Study?
Michael Alford
"Looking for a fun game to play competitively". In particular, I am
interested in what people think of reading Go books in an effort to improve
playing strength. I have been playing Go, off and on, for over 30 years, and
on a good day, I play at an AGA 2d level. I learned to play Go from books,
and have always enjoyed reading Go books, which was not the case with Chess,
Bridge (per the posted article) ... however, I find that no matter how much
study I put in with the printed material available, I make no progress.
Several friends have told me that to improve beyond this point, one must have
a teacher. Indeed, that seems to be the case; I have recently paid for some
lessons from a stronger player (for the first time in said 30+ years), and
they, if fact, seem to be helping. So I find myself in this rather odd
position of enjoying Go books, but unable to make progress by reading them,
while paying for lessons, which I have a negative attitude towards, does seem
to be affecting my play. So, I am curious as to others' experience in this
regard. In particular, if you play at a stronger level than AGA 2d, how did
you get to that level? Natural ability? And what did you do when you reached
your personal limit? Lessons? More books? I ask, because I have decided
that, for me, the existing literature is inadequate. This is, the information
I need may be in the books, but I do not possess the skills to dig it out; or,
the information may simply not be there, in the books. As I said, lessons
from stronger players do make more sense than books, at this point, for me. I
hesitate to bore you with a list of the English available Go books I have, not
to mention the Go books I have in Japanese and Chinese :)
So, how did you do it? All you Charles Matthews, Denis Feldman, John
Fairbain, Steve Fawthrop players? Is it simply the limit of your innate
ability, or did you study? And, if you studied, HOW and WHAT?
malf
PS: I don't know much about other games, but if those of you that want to
learn a game with few rules that can only be played well through experience
are reading this thread, ... I am available to play Hearts (a card game), any
time, for, say, $0.25/point... :-)
Robert Jasiek
Michael Alford wrote:
> In particular, I am
> interested in what people think of reading Go books in an effort to improve
> playing strength.
If only the books are sufficiently good and suitable for the reader
and if he likes to study by reading, then improvement should be
possible. OTOH, so far books for dan players are not sufficiently
good mostly. Their problem is that they hardly tell the reader
what he must learn from them to improve; he has to know this by
himself.
> I have been playing Go, off and on, for over 30 years, and
> on a good day, I play at an AGA 2d level. I learned to play Go from books,
> and have always enjoyed reading Go books [...]
> however, I find that no matter how much
> study I put in with the printed material available, I make no progress.
Until European 3d you should make progress by reading books. However,
while a few dozen books are good enough to become European 1k, it
takes one or two hundred books to become 3d, given the currently low
average quality of books. Besides, you must study a lot of pro games
(say 3,000) and a reasonable amount of tsumego (say 3,000).
> Several friends have told me that to improve beyond this point, one must have
> a teacher.
No. It may be slightly different from person to person, but IMO
until you are European 3d, you do not need a teacher but "just"
must find out what you overlook fundamentally in your understanding.
Above 3d it continues to be different from person to person but then
the learning effort really starts. In terms of bad books, then one
should read several hundreds to improve mainly by means of studying
books. There are other ways than reading such a large number of
books, like discussing with roughly equally strong players.
It took me the same amount of study from 3d to 4d as from 60k to 3d.
>From 4d to 5d I needed about the same amount as from 60k to 4d.
(European ranks.) Difficulty increases exponentially but the crucial
point is that until 3d it is relatively easy. If you spend too little
time on studying, then the exponential behaviour can even stop your
progress at a lower level like yours. Consider to increase study time
by a factor 4 for the next 6 months and see whether that is enough...
> Indeed, that seems to be the case; I have recently paid for some
> lessons from a stronger player (for the first time in said 30+ years), and
> they, if fact, seem to be helping.
A good teacher should detect what your understanding misses
fundamentally. If you cannot detect that by yourself, then a
teacher can be very efficient for you.
> So I find myself in this rather odd
> position of enjoying Go books, but unable to make progress by reading them,
I know, I am in a similar position at the level European 5d. I try
hard to find out my fundamental knowledge gaps. I do not know any
teacher who would have been able to detect them. If occasionally
professionals analyse my games, then I need to encourage them to
teach me in a way that I am enabled to detect them myself. OC,
professionals always insist that one should read ahead faster (and
I study reading ahead as well).
> while paying for lessons, which I have a negative attitude towards,
Why? If you can afford it, why should your attitude be negative?
(Professional) teachers have invested dozens of thousands of hours
to be able to teach you. Why should they not deserve honoraries?
> In particular, if you play at a stronger level than AGA 2d, how did
> you get to that level?
To please Milton, yes, I am also a little bright so that I can learn
even from doubtful books:) The single most important factor for
improving is TIME. Clearly, 100 hours study and play per week let you
improve faster than 10 hours, by experience. Otherwise, I just read
books, played through pro games, and studied reading ahead. As I
have indicated above, while doing so, I always also think about what
to think, i.e. which fundamental gaps to discover and then fill.
(Needless to say, I do likewise for every detail.)
> Natural ability?
It would be an exaggeration to say that that would not be a factor.
However, go is a game that allows various very different mental
approaches. If only you like thinking at all, chances are great that
there is at least some way that lets you become European 3d if you
study enough. IMO, somebody able to study at university is also able
to study go instead and become 5d, if only he invests as much time.
Becoming 5d is a full time job for some years at least.
> And what did you do when you reached your personal limit?
I do not believe in my personal limit being below 9p. I just lack
sufficient time to study and structural access to 9p knowledge,
since strong professionals have not been able to teach their
structural knowledge, except for training reading ahead and
database knowledge. Because I have no professional teachers here,
I must find all the structural high level knowledge myself. This
is not such a great pity - it enables me to write go books and
develop computer go programs. The only pity is that I am not 9p
yet;)
What I am studying at my current level? I do about the same as
before: I study everything, especially my weak points, and I
continue to discover my fundamental gaps.
> Lessons? More books?
Yes:)
> I ask, because I have decided
> that, for me, the existing literature is inadequate.
So it is. Since it is, one must think about what to learn
from it nevertheless.
> This is, the information
> I need may be in the books, but I do not possess the skills to dig it out; or,
Recognizing this fact is the first step towards possibly digging
it out in future. Otherwise, see above: you might indeed need
good teachers.
> the information may simply not be there, in the books.
In principle, everything is hidden in the pro games. Just the
book authors do not know how to present the hidden knowledge
easily to their readers.
> hesitate to bore you with a list of the English available Go books I have, not
> to mention the Go books I have in Japanese and Chinese :)
Eh, why hide any exciting lists?:)
> And, if you studied, HOW and WHAT?
Which books? You know, I have written about that before, and also
have a look at my webpage:)
--
robert jasiek
Barry Phease
wrote:
>
>
>Michael Alford wrote:
>> In particular, I am
>> interested in what people think of reading Go books in an effort to improve
>> playing strength.
>
>If only the books are sufficiently good and suitable for the reader
>and if he likes to study by reading, then improvement should be
>possible. OTOH, so far books for dan players are not sufficiently
>good mostly. Their problem is that they hardly tell the reader
>what he must learn from them to improve; he has to know this by
>himself.
It is a sort of laziness to expect to improve at anything simply by
reading books. The combination of reading books and playing can
progress you to any level you want, depending on who you are playing
with and how you approach the games. But you must put in some effort
to make sure that you understand the moves in your games after you
have played them.
A teacher can help as they can point to consistent mistakes that you
are making. However it is only through hard work that you can turn
these suggestions into supbstantial improvement.
The books available in English contain practically all the theory that
is available. However there is no way that any book can teach you
exactly what you need to know. You have to find this out for
yourself.
--------
Barry Phease
mailto:bar...@es.co.nz"
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~barryp"
Tyler
Are you reviewing your own games?
I think if you just read books, it'll help your ability to read. But
everyone has mistakes they make, and they won't stop making them until they
see the mistakes (admitting you have a problem)
A teacher can do that. As can reviewing your own games. A teacher is faster,
but you should still review your own games, to supplement what you get from
your teacher.
Tyler
"Michael Alford" <ma...@spiritone.com> wrote in message
news:avsbn...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Robert Jasiek
Barry Phease wrote:
> The books available in English contain practically all the theory that
> is available.
Except for special cases like joseki sequences, I conclude that the
available theory is ridiculously small;) Seriously, I think that
the theory available in [English] books covers less than 1% of all
present go theory. All the books do not even provide a complete
summary of its contents.
--
robert jasiek
gowan
>
> So, how did you do it? All you Charles Matthews, Denis Feldman, John
> Fairbain, Steve Fawthrop players? Is it simply the limit of your innate
> ability, or did you study? And, if you studied, HOW and WHAT?
My experience (AGA 5d) has been that I learned a lot from books and
just playing others near my own strength, and that got me to around
AGA 2d or 3d. However I kind of got stuck at that level. It may have
been a lack of drive, because I spent a lot more time studying when I
was 2k. Anyhow, I began taking pro lessons and moved up three ranks
in a year. I don't think my teachers gave me any specific information
that wasn't available in books. Rather what mattered was a
concentrated, controlled (by the pro) exposure to my weaknesses. I
think the value of pro lessons comes from having your own mistakes
pointed out along with the opportunity to ask questions and try out
something similar in the next lesson. I have friends at a similar
strength level who just play at the club or in tournaments. They
improve, usually very slowly. Even if you review your games with your
opponent both of you will miss a lot of really important fundamental
things. A pro won't miss these. It is well-known that people reach
plateaus on their go journeys. There have been a lot of messages on
this group on the topic of how to get off a plateau. One way for sure
is to take lessons from the right pro for you.
Pieter Mioch
> So, how did you do it? All you Charles Matthews, Denis Feldman, John
> Fairbain, Steve Fawthrop players? Is it simply the limit of your innate
> ability, or did you study? And, if you studied, HOW and WHAT?
> malf
ahum, didnt u mean to write James Kerwin, Hans Pietsch, Catalin Taranu and
Alex Dinerchstein?
Charles Matthews
> So, how did you do it? All you Charles Matthews, Denis Feldman, John
> Fairbain, Steve Fawthrop players? Is it simply the limit of your innate
> ability, or did you study? And, if you studied, HOW and WHAT?
My grade hasn't changed in 20 years. That being said, I do know more about
the game.
Most of the books are intended for players in the band 2 kyu to 2 dan
(European). They address issues of competence in the game (I'd label 1 dan
and 2 dan players competent amateurs - with some 1 kyus, really, since EGF
ratings are quite tough).
I think to get further one needs to be a little disrespectful of that whole
approach. There are various ways. I believe the best is probably to become
a tesuji and shape fanatic - a year with a tesuji dictionary under the
pillow. Other ways are to play punk joseki, or to concentrate on
life-and-death, or specialise in unusual openings and influence play. All
these are 'ways of study', in which one pushes the envelope of conventional
play and adapts one's own play to what one can learn from doing that.
Those players who can improve by (a) playing good, balanced go or (b) by
playing intensively online or in a club, with little theoretical input, are
probably the natural talents anyway.
The question addressed here is about becoming a good amateur - not a 5 dan
(clear-sighted go with reading and positional judgement well-developed) and
not 6 dan (mostly correct suji, investment of time more than most people can
afford). If you want pro level, yes, ask a pro.
Charles
Robert Jasiek
Somebody wrote privately:
> > Except for special cases like joseki sequences, I conclude that the
> > available theory is ridiculously small;) Seriously, I think that the
> > theory available in [English] books covers less than 1% of all present
> > go theory. All the books do not even provide a complete summary of its
> > contents.
> On what information have you based this belief?
This relies on having read hundreds of go books, skimmed through
thousands of go books, and compared their contents with my
understanding of go theory.
> At one time, I posted on rec.games.go about learning Chinese, Japanese or
> Korean to study go with, and someone convinced me that there wasn't much
> in these languages (go-wise) that wasn't also in English now.
This is also my impression, except that maybe you find 3 or 4
times the contents and dozens of times the quantity.
> But you're making me think I may need to revisit this notion of learning
> an Eastern language now.
Without knowledge of Asian languages one can still understand 80%
of the contents. So learning the languages would be an inefficient
waste of time if all you want is to improve at go.
--
robert jasiek
Andrew Walkingshaw
>
> Until European 3d you should make progress by reading books. However,
> while a few dozen books are good enough to become European 1k, it
> takes one or two hundred books to become 3d, given the currently low
> average quality of books. Besides, you must study a lot of pro games
> (say 3,000) and a reasonable amount of tsumego (say 3,000).
Really? As regular readers of the group will know, I've been getting
better at Go at a reasonable rate (I'm currently ~4k EGF, having started
playing a year ago last September), and I've read, I think, under a
dozen books in any detail (Charles Matthews' and Matthew Macfadyen's
beginner books, "Tesuji", "Attack and Defence", small amount of Davies'
"Life and Death", "Lessons in the Fundamentals", "Get Strong at Tesuji",
one preprint, plus at present "The 1971 Honinbo Tournament" and "Jungsuk
in Our Time: Somok Jungsuk".
I've read quite a few web-articles / bits of SL, though. I don't know
how this skews the statistics. Certainly, I think most people seem to get
to EGF 1d strength round here before they've read twenty books on Go...
--
Andrew Walkingshaw | andrew...@lexical.org.uk
Robert Jasiek
Morten Ofstad wrote:
> > Until European 3d you should make progress by reading books. However,
> > while a few dozen books are good enough to become European 1k, it
> > takes one or two hundred books to become 3d, given the currently low
> > average quality of books. Besides, you must study a lot of pro games
> > (say 3,000) and a reasonable amount of tsumego (say 3,000).
> This is obviously false, I am 3 dan and I only read about 20 books.
I do not say that studying that many books, pro games, and problems
is the only way to reach 3d but if you use other ways, then somehow
you should make equivalent studies.
> Almost
> all of my improvement after reaching 1k has been due to observing games
> between strong players on the Go servers...
So your equivalent study was to learn from strong players' play.
***
BTW, how fast did you improve from European 1k to 3d? For me it was
8 or 9 months. Is it possible with your method to improve equally
fast?
> I think the problem is not so
> much the low quality of the books, but rather that they are aimed at kyu
> players so for a dan player most books just repeat what you already know and
> contain very little new information.
Both problems are important.
--
robert jasiek
Robert Jasiek
Andrew Walkingshaw wrote:
> Really? As regular readers of the group will know, I've been getting
> better at Go at a reasonable rate (I'm currently ~4k EGF, having started
> playing a year ago last September)
It is a relatively small problem to become EGF 1k quickly if one
enjoys go, is capable to study go at all, spends a considerable
time on go and go study, and gets some key hints what to study as
a kyu player.
> , and I've read, I think, under a
> dozen books in any detail (Charles Matthews' and Matthew Macfadyen's
> beginner books, "Tesuji", "Attack and Defence", small amount of Davies'
> "Life and Death", "Lessons in the Fundamentals", [...] "Jungsuk
> in Our Time: Somok Jungsuk".
>From your list it is clear that you have got some key advice which
books to read.
> I think most people seem to get
> to EGF 1d strength round here before they've read twenty books on Go...
These days information on choosing the best books is available
rather easily. Therefore choosing the right books can restrict
their necessary number for making 1d to around a dozen.
When I was a kyu player, I had to make most choices about which
books to read. So I read maybe thrice the typically minimally
necessary number. More books don't hurt:)
***
Anyway, I have always had the intention to become stronger than
1k or 3d. So from my beginning of studying deliberately I also
studied not only for the next few ranks but also with my future
ranks in mind. The "too early" study might have been superfluous
to reach a new temporary level but has been useful for improving
thereafter.
--
robert jasiek
Tom Ewall
that would certainly be helpful.
Although they may not be the most fun books to read, books on tsumego
(life and death problems, plus tesugi) will certainly improve your
strength, regardless of your level.
Studying pro games is always helpful. I think a good way to study
these games is to study commented games and study the game first
(trying to guess the moves and understand as much as possible about
the game) and then study with the commentary.
The great advantage of lessons is the feedback you get to correct
incorrect thinking. I've not taken lessons myself, but I don't doubt
that they would be greatly helpful, assuming you have a good teacher.
The problem with studying on your own is that it's often very
difficult to recognize one's own blind spots. In go it's often not so
much the actual moves played but the thinking behind the moves that's
important, and learning how to think correctly can be difficult to get
from a book.
So in conclusion, if you want to advance as quickly as possible, and
money for lessons isn't a problem, I suggest (not in any order):
1) Play games, especially against stronger opponents.
2) Study pro games
3) Study tsume-go
4) Take lessons
ma...@spiritone.com (Michael Alford) wrote in message news:<avsbn...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>In particular, I am
>interested in what people think of reading Go books in an effort to improve
>playing strength.
Some books are useful, most are not. Which will be useful to you
depends somewhat on your particular weaknesses.
>I have been playing Go, off and on, for over 30 years
[snip]
> however, I find that no matter how much
>study I put in with the printed material available, I make no progress.
Age?
>Several friends have told me that to improve beyond this point, one must have
>a teacher.
Neither neessary nor sufficient.
>Indeed, that seems to be the case; I have recently paid for some
>lessons from a stronger player (for the first time in said 30+ years), and
>they, if fact, seem to be helping.
If the teacher is right for you at that particular point, the results
can be dramatic.
>So I find myself in this rather odd
>position of enjoying Go books, but unable to make progress by reading them,
>while paying for lessons, which I have a negative attitude towards, does seem
>to be affecting my play.
It is rarely enough to "read books." Three good ways of improving are
by:
1) Doing problems. Cho's "All About Life and Death" and Segoe and
Go's "Tesuji Dictionary" are the best collections I have seen, in that
they treat the most common situations, and they are of high enough
level for you. Go through them over and over again until you can
solve almost all of them at a glance. Also, there was a book in
Japanese called something like "Amateur and Pro Technique" that was
partially serialized in the early Go Worlds under the title of "Good
and Bad Style."
2) Memorizing pro games. Go through a game, then repeat it up to the
last move you didn't expect. Repeat until you can do it without
looking at the record. Don't bother with late endgame or games that
include a lot of ko fighting, unless you consider that a particular
weakness of yours. It's too hard to memorize them.
3) Getting lessons from a stronger player. He does not have to be a
pro, but must be a good teacher in that he clearly identifies your
errors in thinking and judgment as well as shape. He should tell you
about a dozen points per game where you were trying to do the wrong
thing, and a dozen more where you tried to do the right thing, but in
the wrong way. It is especially valuable to get correction of bad
shape habits such as, "When you are behind in liberties, don't try to
hane, just extend straight out," or "Don't allow the arrowhead so
much."
>In particular, if you play at a stronger level than AGA 2d, how did
>you get to that level?
Mostly 1 and 2, above. I have been lucky to get some very effective
lessons and tips from stronger players without having to pay for them
(particular thanks to James Kerwin, whom I was privileged to work with
at Hollyhock, and the late Dr. Sunghwa Hong, author of "First Kyu").
>Natural ability?
One of my early teachers was taken aback when my play foiled his plan
on about Black 8 in a 9-stone game, saying, "It shows a natural gift."
> And what did you do when you reached
>your personal limit? Lessons? More books?
When I stalled at 2K, Dr. Hong's suggestion of memorizing pro games
got me moving again.
>I ask, because I have decided
>that, for me, the existing literature is inadequate.
Probably just _reading_ books is inadequate.
-- Roy L
Denis Feldmann
strong, second because the main technical points have been already covered
(not necessarily unanimously, but this is ok too) by many competent
players. But, as this is my "specialty" (as my french readers and pupils
know well), I would like to insist on a very important aspect badly covered
by most teachers, go books and such : the problem of bad moves *which you
are already aware of*. This goes from putting oneself in atari (don't laugh,
this happens up to the 5 dan level, not to mention some strange pro story
while filling dames) to typical bad moves (empty triangles, say) with
made-up immediate excuses ("well, in this particular situation, I thought it
was good") followed by disaster ("... but I realized my mistake just after
putting the stone on the board")
It is well-known that one is usually 2 or 3 stones better when watching (and
kibbitzing) than when playing, mostly for this reason: the theory that you
master (or at least understand) is difficult to play as soon as you are in
a competitive situation. I did write many articles on this problem (all the
french ones can be read at the "revue française de go" website (
http://rfg.jeudego.org/anthologie/ ) and "Why do we play bad moves" was
published a few years ago in the British Go Review), and can only say that
working on this particular aspect is (IMNSHO) at least as important as
learning some new theoretical concepts, if only because you begin only to
understand good moves when you lose the habit of playing bad ones. Many
things could be said, but I will only cite Kageyama
: " A player playing consistently ordinary moves [(say the full repertory of
the elementary go series)] without any mistake , would be 6 dan [(EGA, and
laughed at because of his dull style)]. But , in fact ,we all play
incredible blunders"
(which, by the way, could explain the necessity, for 5 dan (EGA) to know and
use a large number of advanced moves and techniques: they need them to
compensate for the blunders :-))
Arturas
one problem – You can learn 5000 words, but can’t speak.
But from the other side – You can know only 1000 words and speak
much better. The essence of that is that you must know that words,
which are useful most.
The same is in go. You must know some patterns of play, shapes, tesuji
etc. but these knowleges must go from useful most, to useful rarely.
How recognize which patterns are which?
I saw many Dan players which makes elementary mistakes in yose, which
don’t know how much points is worth elementary yose play. I
don’t speak about shape or about positional judgement. That
thing is “terra incognito “ for most 1-2 Dan.
I read many books and took many from they. I think that the biggest
problem is that many reads books and forgets. Some time ago I played
in IGS with player 1kyu IGS, he makes mistake in joseki and after lost
game. I was very surprised because we played not a first time and
exactly the same mistake he did one month ago !
How said one mine friend from Russia – when you are solving
problems it isn’t important solve you problem or no, - important
not forget the solution !
Maybe not everybody know how to read books ?
Arturas
Lloyd Gowen
Most people who came for lessons had a seriously incorrect notion of what
their weakness and strength might be. They would forever work on some
imagined flaw while ignoring gaping holes in their understanding. Good
teachers can save huge amounts of time by providing a clear focus to
study.
Failure of the music student to listen to well played performances
(=studying pro games) always leads to shallow understanding and failure
to progress satisfactorily.
However the simple (or not so simple) techniques of basic performance
need constant polishing. --Life and death reading, tesuji problems, etc.
As a further example: A professional classical musician who made it to
top ranks without serious involvement with a fine teacher (or many
teachers) is incredibly rare animal.
Lloyd Gowen
Tom Ewall
watching (and
kibbitzing) than when playing, mostly for this reason: the theory that
you
master (or at least understand) is difficult to play as soon as you
are in
a competitive situation."
I don't think this is true. I think the person playing the game
understands it much better than kibbitzers. After all, he's thinking
much more about it. When kibbitzing or observing a lot of what you're
thinking goes without being noticed (so you don't actually make
moves), so mistakes in thinking aren't punished as they are in a go
game. I would say one may appear to be 2 or 3 stones stronger than
one actually is when kibbitzing, or conversely when you watch an
opponent play he may appear to be 2 or 3 stones stronger than he
actually is (which you would find out if you played him), and that may
be what you're getting at.
In my games I rarely find myself making mistakes I'm aware of unless
I'm in time trouble. Far more often I make mistakes I'm not aware of.
That is, when I go over games I've lost I'll try to figure out why I
lost and often I don't know. I can find a general area where it looks
like I've fallen behind, but I would have to ask a stronger player
where I actually went wrong. It's much easier for me to identify my
opponent's errors.
"Denis Feldmann" <denis.f...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<avvck0$mse$1...@news-reader11.wanadoo.fr>...
Denis Feldmann
> "It is well-known that one is usually 2 or 3 stones better when
> watching (and
> kibbitzing) than when playing, mostly for this reason: the theory that
> you
> master (or at least understand) is difficult to play as soon as you
> are in
> a competitive situation."
>
> I don't think this is true. I think the person playing the game
> understands it much better than kibbitzers.
If you say so... But you should *seriously* note your own games, then try to
look at them a few months later (I suppose you are not in a phase of rapid
progress). You could be surprised.
After all, he's thinking
> much more about it.
Which is not necessarily a good thing at go. Not to mention the emotional
pressure of having to win a won game, or of fear of misreading, etc., etc.
When kibbitzing or observing a lot of what you're
> thinking goes without being noticed (so you don't actually make
> moves),
kibbitzing means saying what you are thinking. You are still punished if you
say too stupid things :-)
so mistakes in thinking aren't punished as they are in a go
> game. I would say one may appear to be 2 or 3 stones stronger than
> one actually is when kibbitzing,
Yes, but it is not an illusion
or conversely when you watch an
> opponent play he may appear to be 2 or 3 stones stronger than he
> actually is (which you would find out if you played him),
Almost never. A classical proverb is: if you think the guy is playing the
moves you would play, he is probably 2 stones stronger than you. If you
think he playsnrather badly, he is of your strength. And if you don't
understand his moves, he is 5 or 6 stones stronger.
and that may
> be what you're getting at.
>
> In my games I rarely find myself making mistakes I'm aware of unless
> I'm in time trouble.
Unless you are at the 5 dan level (and even then), I am almost sure you are
deluding yourself.
Far more often I make mistakes I'm not aware of.
> That is, when I go over games I've lost I'll try to figure out why I
> lost and often I don't know.
Just one example: do you never make any mistake in counting liberties (5 or
less)? It is very easy to count (almost any beginner can do it). But *nobody
* does it (too easy, useless, I am tired...) and *everybody* lose at least
one game in ten for one stupid mistake like not seeing an atari...(or the
equivalent at some higher level)
Mark Wirdnam
>> "It is well-known that one is usually 2 or 3 stones better when
>> watching (and
>
> I don't think this is true. ...
Wow, I never even considered contesting this opinion, since it states
what is also said in one of the first go proverbs I encountered:
"You are two stones stronger when watching a game."
(The Nihon Ki-in Handbook of Proberbs, Yutopian, p.148)
Mark
Robert Jasiek
Mark Wirdnam wrote:
> Wow, I never even considered contesting this opinion, since it states
> what is also said in one of the first go proverbs I encountered:
> "You are two stones stronger when watching a game."
A kibitz sees some strategic aspects much more clearly than the
players because he does not have the same responsibility to spend
much time for doing calculations of reading ahead or positional
judgement, which on average the players do better than the kibitz.
--
robert jasiek
Charles Matthews
> A kibitz[er] sees some strategic aspects much more clearly than the
> players because he does not have the same responsibility to spend
> much time for doing calculations of reading ahead or positional
> judgement, which on average the players do better than the kibitz.
I remember an old example from a magazine, in which a pro observer read a
semeai rather casually, got it wrong, and said he was glad it wasn't him
playing.
Charles
Tom Ewall
> Tom Ewall wrote:
> > "It is well-known that one is usually 2 or 3 stones better when
> > watching (and
> > kibbitzing) than when playing, mostly for this reason: the theory that
> > you
> > master (or at least understand) is difficult to play as soon as you
> > are in
> > a competitive situation."
> >
> > I don't think this is true. I think the person playing the game
> > understands it much better than kibbitzers.
>
> If you say so... But you should *seriously* note your own games, then try to
> look at them a few months later (I suppose you are not in a phase of rapid
> progress). You could be surprised.
>
>
> After all, he's thinking
> > much more about it.
>
> Which is not necessarily a good thing at go. Not to mention the emotional
> pressure of having to win a won game, or of fear of misreading, etc., etc.
>
Thinking is a good thing in go, IMO.
>
> When kibbitzing or observing a lot of what you're
> > thinking goes without being noticed (so you don't actually make
> > moves),
>
> kibbitzing means saying what you are thinking. You are still punished if you
> say too stupid things :-)
>
That's true, but often people kibbitz when they are more sure of
something than when in doubt. At least that's what I do. But
unfortunately in a game you have to move even when your clueless.
>
> so mistakes in thinking aren't punished as they are in a go
> > game. I would say one may appear to be 2 or 3 stones stronger than
> > one actually is when kibbitzing,
>
> Yes, but it is not an illusion
Oops! I said exactly the opposite of what I meant. When you watch
someone play they look *weaker*. When you play them you find out they
are not so weak as they looked.
>
>
> or conversely when you watch an
> > opponent play he may appear to be 2 or 3 stones stronger than he
> > actually is (which you would find out if you played him),
>
> Almost never. A classical proverb is: if you think the guy is playing the
> moves you would play, he is probably 2 stones stronger than you. If you
> think he playsnrather badly, he is of your strength. And if you don't
> understand his moves, he is 5 or 6 stones stronger.
>
>
>
> and that may
> > be what you're getting at.
> >
> > In my games I rarely find myself making mistakes I'm aware of unless
> > I'm in time trouble.
>
> Unless you are at the 5 dan level (and even then), I am almost sure you are
> deluding yourself.
>
Depending on the rating system I'm close to that. I don't think I'm
deluding myself. I go over my games quite a bit and sometimes will
find errors, which usually occurs because my thinking has changed over
time. I look back and think, "boy that was stupid!" but I the time I
made the move I was thinking differently. So I made a mistake, but it
was because I was thinking differently. There was nothing I could
have done about it at the time.
I really think the vast majority of my mistakes are mistakes that I am
not aware of. Mistakes based on an incomplete understanding of the
game.
>
> Far more often I make mistakes I'm not aware of.
> > That is, when I go over games I've lost I'll try to figure out why I
> > lost and often I don't know.
>
>
> Just one example: do you never make any mistake in counting liberties (5 or
> less)? It is very easy to count (almost any beginner can do it). But *nobody
> * does it (too easy, useless, I am tired...) and *everybody* lose at least
> one game in ten for one stupid mistake like not seeing an atari...(or the
> equivalent at some higher level)
>
Unless I'm in time trouble, I rarely make mistakes like this.
Certainly not 1 time in 10. I dislike losing games like this and take
as much time as I can to avoid it.
Tom Ewall
mark.w...@stud.unibas.ch (Mark Wirdnam) wrote in message news:<3c6df95c.03011...@posting.google.com>...
Tom Ewall
In commentaries of pro games you often see a pro remarking that during
a game he that such and such was a bad move, and then as the game
progresses he says that it wasn't a bad move, but he wasn't seeing as
much as the player playing.
"Charles Matthews" <charles.r...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<5fwV9.625$g64....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
Tom Ewall
thinking about any aspect of the game you wish. You can say, "I
wonder what would happen if ..." and go down a road which may be
fruitful, but one you wouldn't have time to do in a game.
Robert Jasiek <jas...@snafu.de> wrote in message news:<3E268E3F...@snafu.de>...
Tom Ewall
if you want to call it that, that I often notice in going over my
games. That is, I often notice in going over a game that an
opponent's group was in much more danger than I noticed during the
game. Rarely do one of my own groups come into danger without my
being aware of it.
I think the reason for that is that players are more atuned to the
danger of their own groups than that of their adversaries. At least
that appears to be the case in my games.
"Denis Feldmann" <denis.f...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<b04s6o$q1k$1...@news-reader12.wanadoo.fr>...
Denis Feldmann
> After thinking about this some more, there is one area of blindness,
> if you want to call it that, that I often notice in going over my
> games. That is, I often notice in going over a game that an
> opponent's group was in much more danger than I noticed during the
> game. Rarely do one of my own groups come into danger without my
> being aware of it.
>
> I think the reason for that is that players are more atuned to the
> danger of their own groups than that of their adversaries. At least
> that appears to be the case in my games.
It's really a matter of style and personality. I suffer for the exactly
opposite default: I am over-optimistic.
BobbySixer
charles.r...@ntlworld.com
>Date: 1/16/03 10:58 AM GMT Standard
>semeai rather casually, got it wrong, and said he was glad it wasn't him
>playing.
>
>Charles
>
And I remember a pro visit to my club where a pro was presumably getting fed up
with being pestered for instant comments on a demonstration pro handicap game.
Classic Q&A:
Q (to interpreter): What would he do in this position?
Interpreter: (long pause) He says he'd do some reading....(another long pause)
It's very difficult...
Q. What's does he think of this move?
Interpreter: He says it needs more study...
Q. Would you play this way?
Interpreter: Young players like fighting...He say's he's getting old so he'd
play more calmly.
Dieter Verhofstadt
> But, as this is my "specialty" (as my french readers and pupils
> know well), I would like to insist on a very important aspect badly covered
> by most teachers, go books and such : the problem of bad moves *which you
> are already aware of*. This goes from putting oneself in atari (...)
I'd like to add "permitting being hane'd at the head", which is a
major flaw in my game.
> : " A player playing consistently ordina