Life In 19x19

After some deliberations I came to the conclusion that there is no such thing as fundamentals. It's the biggest lie in the go world used for artificially explaining why some people are stronger than others.

It is used in a similar fashion religions were initially used for explaining why some people were richer, stronger, smarter, etc. Rich people were saying "it's god's wish, I pray more, I believe in god more and you see the result". Then, no further questions... But that's not the truth. The bitter truth is that some people are simply stronger, smarter, quicker, etc. No need for other explanations.

The discussion about fundamentals reminds me of that, partially thanks(!) to Kageyama. Weak players (such as myself) think that they are weak because they did not grasp the fundamentals well enough. But that's not the truth. The bitter truth is that some people visualize better, learn the shapes and sequences quicker, can concentrate for a longer time, etc. That's all. Even the slow learners do learn, and that's why they improve, even if it's slow. Then they get a relief by thinking "oh thanks god I must have had a better understanding of fundamentals".

So, my conclusion is that strength has nothing to do with fundamentals, of which a clear definition does not exist anyway.

Unfortunately, I don't have a proof for that. But I think the burden of proof is on those who claim that there is such thing as fundamentals.

EDIT: This thought was initiated by my rereading Kageyama yesterday and watching some korean high dan players crazy fights.

Of course, abilities of visualization, memorization and reading play a great role for strength. IMO, knowledge plays another great role. Knowledge of whatever (tactics, strategy, concepts etc.). Knowledge is better for strength than missing knowledge. Knowledge can be about fundamentals or about more advanced things.

As an author of a book with Fundamentals in its title, of course I do "believe" in the existence of fundamentals.

You need to be convinced of their existence. Ok. You have just killed a group, you think, and so later you are going to play elsewhere all the time. This is not enough. a) You should have verified that what you think is right: that the group is indeed dead. b) You should update the verification after every new move "elsewhere" on the board. Reminding oneself to do both tasks at all belongs to the fundamentals. It is very easy to do such tasks (of reminding oneself to do something at all) - fundamentally easy. However, if nevertheless you neglect that, then suddenly the opponent will awake you when resurrecting the group.

A clear definition of fundamentals? An interesting request:)

What do you mean by fundamentals? Is this a critique of Kageyama's view on fundamentals?

Saying that there's no such thing as fundamentals sounds odd. Fundamentals are the foundation of play. For instance, reducing eyespace is the first thing one should do in order to kill a group. Group with access to center can escape and playing inside can turn out to be a terrible mistake. There are of course cases where further reducing eyespace won't work, so we have to turn into vital points.

Toge wrote:reducing eyespace is the first thing one should do in order to kill a group. Group with access to center can escape

Repeating falsehoods does not make them correct. (Replace "the" by "one of the", "do" by "consider" and "can" by "usually can" and we come closer to the truth.)

I agree that the way we use the word "fundamentals" it is just a cover-story for a lot of things, we don't bother to explain or we can't explain, respectively point out.
The fundamentals in Go are all the things, which make Go Go.

The saying, one lacks the fundamentals is just a lazy way to say, here you didn't read well enough because of..., here this shape is inefficient because of..., here you had this possibility to..., here this Josekis doesn't work well with your stones/strategy because of... and so on. This applies to every level of strength, for a beginner it's just easier to point out in most cases.

RobertJasiek wrote:A clear definition of fundamentals? An interesting request:)

But a valid one isn't it? If someone tells me "study the fundamentals and you will be xy dan in no time", then I should have the right to ask "ok, what exactly should I study?"

Toge wrote:What do you mean by fundamentals? Is this a critique of Kageyama's view on fundamentals?

Yes. What I mean by fundamentals is what Kageyama calls fundamentals.

Toge wrote:Saying that there's no such thing as fundamentals sounds odd. Fundamentals are the foundation of play. For instance, reducing eyespace is the first thing one should do in order to kill a group. Group with access to center can escape and playing inside can turn out to be a terrible mistake. There are of course cases where further reducing eyespace won't work, so we have to turn into vital points.

I know it sounds odd. I must admit that I used the sentence in a provokative manner For example making two eyes to live, is a fundamental thing, of course. What I mean is that I don't know what exactly to study when someone suggests me to study the fundamentals. Thus, the suggestion becomes equivalent to "study everything, joseki, shape, life&death, haengma etc etc etc". With all due respect, such a suggestion is meaningless.

RobertJasiek wrote:(Replace "the" by "one of the", "do" by "consider" and "can" by "usually can" and we come closer to the truth.)

That itself is pretty fundamental advice

Don't just play the [shape|proverb|fundamental] move. Read! (But read the proverb move first).
(Perhaps not so surprisingly, Kageyama also repeatedly makes this point in his book.).

entropi wrote:Yes. What I mean by fundamentals is what Kageyama calls fundamentals.

[...]

What I mean is that I don't know what exactly to study when someone tells me to study the fundamentals. Thus, the suggestions becomes equivalent to "study everything, joseki, shape, life&death, haengma etc etc etc". With all due respect, such a suggestion is meaningless.

I don't think that "fundamentals" means everything. On the contrary. When Kageyama talks about fundamentals, he means relatively simple things that are often neglected by strong amateurs in favor of studying more "advanced" things.

He definitely does not mean you should study haengma. He advises us to study simple things, like capturing stones in the best way. I agree that he does a bad job in explaining how exactly to do that. But I think that's beside the point. He often points out that "dan players" like to study [insert some advanced concept], while still not having a firm grasp on [insert some simple concept]. Basically, his book is a reminder that we should get a firm grasp on the simple things ("fundamentals") before turning to advanced concepts. And his book also contains a list of examples what he considers to be "fundamentals".

The only problem is that sometimes he just tells us "what" to study, but not "how" it actually works
That's the reason why I think "Lessons in the fundamentals" is not so good for low-level players. I think it's actually targeted at a high level audience, that is, at least strong kyu, probably dan.

entropi wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't have a proof for that. But I think the burden of proof is on those who claim that there is such thing as fundamentals.

I'm in the camp that do believe in fundamentals and as one who has discussed (and tried to define) fundamentals in earlier threads, I'll take a shot --

Fundamentals are a set of principles and techniques that when applied in common positions are unlikely to greatly reduce a player's chance of winning.


I say this because it is not uncommon for a player to look back at the game and find a "losing move" where their position was dramatically worse (for some value of dramatically) after a given play. A fundamental move is one that, while not necessarily the most effective move, is unlikely to leave a large opening, or allow for a large gain by your opponent. In short, fundamentals might not win you a game, but they will prevent you from losing it. Many times it is not a race to win, but holding out long enough to not be the first to lose.

entropi wrote:If someone tells me "study the fundamentals and you will be xy dan in no time", then I should have the right to ask "ok, what exactly should I study?"

http://www.igoindonesia.org/tutorial-go ... -hard.html
Perhaps this article will be able to help you figure out exactly how to study to become xy dan if you are willing to spend enough time.

If you want someone to tell you "how to be xy dan in no time", it looks like it's just not possible without hard tedious effort.

entropi wrote:But a valid one isn't it?

Sure. I would take the challenge if I had enough time for it.

If someone tells me "study the fundamentals and you will be xy dan in no time", then I should have the right to ask "ok, what exactly should I study?"

The, uh, fundamentals of every topic or skill. Study reading, strategic concepts, decision making etc. For each topic, study all the fundamentals you can find, that is the basic principles, basic methods and other basic bits.

Thus, the suggestion becomes equivalent to "study everything, joseki, shape, life&death, haengma etc etc etc". With all due respect, such a suggestion is meaningless.

You got it, except that it is not meaningless. Do it! Don't complain about having to do it but do study the basics of all the topics. And since finding the fundamentals by oneself can be tedious, read books that have done the tough work for you and you only need to read and learn and learn to apply what you read.

You dislike Kageyama because he only tells you to do it. Read my books because they provide a great number of the basics (except the ability to read and solve problems). Read more books on fundamentals because they provide alternative views.

Mef wrote:

entropi wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't have a proof for that. But I think the burden of proof is on those who claim that there is such thing as fundamentals.

I'm in the camp that do believe in fundamentals and as one who has discussed (and tried to define) fundamentals in earlier threads, I'll take a shot --

Fundamentals are a set of principles and techniques that when applied in common positions are unlikely to greatly reduce a player's chance of winning.


I say this because it is not uncommon for a player to look back at the game and find a "losing move" where their position was dramatically worse (for some value of dramatically) after a given play. A fundamental move is one that, while not necessarily the most effective move, is unlikely to leave a large opening, or allow for a large gain by your opponent. In short, fundamentals might not win you a game, but they will prevent you from losing it. Many times it is not a race to win, but holding out long enough to not be the first to lose.

What you define sounds like a "proper move" that leave as little aji as possible. But is it the same thing as "fundamentals"? It may be one interpretetation but others may very well interpret in a completely different way.

For example flOvermind interpreted it as something like "simple things", which is clearly different than your interpretation. Both interpretations may be valid.

Further interpretations may easily be found all of which may also be valid. But this is a proof (or let's say an indication) that there is indeed no clear definition of the concept of fundamentals. I said it in simpler words like "there is no such thing as fundamentals".

If you want the simplest explanation of the fundamentals of go: efficiency

RobertJasiek wrote:

Toge wrote:reducing eyespace is the first thing one should do in order to kill a group. Group with access to center can escape

Repeating falsehoods does not make them correct. (Replace "the" by "one of the", "do" by "consider" and "can" by "usually can" and we come closer to the truth.)

- What appears to be repeating the alleged "falsehoods", some say, pertains to "truth" in some subjective sense of word, which may or may not at some part have relation to experience of an individual.

tchan001 wrote:http://www.igoindonesia.org/tutorial-go/115-article/846-to-become-a-master-of-go-is-not-easy-but-became-an-amateur-5d-or-6d-its-not-hard.html

When he describes how his joseki tour was wasted time, then it's because he learnt them by heart. The right way is to study joseki for the sake of understanding fundamentals and meanings.

If you want someone to tell you "how to be xy dan in no time", it looks like it's just not possible without hard tedious effort.

There is an exception: 1 dan. The amount of work to reach 1d is small enough for such a saying. But "no time" is, of course, misleading.

entropi wrote:For example flOvermind interpreted it as something like "simple things", which is clearly different than your interpretation. Both interpretations may be valid.

Further interpretations may easily be found all of which may also be valid. But this is a proof (or let's say an indication) that there is indeed no clear definition of the concept of fundamentals. I said it in simpler words like "there is no such thing as fundamentals".

flOvermind's description is very good. Maybe you can adapt to the idea of "relatively simple". If you try to advance to difficult levels, then the simpler levels are more or less presumed.