Life In 19x19

Teaching with understanding and explanation is an advantage to teaching by example because the former includes the latter. This, however, does not mean that typical Western teachers would be just better than typical Eastern teachers, who also have other qualities: fast LD reading, fast value calculation. AI may have been a wake up call for overcoming too example-focussed teaching but AI does not do wonders other than strong AI play and learning from that as an alternative source of examples.

I heavily disagree that the european teachers are superiour by any means,the teachers at least in my experience in China have always excellent ways to explain ais move with tewari or comparing it with well known positions,they force the children to think for themself so much more than in europe that is more focused on fun and joy,its a very big misconception that they only rely on ai and that they play moves they dont understand,its basicly the opposite
I can not figure out any single point that could be better here than there.

Apparently you know the wrong European teachers when you suggest that they would not force the pupils to think for themselves, would emphasise fun, would rely on AI and would play moves that they don't understand. Tewari applies only occasionally so should not be over-emphasised. Your experience in China does, however, suggest that Chinese teaching must have improved greatly compared to what I have seen Chinese professionals explaining at European tournaments.

I think they might be lost in translation, so they cant express themself as good as they want to,also I believe they threat us more like a customer when they are in europe, i think forcing the student to think is also applied here,but i meant not the same degree and consequence as in for example china.

Usually, they speak English or good translation has been provided. Of course, there are occasional cases of language barrier.

RobertJasiek wrote:Apparently you know the wrong European teachers when you suggest that they would not force the pupils to think for themselves, would emphasise fun, would rely on AI and would play moves that they don't understand. Tewari applies only occasionally so should not be over-emphasised. Your experience in China does, however, suggest that Chinese teaching must have improved greatly compared to what I have seen Chinese professionals explaining at European tournaments.

After all, everyone has their own goals in the game. Someone learns strategic thinking, and someone does not want to strain, and just gets fun.

Four things are important in order to study go, in no particular order:
-Study theory
-Practice tsumego
-Study pro games
-Play a lot

The impact of AI affects the third point only.

Pio2001 wrote:Four things are important in order to study go, in no particular order:
-Study theory
-Practice tsumego
-Study pro games
-Play a lot

The impact of AI affects the third point only.

Most professionals I heard or saw on the matter highlight 3 activities:

1. play
2. review (preferably with someone else, preferably stronger)
3. tsumego

AI now affects #2

AI also affects the often but not always mentioned "studying pro games"

On topic: in my own reviews, I will always consult AI. The added value of human tutoring at any level is that you can spot patterns in the reviewee's mistakes and suggest a prioritized learning. That can close their mind too. The benefit of a teacher beyond expertise is discipline and motivation, depending on what drives a student.

On the topic of culture in teaching: I know a few things about why the Chinese excel at table tennis. Westerners go there to learn the latest secrets. Not everything translates well in our language or transfers well from teacher's expectations to pupil attitude. We tend to magnify the repetitive aspect of their training and ignore the short but focused explanations that precede it, which carry a lot of attention to detail.

Knotwilg wrote: Most professionals I heard or saw on the matter highlight 3 activities:

1. play
2. review (preferably with someone else, preferably stronger)
3. tsumego

They also highlight evaluation (positional judgment or endgame calculations) and strategy but often do not explain these well enough.

RobertJasiek wrote:

Knotwilg wrote: Most professionals I heard or saw on the matter highlight 3 activities:

1. play
2. review (preferably with someone else, preferably stronger)
3. tsumego

They also highlight evaluation (positional judgment or endgame calculations) and strategy but often do not explain these well enough.

Yes in Asia they put high emphasize on it and study it separately, its also the funniest difference of skills, an average european player rarely counts (from my experience) and in china it seemed even 1kyu count faster and more accurate than 6dans in europe,its a different world

If 1k count better in China than in Europe (seems like a broad generalization, by the way), some other aspect of their play must be worse. Otherwise, they wouldn't be 1k, right?

Kirby wrote:If 1k count better in China than in Europe (seems like a broad generalization, by the way), some other aspect of their play must be worse. Otherwise, they wouldn't be 1k, right?

The other hypothesis is that counting isn't very important!

dfan wrote:

Kirby wrote:If 1k count better in China than in Europe (seems like a broad generalization, by the way), some other aspect of their play must be worse. Otherwise, they wouldn't be 1k, right?

The other hypothesis is that counting isn't very important!

Hehe, right.

Well it depends if one prefers winning more often or not;)

Kirby wrote:If 1k count better in China than in Europe (seems like a broad generalization, by the way), some other aspect of their play must be worse. Otherwise, they wouldn't be 1k, right?

Absolutely their opening and direction is bad,(compared to european standards) it is generalzaton,but the general idea is true for sure although i have no factual proof,rather experience