Why do some people never reach shodan

[Kirby]

Also, I do remember when I became 1d on KGS. It was an exciting time for me, and I enjoyed it. I think you will be excited when it happens to you... For a week or so. Then the novelty wears off, and it's the same feeling as being 5k - just a different number.

One idea for you: Play on WBaduk or Tygem. It's a bit easier to get to 1d there. You won't have to improve as much, but you'll "be 1d". After awhile, the novelty will wear off, and maybe 1d won't feel so special anymore. Or maybe you'll think you're cooler with 1d next to your name. Either way, maybe it's worth a shot.

[Koosh]

@Bill - I heard the square spot was a place to paint the blood drained from the man who commented during a go match!

---

I've been fortunate to know a lot of very strong go players (ranging all the way up to pro) because of my community here. Those stuck at 4d feel exactly the same way as we are discussing now. They ask themselves why they can't get to 6d or 7d like the little kid that just beat them in a tournament. In fact, I had a friend say that they were going to give up on trying to improve because despite being dedicated to Go, they still get ridiculed and fail at solving tsumego.

"His father is a pro, but I saw his last game and he isn't that good. You'll win!"

My advice to this friend is the same here. In Go clubs, we need all shapes and sizes. We need kind, intellectual, funny people that represent our wonderful community and draw new people to it. We need the type of people who you want to sit with at a board with and have a conversation. Those bratty kids will grow out of their competitive spirit and either contribute later or disappear to other pursuits.

I would rather play 10 games with a 4k who laughs and contributes to a fun time than play a single game against someone who goes somber and falls into a foul mood when he or she is losing. Playing that second type is fun during serious tournament games where you can make that the goal.

The reason I want to work my way up to 4d AGA is not so that I can be seen as a more competent player. It's because I get a rush out of playing beautifully and the higher you get, the more clearly you can see what is happening in the game. Throughout my whole go playing "career", I remember the pride I felt when I looked at the games that I played and could honestly say to myself, "Job well done. I won my game well." You can too! Don't be ashamed of mistakes; make them and learn from them, even if you have to make the same mistake 20 times.

I save every game that I play in a folder and I order them sequentially. They are my little trophies Crazy tendencies...

[Calvin Clark]

One important thing is continuity of practice. The vast majority of amateurs take huge breaks or are weekend warriors at best. I'm pretty sure I've walked and biked enough to have an iron man physique. The problem is that I did it over a lifetime, not in two years, and had a bit too much beer and pizza in between. Same for go, just substitute parenting and job for beer and pizza. (And it's not as if I quit the beer and pizza after getting a job or being a parent.)

I'm definitely under 1000 serious games, though, so no reason to complain.

[daal]

Daal, it seems like the encouraging responses haven't been able to stimulate you. I don't think reaching shodan will be easy for you but I'm sure it is possible. Yes you have read dozens of go books and spent countless hours thinking about the game. I believe your level of understanding is about shodan. I saw this in your comments on my game. Now it is a matter of bringing your playing level up to the same leven as your current understanding. I gave you a first program.

Of course you can indulge in the question governing this discussion. You already answered it too: you started fairly late. Okay, that will prevent fast progress. Neverthelees, progress is still possible. All it takes is doing the right thing. Right now, I believe it is a maatter of concentration.

On the contrary, I do feel stimulated. In fact, I am already trying to implement your advice of making it a goal to play without blundering. Doing this has made me more attentive during my play, and I do imagine that some good might come of it. Nonetheless, I've been stuck at KGS 5k for several years, and although I've made several forays into 4k territory, I haven't been able to play consistently at that level, which makes it seem not indulgent, not pessimistic but rather realistic to expect that I am one of those people who will most probably end their go playing days as a kyu. I fully concur with John when he says that "simply improving at go and so appreciating go better is sufficient reward for working harder at it," so I don't think not reaching some elusive rank is a big deal, but I am interested in why it is that way. For myself, I have identified a number of aspects of my play that keep me back, and you and others have also pointed out areas that I may not be paying enough attention to. I appreciate the suggestions and encouragement. Thanks.

[Pio2001]

Oh, I think that most everyone who is interested in go and has a good teacher at age 7 can become a strong amateur in 10 years. But anyone can become shodan is bullshit.

+1 !
It's like saying that "anyone can play the violin".

Personally, I can beat any go champion or physicist.

...Of course I mean beating the physicist at go, and the go champion at solving physics problems

[gamesorry]

Personally, I can beat any go champion or physicist.

...Of course I mean beating the physicist at go, and the go champion at solving physics problems

Check this out :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shen_Chun-shan

Shen Chun-shan, a 6-dan physicist.

[gowan]

Oh, I think that most everyone who is interested in go and has a good teacher at age 7 can become a strong amateur in 10 years. But anyone can become shodan is bullshit.

+1 !
It's like saying that "anyone can play the violin".

Personally, I can beat any go champion or physicist.

...Of course I mean beating the physicist at go, and the go champion at solving physics problems

Of course you are joking, but I know of some go 5-dan physicists

[jeromie]

I think it's interesting that the only people who are really qualified about what it takes to reach shodan are those who have already achieved that rank, but they are uniquely unqualified to discuss what it is like to be stuck short of that goal. I think there may be a massive blind spot regarding the role that talent / aptitude has to play in reaching an amateur dan rank.

I'm reminded of when my father tried to teach me how to dive as a child. He was a natural athlete, particularly in endeavors that involved a knowledge of what your body is doing. My own sense of proprioception was rather stunted; coordinating my limbs was a massive effort, and I had no idea what my body was doing once my feet left the ground. For most of my childhood, I don't think my father could understand that my failures in sport weren't just due to lack of effort - my perception of the world was just different than his. (To be fair to my father, he never pressured me into pursuing sports when my own interest waned or suggested that my success in that area had any bearing on his love for me.) I recently read an article (that I can't seem to find now, though it may have been linked from this site) that conjectured that a significant portion of the history of philosophy was driven by an inability for men who thought in words to accept that some people really did see images in their mind when they described visualizing something (and vice versa).

There is far greater variance in the way that people's minds work than most of us give credit for in our daily lives. Some people may lack the skills that are required to play go at a high level, but if you have that skill you are unlikely to recognize it as something that isn't common to all people. This is particularly true since once you reach a certain rank, you're most likely to compare yourself to people of that rank. You'll all agree that it took some amount of effort to reach that level, so it's easy to conclude that it only takes effort because you've already left behind the people that didn't have the necessary aptitude. It's also easy to point to effort as the limiting factor because no matter how much someone gives, they could always (theoretically) give more.

I don't think, however, that it's easy to conclude why any particular person hasn't reached shodan. For some, perhaps talent really is holding them back. Others, surely, have a lack of effort. Still others are making the wrong kind of effort. Another group of people might suffer from some kind of mental block or physical limitation that keeps them from achieving their potential over the course of a game. Every person's story is a little different.

No matter what our current level or limitations, though, most of us still have room for improvement. Recognizing our own limitations and finding the workarounds is one of the keys to making continued progress. (I found ways to get around some of my physical limitations and have a lot of fun with sports when I got older.) I think this is one of the reasons the prologue to Relentless recommends focusing on your strengths when trying to improve.

As for your case in particular, daal, it seems that finding a teacher would be a good next step. You've tried other paths and they haven't worked; if you really want to reach shodan, why not take a different road? At the very least, a good teacher could help you distinguish between "wrong effort" and "wrong mental approach." No matter what course you choose, I hope you can always say, "I tried my best and found many hours of joy in the game."

[sparky314]

There's two important concepts I'd like to bring up.

1. Neuroplasticity. Regardless of age, your brain continues to change. You're capable of adapting, even at an older age, to both new ideas and circumstances. As you age, there may be a slow-down of ability to progress, but that doesn't prevent progress, only speed of adaption. Perhaps, one lesson from this idea would be how to approach learning. There are other lessons from this, which I'm not qualified to comment on, but I think its an important concept to bring up.

2. Positive thinking. It's been shown, time and time again, that thinking you can't do something is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Those who are positive, who think they can, achieve much greater success. I think this relates to the neuroplasticity in a fashion, but the idea of "I'll never be able to do..." will lead to exactly that. Does this mean that if you think positively, that you can achieve shodan? No. It requires a lot more beyond that. But it does mean that if you think you can't, it's likely that you won't.

[Kirby]

I think it's interesting that the only people who are really qualified about what it takes to reach shodan are those who have already achieved that rank, but they are uniquely unqualified to discuss what it is like to be stuck short of that goal.

I both agree and disagree with this

Even if someone is shodan, they may not have the knowledge and/or expertise to help or even understand someone that is stuck short of being shodan. However... they may.

There are many cases where the expertise is not there. Many go students that are stuck get go teachers, and the teacher is not able to help or understand their situation and get them unstuck. But sometimes, the dynamic is just right, and the teacher can help. For example, they may see patterns in the students' play, which could contribute to their being stuck. Maybe letting the student know this can free them from their current level.

Each situation is different. And being skilled at go doesn't automatically make you qualified to understand someone else's situation. But it's certainly possible that your experiences along the way to your current level may be helpful to others following a similar path.

[jeromie]

I don't think we disagree, Kirby. Three out of four of the circumstances that I mentioned (lack of effort, wrong effort, wrong application during play) could be directly helped by getting a teacher. Even if someone does lack talent (whatever that means for go), a good teacher can help them reach their full potential. I'm not suggesting that a stronger player can't help weaker players, or even that they can't empathize with being stuck. I just think many of us have a blind spot that manifests as "I did X, so you must be able to do it too."

Of course, we can learn to recognize this blind spot and adjust our behavior accordingly. I have found marriage uniquely suited to this task, though I wouldn't recommend entering into it solely for that purpose.

[John Fairbairn]

I've continued reading The Rookie - the travails of a weak chess player who late in life embarks on a very frustration-ridden quest to become strong enough to hold his head up in chess circles. On the way he meets several people with similar ambitions. So far none of these people have reached their goals, and on current progress in the book it doesn't look like they ever will.

To that extent daal may be right that he will never reach shodan (but I'm still chary of accepting it's a case of "can't"). However, the book mentions a new graduate in his twenties who decided he wanted to be a grandmaster before he settled down. He worked very hard and made significant progress, reaching some sort of respectable milestone (FIDE Master?) before he gave up. He gave up because he had done enough work to realise with horror how much work would still be needed to reach his goal. He didn't want to "waste" his time any further.

I think we can all empathise with that. But the story made me realise there's another way of looking at this problem that I don't actually recall being discussed properly, even in chess. Turn it round and ask: if I do X amount of work, how much can I improve?

Obviously that's very hard to answer, but a couple of interesting points emerged from my thoughts on it. One is that you need to do quite a bit of work just to stand still, and people are apt to forget that. They wrongly equate it with lack of progress.

Second, from my experience and apparently also the experience of many on this forum, certain types of work don't seem to work for most people very well even if done intensely. Straight off I'd cite tsumego problems, learning josekis and memorising games. In these cases the amount of work needed to improve appears to be huge with little return.

On the other hand a relatively small amount of work on studying professional games seems to pay off quickly.

There are provisos to this. One is that studying pro games doesn't mean reading commentaries (that's useful but with rather low direct returns). It means studying raw games in in bulk.

I have tried this myself in the past and certainly found it was the best way forward, but I never put much effort into it. I have only two data points for cases where much effort does apply. One is the traditional Japanese advice to play over 1,000 pro games to reach shodan (in the old sense, i.e. modern 5-dan). Judging by very many anecdotes I have read, this does seem to work, though neither the proverb nor the anecdotes explain how you do the work involved.

The other one, now well known in our circles, is the case where T Mark went from 2-dan to (strong) 4-dan just by transcribing the games of Go Seigen. Coincidentally, that was just short of 1,000 games. He went on to transcribe many thousands more games yet did not make such a big or rapid improvement again (he was certainly 5-dan strength at one point but never qualified as such).

This is the more interesting case because I know quite a lot about the details.

Some of these details:

1. There were no commentaries attached.

2. He transcribed complete games (i.e. he did not follow the common practice of just playing over the fuseki, or just the fuseki and middle game).

3. This was his first big session at playing over pro games. He had previously transcribed all the games and commentaries in Invincible but (a) the number of games was not very high and (b) the commentaries and especially the variations got in the way.

4. Because it was his first major work on a single mass of uncommented games, he was very focused. Every week when he handed over the games to me to add the player/event data (we were still on floppy discs in those days), he would, with shining eyes, describe some new strategy or tactic he'd observed and we'd discuss it avidly. This seemed to reinforce what he had learnt, though it didn't have any obvious benefit for me!

5. He did this intensely over a relatively short period, and he concentrated exclusively on a single player.

6. He never had any goal of improving in mind, or even of studying. He just wanted to produce discs for sale. It was only very late in the process that he noticed his tournament results took a dramatic upward turn, but he also noticed he was able to talk about the game in a different and more interesting way.

7. He never separately studied tsumego, joseki or counting (though he had done some of this in his kyu days).

Assuming all these factors did in fact explain his improvement, we have to ask why his improvement stalled after that, apart obviously from the law of diminishing returns.

I'd cite as the most important factors that he became "too" good at transcribing and there were too many humdrum games. When he was working on Go Seigen he was still a novice at transcribing, and was relatively slow. He therefore had to spend much longer on each game. The time was spent on hunting for the next move on densely filled diagrams. His brain was working subconsciously somewhat like AlphaGo doing pattern recognition. By the time he had finished the GSG collection he had got the average time for a transcription down to under 30 minutes whereas for me it was still about 45 minutes. Eventually he trimmed his time down to about 20 minutes, but even after about just 800 games he had become adept at predicting accurately where top pros played their next moves, so that he could find them quickly on the diagram. But once he had become adept, his brain did not have to work so hard. Eventually his transcription speed also slowed significantly.

Another factor with the GSG games, which actually made transcription harder, was that Go in particular made many unpredictable moves. I highlight this because I believe one of the most significant learning experiences for all of us are the "I didn't know you could do that" moments. In fact I think that is ultimately why studying many pro games pays off so much: in every facet of the game we see a host of moves that we would never have thought of for ourselves, which not only adds a new weapon to the armoury but also provides interest and thus motivation. This is why the "humdrum" games I mentioned add a negative element to the equation.

The skill set that Mark acquired was such that he became perhaps the best lightning player in Britain and one of the best in Europe. I think that could be expected from the neural network training kind of work he was doing. What was surprising, though, was that he also became very, very good at tsumego and tesujis (but mainly of the type where you have find a surprising move - presumably he'd seen them all before!), and that he was rather good at instantly estimating the count.

Another factor that applied after he completed the GSG collection is that he never again worked as intensely on a collection of a single player. He did many collections, of course, some much bigger: Shusai, Kitani, Takemiya, Fujisawa, Sakata, Hashimoto, Yi Ch'ang-ho, Cho Hun-hyeon, etc etc. But at that stage he was dipping in and out, doing yearbook games of many different players in-between. My speculation is that this blurred the focus: no longer could he build up such an accurate network of how an individual player played and how his moves could be predicted. Having seen so many styles he was predicting too many possible moves during the transcription process. These moves were clearly not bad moves but they slowed him down and introduced inconsistency into his thought processes.

What tentatively I draw from all of this is that the time needed to play over several hundred games of one player at a smooth and moderate speed, but attempting to predict the next move, gives one measure of how much work is needed to make significant progress. But it must be focused and fairly intense. With a relatively small number of games no measurable progress can be expected (an unformed neural network is presumably almost as useless as no network).

But once this hurdle is crossed and improvement is made, further progress may well require (in addition not instead of? a different kind of study. The neural network has been formed and can now only be tweaked.

As to how long it would take you to show a very significant improvement if you followed T Mark's method, he generally aimed at a minimum of transcribing four games a day (7 days a week) and sometimes did as many as 10, but he didn't quite manage that in the early days - apart from being slower at transcription he was still working for a living. From what I recall it took him a little under six months. So I take that as the baseline. Anything shorter or less intense than that means, if you are like me for instance, you will just stand still.

[RobertJasiek]

Unlike John suggests, tsumego problem or learning josekis can also be very useful means for fast improvement - if done well. In the case of josekis, it means to also understand them and the underlying theory, and use their study as a means to get a representative overview on various details of go knowledge. Joseki study was a major factor when I improved from 8k to 1k (as part of my improvement from 10k to 1k at a rate of ca. 3 or 4 weeks per rank on average).

Maybe T M Hall was strong 4d or like 5d by British standards but certainly not by - at those times - ca. 1 rank stronger EGF standards. He never showed such strength in games against me; it was like playing a weak German 4d. Why do you suggest that he were one of Europe's strongest blitz players? I do not recall such appearance in lightningtournaments at EGCs. (Studying pro games is useful but do not make him a stronger player than he was.)

[John Fairbairn]

3) I'm somewhat surprised that T Mark's tsumego abilities improved as well, because I had assumed that most tsumegos are hidden beneath the visible part of the iceberg that is the game record. Did T Mark read out sequences while or after entering the game?

Don't know for certain, but I never saw him go over a game once he'd transcribed it.

4) I wonder whether the strength increase might be even more pronounced if the games were replayed on a real board due to kinesthetic learning, which should be more effective when moving stones rather than moving a mouse to replay.

No experience from Mark to put forward here, but there are certainly lots of comments by Japanese players that support that idea.

Unlike John suggests, tsumego problem or learning josekis can also be very useful means for fast improvement - if done well

We are talking about T Mark. I said he'd already done all that as a kyu player.

Maybe T M Hall was strong 4d or like 5d by British standards but certainly not by - at those times - ca. 1 rank stronger EGF standards.

For example he came out ahead of (and defeated) European champion Matthew Macfadyen in tournaments. He was British Open champion several times.

(Studying pro games is useful but do not make him a stronger player than he was.)

I assume you've mistyped something. If not, then I believe him and my own eyes over you, but with the reminder that I specifically said he did not "study". He trained his neural network.

[dfan]

My tournament chess rating was stuck at around 1800 for 15 years before it shot up to 2000 in my forties. I think of this as approximately a 2k->1d improvement so maybe it is relevant to this discussion. I had always studied a lot so that wasn't the difference. The main thing I did was to start learning flashcards with spaced repetition, including

• 3700+ cards (eventually) covering every position in my opening repertoire
• Exercises from strategy and tactics books (mostly Yusupov and Hellsten, if any chess players here are interested)
• Theoretical endgame positions

Of course the fact that this worked for me does not imply that it is a general solution for everyone. I'm hopeful I can use similar techniques to improve at go. We'll see!

How do I play differently from an 1800 player now?

• Obviously I can now play the opening faster and more accurately.
• I am less often at a loss for what to do next; I know (and can recall) enough strategic patterns that at least one will probably fit.
• I am better at pruning my tree of variations when calculating, focusing only on moves that are likely to be fruitful.
• I play the proper move a lot more. At 1800 I was much more likely to say "I know the proper move is to play A but I think I can get away with B". Now I listen to the angel on my shoulder much more than the devil. (This is something I would probably have to unlearn somewhat if I got much stronger, which I won't. )

These all seem pretty relevant to go as well, and I can easily imagine myself being better at them than I am now.

How does a 2200 player play differently from me? Of course his calculating skills are stronger and he know more patterns. But largely I think he just wants it more. He concentrates hard on every move, and if I pull ahead he will fight back hard on every move, instead of collapsing, lashing out, or marching glumly to the end as we all know it is easy to do. These are skills I can work on too, in go as well as chess.