![]() StartingPoints Paths Referenced by
|
Rank and what you know
Path: Rank · Prev: RankAbsoluteLevels · Next: RankReliability How much a player should know at a given rankexswoo The most obvious thing to say on this topic is to just that a person A is X stones stronger than person B. However, what I'm wondering is if we, as Go players, have certain expectations for how much Go knowledge a person has when we look at their ranking? This is a bit of a loaded question since there are a lot of ranking systems out there...but if we were to disregard that, what things would you expect a 20k to know and not know? 15k? 12k? 8k? 1d? I think it would be interesting to see what our ideal vision for certain rankings are and make up some sort of a chart ;) WilliamNewman: In my experience "technique" things, like ability to find tesuji, tend to increase more or less continuously, so it's hard to describe what different levels of players have. Concepts, at least the original insight, are more of a black and white thing. I'd reckon 30kyus don't quite understand the concepts of life and death (like "two eyes live") and miai, 20kyus typically have no more than a very foggy idea about shape and sente, and 10kyus have no more than a foggy idea about kikashi, thickness, aji, efficiency, and sabaki. Of course, then these concepts have a lot of technique attached to them, so a 1kyu is usually much better at keeping sente than he was when he was 10kyu, even if he grasped the basic concept by the time he was 20kyu (and strong players routinely beat me up on shape even though I've been thinking about it for twenty years or so). Also, I think some people manage to delay their acquisition of these concepts by as many as 10 ranks, so you might be able to find e.g. a 10kyu who doesn't quite understand what's the big deal about sente; but it seems pretty difficult to delay longer than that. 'A 10th Kyu not understanding the advantages of the sente concept ? This is hard to conceive. I think this would probably be one of the concept needed to go past the 15th Kyu barrier. However I could perfectly conceive a 10th Kyu or even higher having no knowledge whatsoever about what is joseki and what isn't thus relying on his overall knowledge to define what the next best move is in the fuseki -- Darak' AlainWettach: The importance of fighting for sente goes beyond understanding in abstracto what sente means (this at least is not very difficult). On the other hand, deciding to answer or not to answer locally in a given position should involve a positional assessment of the game and maybe also life and death considerations (What will happen if I don't answer? If I lose something here, what can I get elsewhere?). If you watch a game between 2 players of different strengths, you will most probably notice that the strongest one will take sente more often. In my view, this makes much more difference than knowing if a sequence is joseki or not. WilliamNewman: OK, a 10kyu player probably knows the definition of sente. But I have more than once had the experience of talking about different variations (like in joseki), and pointing out that in variation X, black's position is stronger than in variation Y, but in variation Y, black was able to take sente; and getting a response, or nonresponse, which I interpreted as "Bother me not with those dan-level details! The X position is stronger, I'm not going to worry about the other stuff." My impression is that this pattern of thought, where the player knows what sente is but never takes it seriously, is reasonably common at 15kyu and not impossible to find at 10kyu. It seems to me that if you're good at some important techniques like solving life and death and connection problems, you can get to 10kyu with some pretty horrendous weaknesses in other areas. Someone in another discussion described the strategy of just making the game complicated and hoping to kill something... Bottleneck theories would take a rather different and personalised line on this subject. Charles Matthews alter Pedro 19k on DragonGoServer as of December 2002 (I have been playing mostly turn-based go[1] for a year) keywords cut and pasted from the text above
[1] Alex Weldon says "Turn-based go? As opposed to what... real-time go where you get to place your stones as fast as you can and your opponent likewise? ;-) I'm not sure what you mean by this."
Jasonred heh, simple. It's not what you know, it's how well you know it... and how well you put it into practice. Given enough time, and the fact that someone tells me that there's some nakade for a situation, I can eventually figure it out. But in a real game? Let's face it, I could get a newbie to hang around Sensei's Library and just read up every single go concept here, memorize the terms, etc, but not attempt any problems or actually play go... I don't think he's going to break 20 kyu. Though I've heard of prodigies, not in age, but in experience... despite only playing 3 games in their life, they've "suddenly" mastered tsumego, miai, sente, shape, and their playing jumps 3 stones a game... kokiri I think there's definite mileage in the idea of improving by adding new concepts to one's game (e.g. bottleneck theories) As a 3 kyu, recently I've 'discovered' the ability to play much more lightly in my opponent's areas, whereas 6 months ago I'd not have thought of, say, attaching one of their stones. Whilst I knew, and could recognise in pro games, the idea of sabaki, actually using it in practice was a different matter. The yose, too, is something that I am starting appreciate for the first time. I'm wouldn't have thought that everybody picks up the same ideas at the same strength though. I also think that it's one of the benefits of studying pro games, or those of players stronger than yourself - I see something I'd not have thought of playing myself and then when a similar occasion comes up in my own games, try it out (and get cut to shreds the first few times, no doubt). amc This discussion leads me to a question: Do you all think it is *bad* to read to much at the start? I mean, I have played 2 games of go in my entire life, but I've been reading this wiki for a couple weeks now. I *think* I understand the basic concepts of miai, life and death, sente, joseki, tenuki, etc. just from reading about them here and thinking about (non-Go) situations where they might apply. Still, I have no prayer of looking at a board and actually recognizing any of the things I know about. This leads to a problem I seem to have when actually playing, where I try to think way too much on each move, and end up making poor moves that I thought were implementing those ideas instead of trying to read the board at my level and try to play according to what I know about the game. This also, I think, puts my opponent in the position of considering me a bad player instead of an inexperienced one. What do you guys think? Should I get off the advanced parts of the wiki and stick to beginner books for now? Charles Matthews I've just checked, and there are 470 pages on SL actually marked as Beginner - which seems quite a large number. Well, go is above all a leisure activity, and people should approach it in some way they find enjoyable. There is plenty here that I'd say is counter-indicated for beginners, but then the site actually aims to be comprehensive. I would recommend to anyone taking up the game two things: play reasonably quickly, since you have to be nearly dan level really to bring deep background to bear; and get an introductory text and simple problem book. amc hmmm, this leads me to an idea. Should pages in this wiki be rated for intended rank or something? because due to the way wiki works, a beginner like me can enter discussion about basic concepts and in 2 or 3 click be reading cross-eyed some mumbo-jumbo about the taisha joseki :) Confused: Speaking as a relative newcomer too, I don't think that all this reading will do any damage. When I was reading about sente, tenuki and miai the first time, I thought I understood the concepts too. Now, at 15 kyu, I'm a step further, and I'm pretty certain that I have no real clue about them, but I slowly start to encounter them in my games - most of the time by destroying my cunning plans. About the advanced topics, why not just read them casually, without trying too hard to understand them. Once you can relate to them, they'll start to make sense, and if you can't, ignore them. You never know, what piece of information will pave the way for the next enligthenment. I found it very helpful, to go quickly over my games afterwards and look for what I think was my biggest flaw. This may be a good topic to read up on next, even if it won't help immediately. It's more like a constant pecking on the rock. Charles It's like using an encyclopaedia - I suppose a few people need to be told that starting reading at A isn't the best method, but not so many. At the moment the keywords only recognise four levels (and three in practice). But surely material at the wrong level is just uninteresting. Path: Rank · Prev: RankAbsoluteLevels · Next: RankReliability This is a copy of the living page "Rank and what you know" at Sensei's Library. ![]() |