Life In 19x19

I've got a potential helper or two on the way and am ready to start my club.

I have a good idea of how I'm going to handle and teach the newcomers. I've done enough research and am good enough with people and teaching in general to know I can handle this without any problems.

The problem is when you get to the nitty gritty of Go. I'm referring to that period where you are faced with a large 361-point board and have no idea what you're doing. Worse, you play as hard as you can and things never line up. You want to win and learn but you're just not getting it.

In short, the part of learning Go when you have to push through the tunnel until you see the light.

The beginning is fresh and new and exciting, and the journey towards new strength and enjoyment is breathtaking, but there's a part of the whole experience that's simply frustrating. This is where your love of Go is tested. This is where players are won or lost.

I haven't found any pointers yet on how to handle this stage of the beginner's introduction to Go. Is there a way to help them enjoy the game through this period? Do I gently drill the fundamentals into them until they see the purpose behind their own moves? It's an important step in their learning, but I'd like to get those who reach this stage get through it in a minimal amount of time and in as pleasant a manner as possible.

So I turn to all of you who have nurtured players past the Stage of Irritation and Self-Doubt. How did you do it?


P.S.: I know that not everyone goes through this and sees it as an ordeal, but some will, and I want to make sure to retain as many willing players as possible...

Past self-doubt? When did that happen?

Hi Phoenix,

Phoenix wrote:...when you have to push through the tunnel until you see the light.

Very good question; also, very difficult, I think.

Since chess seems to be much more successful in this regard -- there's a recent thread somewhere
talking about how chess in the US started focusing on the youth many years ago,
and that has made a big difference, but I don't know where's the thread.

A few things I've observed from experience -- some about Go specifically, some in general --
in no particular order of priority, I just label them for easier reference later:

(a) adults and children are different. Teaching them can (but does not necessarily have to) be different.
What works for adults may not work for children, and vice versa.

(b) everybody is different; every student is unique, every teacher is unique.
(It may be possible to find some general ideas, but, this can also be a trap.)

(c) there's no "one light" at "the end" of the tunnel -- the tunnel is infinitely long;
there are only occasional, sporadic windows here and there along the way.

(d) Corollary to (c): another analogy is the mountain is infinitely high; there are fog layers everywhere.
We can only take one step at a time, even when we find ourselves completely lost in one fog layer --
as long as we take it one step at a time, eventually there's a chance we can suddenly see
that we have passed the most recent fog layer, and momentarily we can see clearly,
but we walk some more, and we hit the next fog layer -- the process repeats itself.

(It's more difficult for children to relate to (d), because usually they lack the experience;
but for adults with certain life experience, they can relate to (d) better.)

(e) Corollary to (b): different strokes for different folks -- it's not easy to find out
what motivates an individual -- the individual teacher has to teach the individual student
over some time to figure out what works for this particular student and what does not.
Some people enjoy doing Life-and-Death problems; others hate it -- what can you do?

(f) Go is not for everybody. I dunno how to sugar coat this, but at least it's not for quitters.

(g) Corollary to (c,d,f): Go is a life-long marathon, not a 100-meter dash.
(The irony is if we asked the Olympic 100-meter dashers, I suspect they would also say
their 100-meter dash training process IS a marathon!! )

Either specific advice
1) "look at the board as a whole and for every move play each stone independently of the previous order of moves. What might make the most points, or ensure life or cause death"
2) Recommend the book "Opening Made Easy"

Or I'll switch tactics and talk about the other reasons for enjoying go:
3) "you know that feeling of learning something new and realizing what you 'knew' before was wrong, that seems to be consistent at least up to dan level."
4) "I really enjoy the philosophical aspects and how go relates to life: balance, humility, always someone better than you, give and take, mutual life."

1. Start on 9x9 boards. Recommend it, but if someone insists on playing 19x19 then you should obviously let them.
2. Show them gently commented openings suitable for beginners (I don't know where to find these).

Thanks, msreg and EdLee. I have to keep in mind that everyone is different and Go is a journey. I just find there's a sink-or-swim period where a lot of people give up on the game. I'll be sure to encourage when necessary, and keep my senses open.

I love the "The Opening Made Easy" part. The opening is something I've gotten some sort of a handle on only in the last few months. For beginners it's HUGELY confusing.

hyperpape wrote:1. Start on 9x9 boards. Recommend it, but if someone insists on playing 19x19 then you should obviously let them.
2. Show them gently commented openings suitable for beginners (I don't know where to find these).

Openings again... I'm definitely starting everyone on 9x9 unless they object. I don't really want to teach them opening patterns though. I did that for a while and ended up losing so many more games than I had beforehand. Understanding the relation between territory and power, the idea behind approaches and pincers, etc, helps much more to grow as a player in my opinion.

I didn't have a teacher, so this is very experimental. I do have to agree that Go is definitely not for quitters!

I would even recommend starting with Capture-Go on a 5x5 and then 7x7 board (but it can depend on the ages and disposition of your pupils). It gives them an easier chance to win right away, and they can progress quicker to larger boards and regular go.

I learned on a full 19x19 and tried to teach my kids the same way quite unsuccessfully. The first time I watched someone else teaching with Capture-Plus on a 5x5 board, I was intrigued but skeptical. After watching a few more times I was impressed -- and hooked on how easy it was to introduce beginners to the game.

Though, I was confused for a long time why they kept insisting on calling it Capture-Plus. It seemed such an unnecessary distinction from just saying "Capture-Go" or "Atari-Go". But I much later learned that there was a different variation of the same name and that the difference was that with Plus, you could end the game with passes and count territory. I had no idea that anyone would just keep playing, filling in their own territory and killing themselves.

And I was always impressed with the 6D teacher who would always warn his new students at the start with, "you won't capture me...", hinting that this teaching variation of the game is not about capturing (as people often think, from the name), but rather it is about not leaving behind weaknesses before attacking. Its about paying attention to your own stones as well as your opponent's stones -- recognizing when you're in atari before its too late (a common beginner problem)

xed_over wrote:I would even recommend starting with Capture-Go on a 5x5 and then 7x7 board (but it can depend on the ages and disposition of your pupils). It gives them an easier chance to win right away, and they can progress quicker to larger boards and regular go.

I learned on a full 19x19 and tried to teach my kids the same way quite unsuccessfully. The first time I watched someone else teaching with Capture-Plus on a 5x5 board, I was intrigued but skeptical. After watching a few more times I was impressed -- and hooked on how easy it was to introduce beginners to the game.

Though, I was confused for a long time why they kept insisting on calling it Capture-Plus. It seemed such an unnecessary distinction from just saying "Capture-Go" or "Atari-Go". But I much later learned that there was a different variation of the same name and that the difference was that with Plus, you could end the game with passes and count territory. I had no idea that anyone would just keep playing, filling in their own territory and killing themselves.

And I was always impressed with the 6D teacher who would always warn his new students at the start with, "you won't capture me...", hinting that this teaching variation of the game is not about capturing (as people often think, from the name), but rather it is about not leaving behind weaknesses before attacking. Its about paying attention to your own stones as well as your opponent's stones -- recognizing when you're in atari before its too late (a common beginner problem)

I talked about no-pass Capture Go in another thread. I think it's a great and organic way to teach the very basics of the game.

However, I'm concerned with the playing-on-a-full-board-pulling-your-hairs-out-thinking-what-am-I-doing part of the learning experience.

Phoenix wrote:The problem is when you get to the nitty gritty of Go. I'm referring to that period where you are faced with a large 361-point board and have no idea what you're doing.

That means you're a go player.

(Actually, I did not face that problem until I was an SDK. Before then, I didn't know enough to be undecided. )

I haven't found any pointers yet on how to handle this stage of the beginner's introduction to Go. Is there a way to help them enjoy the game through this period? Do I gently drill the fundamentals into them until they see the purpose behind their own moves? It's an important step in their learning, but I'd like to get those who reach this stage get through it in a minimal amount of time and in as pleasant a manner as possible.

My feeling, based upon my experience as both a beginner and a teacher, is not to teach too much.

I also like starting out on small boards.

But I started on the 19x19 and always had some idea where to play. At first they were bad ideas, and did not make much go sense. The first game I played against my 5 kyu teacher, he tried to correct me during the game, but I asked him not to, and he kept quiet. IMX it is easy to stifle people's impulses by early correction. You want to shape behavior, not squelch it.

What if they freeze up? Then I would address the freezing up, not the go.

I have never used a go checklist myself, but they help some people.

What if they are dithering? Well, as bridge great Terence Reese said, Don't dither.

I think that go always has an aspect of jumping in the river to learn how to swim. After all, if you opponent is any good, he will give you problems to solve. (I suppose that it would be possible to create a course in go that would have enough detail so that the beginner never faces that challenge. After a year or two of study, he would be ready to play a game. )

EdLee wrote:(f) Go is not for everybody. I dunno how to sugar coat this, but at least it's not for quitters.

There was a time when hippies got interested in go. The Glass Bead Game, or something. As a friend said, "They like it until they find out that you actually have to think."

Welcome back, Bill!

The method I'm going to use will definitely involve giving students some space. In fact after the introduction I'm pretty much planning to point out something here and there, and mostly waiting for them to ask when they want some insight.

In the past, teaching different things, I've always found that belching industrious amounts of knowledge and/or correcting all the time does NOT work out. I learned this teaching badminton informally and finding people will improve devilishly fast with a very minimal amount of coaching. I used to tell people exactly how to hold the grip and which angle to place the foot and how to maximize your recovery. Now I save those details for much later and instead focus on general concepts that will help them more quicker.

It takes a LOT more work to correct bad habits than to instill correct ones early on, but if it comes at the price of players losing interest, feeling cramped and leaving frustrated, then both parties can put in the extra effort later. If they reach a higher level and THEN get frustrated, I will show them the finer technical details.

In Go I plan to shift the focus to how much fun the game is, and then go into how to improve, IF I'm dealing with someone who wishes to improve.

Bill Spight wrote:What if they freeze up? Then I would address the freezing up, not the go.

This, this, and this again.

I've been strongly encouraging one of my students to go wild with invasions (particularly contact play ones) and open with 5-3 stones for a few games to broaden horizons and give new perspectives on the game. I think one of the most valuable roles a teacher can have is to encourage students to break down the walls that they themselves have put in front of them. At the end of the day, the majority of the improvement that a player gets is due to their own graft - playing games, studying professional games, solving go problems etc, but injecting some joy and satisfaction in the process of doing so can be a very simple and valuable contribution for a teacher to make. Of course, a teacher can offer sequences, tesuji etc that the student simply wouldn't have seen to speed up the progress of learning, but I see this as only a piece or two in a much bigger puzzle of being succesful at teaching.

Opening a students eyes to equip themselves to self-learn and keep the motivation to do so cannot be understated IMNSHO.

Phoenix wrote:I don't really want to teach them opening patterns though. I did that for a while and ended up losing so many more games than I had beforehand. Understanding the relation between territory and power, the idea behind approaches and pincers, etc, helps much more to grow as a player in my opinion.

Good. There's no need for *patterns*, especially if you mean something like "this is the chinese opening."

What I'd like to see is a set of gentle comments on games (both well-played and poorly played) that highlight aspects of the opening. Start with the most basic: corners, sides, center, playing big approaches, making a base, the dynamics of pincers. No complicated joseki (never the word joseki). Mention all five (or six or seven!) first moves in the corner.

Really, you could do this with a book, with game commentaries, or even just showing things on the board.

Bill's comment about not teaching/lecturing too much is apt, but I wish I knew where to find this material for a student who was interested.

Phoenix wrote:In the past, teaching different things, I've always found that belching industrious amounts of knowledge and/or correcting all the time does NOT work out. I learned this teaching badminton informally and finding people will improve devilishly fast with a very minimal amount of coaching.

topazg wrote:I think one of the most valuable roles a teacher can have is to encourage students to break down the walls that they themselves have put in front of them.
{snip}
Opening a students eyes to equip themselves to self-learn and keep the motivation to do so cannot be understated IMNSHO.

Amen, my brothers, amen!

topazg wrote:"I played a trick play and my opponent fell for it, unfortunately he didn't know the correct followup, so I died"

That put me in mind of a game I played 8 or 9 months after learning the game. It was the first time I had played at the Nihon Kiin, at the club by Tokyo station. My opponent was a 2 dan, who gave me 7 stones. I had never played with an open corner before, so I got him to let me place 4 stones around tengen.