a mistake to rely upon habit. As Znosko-Borovsky said, "Do not make the opening moves automatically and without reflection," that is, from habit. Along those lines he also warned, "Do not play too quickly." In regard to adults asking questions, he had this to say, "Do not believe all that you are told. Examine, verify, use your reason." IOW, ask questions. Don't "just do things".

I wasn't planning to end here, but I have to go now. BTW, I have also taught taiji and swimming. Also, you may not know that I advocate overlearning, which perforce involves a certain amount of repetition. And I say that you have not mastered a problem until you can set it up. (Part of a strategic concept is its conditions.)

In regard to adults asking questions, he had this to say, "Do not believe all that you are told. Examine, verify, use your reason."

And I say that you have not mastered a problem until you can set it up.

The problem with what ZB said is that he didn't master the problem enough to set it up. One problem with too many adults is that they start yakking to the teacher from the first minute and then never stop. Examine, verify and reason only makes sense if you make a genuine effort to learn to do something well enough first the proven way. Chew on a bone, not on thin air.

John Fairbairn wrote:The problem with what ZB said is that he didn't master the problem enough to set it up. One problem with too many adults is that they start yakking to the teacher from the first minute and then never stop. Examine, verify and reason only makes sense if you make a genuine effort to learn to do something well enough first the proven way. Chew on a bone, not on thin air.

Trying to squeeze out every drop of learning by asking questions without being able to know what to ask and when.

Bill Spight wrote:

Shako wrote:

Bill Spight wrote: And so the answer is to subject adults to repetition to the point of boredom and beyond?

No, that's a horrible way of trying to learn...I agree. BUT...in language learning it means encouraging learners to fix their own objectives, do tasks that have real meaning (and so value) to them, work with native speaker materials that they've always been told are 'too hard' for them, and basically spend more time 'USING' the language they need than 'LEARNING' (which IS how they earn it in fact ).

I am glad to hear you say that, but also a bit puzzled. I don't see what repetition has to do with what you just said. It's more like playing the game.

It comes from the fact that using a language well is a kind of performance, and 'rehearsing' is very important if you want to perform well. Rehearsing a task or situation that makes sense to you because the context is clear, the objectives are clear (and self-fixed) and the advantage you gain from praticing it (for your job for example) is clear, help keep boredom at bay. (repetition just 'makes more sense' to learners this way).

Bill Spight wrote: Anyway, back when I was teaching English as a second language, there was a school of language teaching that relied heavily upon massive repetition of patterns, with no particular concern about whether what was being repeated made sense.

Still around....if it's the method I'm thinking of (and now part of a major Japanese group ). When you say it like that it almost reminds me of Joseki threads I've stumbled across around here...

Bill Spight wrote:

Shako wrote:Kids are fascinated by physcial repetition AND repetitive use of language, but adults much prefer to be producing novel sentences and saying 'interesting' things. This impatience with 'just doing things' until you can do them well is a big part of what makes learning so ineffective for adults.

I think that that is largely unwarranted and lays blame upon the students.

Yes, it does lay a part of the blame on the students (although I guess they can't help being adults ), but I feel in some ways it is largely warranted! Many people want access to a teacher NOT because they don't know what to do to improve (thinking of Go and chess more than things like tai chi here), but because learning with a teacher requires less discipline and motivation (and perhaps organisation). I think wanting that boost in motivation is a perfectly valid reason for wanting a teacher, but discipline, patience, imagination and hard-work need to be provided by the student too. You can lead a horse to water...

For you, if it's not the student's fault is it the teacher's?

Bill Spight wrote:And so the answer is to subject adults to repetition to the point of boredom and beyond?

It's an interesting turn of phrase, that. Learning something well involves some drudgery in order to internalize it. So, yes, adults must subject themselves to spots of mindnumbing boredom if they want to exceed their present level. The implication of humble submission is quite right.

Bill Spight wrote:As Znosko-Borovsky said, "Do not make the opening moves automatically and without reflection," that is, from habit.

So, he warned against putting any trust in the thousands of hours spent trying to learn the opening playbook for your preferred chess openings? That's just cruel and very dismissive of all that time you spent trying to derive the best response to any at least marginally sane responses.

An enormous amount of reflection has already gone into it. You're either a self-infatuated idiot or very well-versed, at this point. Any further doubts during play are meaningless. You can't fix not knowing the opening playbook correctly on the fly, so there's little sense worrying about it.

The only thing you should focus on is where you exit your playbook, since it's usually not deep enough to put you at checkmate. This is also why I don't like chess as much as go. It takes several moves before I actually get to play, and keeping the playbook up to date is a chore I don't enjoy.

Bill Spight wrote:In regard to adults asking questions, he had this to say, "Do not believe all that you are told. Examine, verify, use your reason." IOW, ask questions. Don't "just do things".

You need to learn the what, and also the why. It's important to know why something is correct, and you don't fully know a subject without that. However, that often gets misinterpreted as a license to constantly disrupt every explanation with incessant questions.

You don't meaningfully verify new knowledge by putting pressure on a teacher. You verify it by first taking in what you are told, then thinking it over, looking for flaws or incomplete parts. If you cannot yourself explain the gaps, you then ask the teacher.

If you interrupt the teacher's explanation, you probably didn't listen to the entire thing. If you start talking the moment the teacher stops, you probably didn't think it over.

Also, if your teacher says it's faster to just do it a few times and get the hang of it, it's probably true. This is someone who knows the subject better than you. Some provisional trust is really not that much to ask for.

I really feel that this fear of "mindless rote learning zombification" is severely overdone in western culture. It isn't supremely efficient to do rote learning without understanding properly, but it isn't such an enormous risk when you're a human being with the ability to think for yourself. You could provide the missing context yourself, if your teacher is really so awful that it isn't included in the course at all.

If you leave out the rote learning and instead have an elaborate high-level theoretical framework, along with a very positive attitude towards your own competence in the subject, you are going to dislike reality a lot.

Bill Spight wrote:

In light of that, I personally find it interesting that beginners at Go are told "Go play a lot first!" and "Go do exercises" BEFORE they get bogged down in ideas.

OC, I encourage beginners to play. But if they want to improve quickly, I advise them to play against stronger opponents. And to review their games. (During my first year of play my weakest opponent was a 5 kyu. I have no regrets about that. And we went over almost every game.)

Hmmm, exactly how typical is that?

If we are talking about learning, then there are some standard "traps" relative to how education works. One is to assume that generalising from a single example, just because it is familiar, is a good idea. It isn't. Another, relevant to this thread, is to assume that some sort of reference material which allows "lookup" is the answer. More precisely, those who learn by rote and do lookup have a tendency to blame the reference material if the answer doesn't work as well as calculating 6x7 (which is always the same, no context needed).

I think I improved most by studying, and playing casually. I would tell any beginner "no one can absorb everything at once", so you do need to play in parallel with reading. I'm not a big fan of "lose 100 games", which smacks of old-style educational theories; I think the first issue with go is how to reach the top end of the social player scale, i.e. about 15 kyu, enjoyably.

After that, it matters who you play, because you need experienced opponents; and how you study, namely how to integrate the tactics focus into a strategic view of the game that at least contains no basic fallacies. A fundamental point about strategy is "context is needed". Not the only one, though.

tentano wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:And so the answer is to subject adults to repetition to the point of boredom and beyond?

It's an interesting turn of phrase, that. Learning something well involves some drudgery in order to internalize it. So, yes, adults must subject themselves to spots of mindnumbing boredom if they want to exceed their present level. The implication of humble submission is quite right.

Well, I suppose that that explains why I haven't improved much lately. Not bored enough.