On 26.10.2017 08:52, Petri Pitkanen wrote:
Unfortunately there is no proof that you principles work better than those
form eighties.
No computer-go proof.
There is evidence in the form of my playing strength: with the
principles "from the eighties", I got to circa 1 kyu. L+D reading
practice etc. made me 3 dan. Afterwards, almost the only thing that made
me stronger to 5 dan and then further improved my understanding was the
invention of my own principles.
My principles etc. also work for (an unknown fraction of) readers of my
books and for a high percentage of my pupils but I cannot compare what
the effect on them would have been if instead they would only have
learnt the principles "from the eighties". I do, however, know that my
principles provide me with very much more efficient means of teaching
contents compared to using the principles "from the eighties".
The principles "from the eighties" and my principles can be compared
with each other. IMO, such a comparison is shocking: the principles
"from the eighties" are very much weaker on average and altogether
convey very much less contents.
Nor there is any agreement that your pronciples form any
improvement over the old ones.
Only time constraints prevent me from doing an extensive comparison and
so better support formation of an agreement.
What is missing that I doubt that you can verbalise your go understanding
to degree that by applying those principles I could become substantially
better player.
Different players are different. So different that some players claim to
only learn from examples. Therefore, I cannot know whether you are a
player who could learn well from principles etc.
- My reading skills would not get any better
Do you say so after having learnt and invested effort in applying the
contents of Tactical Reading?
Regardless of the possible impact of that book, a great part of reading
skill must be obtained by reading practice in games and problem solving.
If your reading is much weaker than your knowledge of go theory, then it
may be the case that almost only reading practise (plus possibly reading
theory about improving one's reading practice) can significantly improve
your strength at the moment.
- your principles are more complex than you understand.
I do not think so:)
Much of you know is
automated to degree that it is subconsciousness information.
From ca. 10 kyu to now, especially from 3 dan to now, I have reduced
the impact of my subconscious thinking on my go decision-making and
replaced it by knowledge, reading and positional judgement based on
knowledge and reading. The still remaining subconscious thinking is
small. Most of my remaining mistakes are related to psychology or
subconscious thinking, when necessary because of explicit knowledge gaps
or thinking time constraints.
Transferring that information if hard.
Transferring it from principles etc. to code - yes.
If you can build Go bot about KGS 3/4dan strength
Using my approach, I expect several manyears, which I do not have for
that purpose.
--
robert jasiek
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
