In 1916 Evans, of the phenomenal mashie, shattered precedent by winning both the National Open and Amateur titles in one season. Business and bad putting have kept him out of the foremost rank since 1920, when he last led the country's amateurs.
The ARRL Letter offers a weekly summary of essential news of interest to active amateurs that is available in advance of publication in QST, our official journal. The ARRL Letter strives to be timely, accurate, concise and readable.
Olson, whose career has been marked by injuries, broke the fifth metatarsal in his right foot during practice Saturday, and X-rays taken Sunday revealed the fracture. He suffered the same injury during spring practice.
SnotNose: Ack (sound of a brain in spasm). Ok, suppose it isn't about power. How many amateurs could then study it? Many many many many. I think amateurs are more flexible of mind than you suggest. Anyway, do pros agree what it is about, fundamentally? (I would be surprised if it were about just one thing, rather than the balance of many ideas...but that's another topic.) My last words on this will be: (1) I still don't follow you Charles. Maybe I am incapable of it. I'll take the blame there and resign while I still have a shred of dignity :). (2) I contend that I do "study on the basis that rational understanding is possible and worthwhile; rather than attempting to digest the most inaccessible and impractical things." I can't imagine not studying on this basis. If, for a second, I thougth that my study was irrational or not worthwhile or that I was attempting to digest inaccessible or impractical things, I'd stop and do something else. I can't possibly belive this and still go on. Those who can bewilder me. Since I believe I do this, I think this is not a difference between pros and amateurs that connot be closed. But, I refer back to point (1). Perhaps this is a difference between Charles and SnotNose that can't be closed. So be it.
Warp: One book which helped me a lot to understand one of the main things which make pros so strong compared to amateurs was The Direction of Play. Until reading that book I didn't really know what is it that makes pros so incredibly strong (naturally they have lots of experience, reading skills, etc etc, but that didn't seem to be all of it). Some people belittle this book, probably because of its sometimes pompous (and even rude) style, but I really recommend reading it to anyone who wants to understand why pros are so strong as they are. It really enlightened me. (I don't really know if it helped me to be a stronger player, though, but the enlightenment was rewarding enough in itself.)
BobMcGuigan: One of the most impressive pro-experiences I've had was watching them play fairly fast games against strong amateurs, say AGA 7-Dan or a little stronger. I watched a pro playing a two stone game against such a player at a US Go Congress once. The pro made several moves during the opening which looked kind of luke warm but, when some serious fighting broke out in the middle game some 40 or 50 moves later, somehow these stones were in just the right places to help him in the fight. So, rather than encyclopedic knowledge of joseki or rapid deep reading, which most pros certainly have, I am most impressed by their knowledge of shape and positional judgement.
If I can add a possible summary: necessary conditions for amateurs to come close to pro level aren't hard to specify. They can be read out of other games, sport and so on. It doesn't make much sense to talk about pros who aren't technically strong. But sufficient conditions - a whole set of them, with real explanatory value: it might be beyond us to understand.
SnotNose: This page wasn't intended to describe how an amateur can come close to pro level play, but if one wishes to use it (or view it) that way, it can't be stopped. The intention was to document some ways that amateurs play that pros do not and which can easily be changed. My hypothesis is that there are some basic things (Kageyama would call them fundamentals) that pros do that amateurs can emulate. By doing so, amateurs will become stronger and might improve faster. And these basic things are, in many cases, not hard to do. They're good habits, really. And, I'm not talking about blindly copying pro play or memorizing joseki. I'm talking about more basic approaches to play (as in the first list).
SnotNose: A valid point. We're really comparing amateur habits to hypothesized pro ones. Still, even if we're wrong, the comparison is useful if it helps amateurs see the value of good habits. I am a strong beliver in the idea that if one wishes to improve in something, one should eliminate all possible barriers to improvement, even if they seem small. After all, if you eliminate a lot of small stuff, it adds up! Second, I believe Kageyama implied thesis in LessonsInTheFundamentalsOfGo that a significant part of professionalism is one of attitude. One can have (or at least mimic) a professional attitude even toward something outside of one's profession. Mostly it is a matter of taking the endevor seriously and, in some sense, respecting it (not doing things that trivialize it). Viewing anything in the way a professional might can help one become much better at it, if only because one maximizes one's efforts. Time is not wasted fooling around doing things that don't help. So, asking oneself "could I imagine a professional doing this?" is worthwhile. It is more or less the same as asking "am I taking this seriously? Can I do better?"
I'm pretty certain I'm right in saying that when this parallel sibling development happens in go, the siblings who don't go on to be pro are almost invariably very strong amateurs. For example, Go Seigen's brothers were early 7d amateurs, Kitani Reiko's brothers were 5d (one became a doctor instead).
This month, the dam finally broke on college athletes getting paid as the NCAA scaled back its rules. But as some athletes cash in on that shift, a growing number of young basketball players are forgoing college and even high school to play in upstart professional leagues.
aa06259810