![[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]](images/stone-hello.png "Sensei's Library")
David Ormerod: Dieter, thanks for suggesting that I consider using stone counting in the continuation of Learn Go The Easy Way. I've finally found time to continue working on it have started by reading your Dieter Verhofstadt / Recommended Introduction and Dieter Verhofstadt / Teaching experiences with interest (the latter made me smile when I recalled having some similar teaching experiences to your own).
You've given me some very good ideas to think about, which should help to simplify the overall course even more. And that's really the point of the whole thing.
I've previously used a simplified version of area scoring in my teaching, but this approach seems even better at avoiding unnecessary complicated explanations. This really is the simplification I've been looking for, for some years. I knew there had to be a better way.
To think it was there the whole time, if I'd only dug deep enough into SL or read the right introductory book...
Anyway, you can consider me mostly converted. I'm still heavily influenced by Yasutoshi Yasuda and I don't see the two fundamental approaches as outright alternatives. Perhaps they can combined to capture the best aspects of both approaches? What do you think?
Thanks again,
-- David
Hi David,
(first, I'm willing to continue this discussion on your own site: your choice)
I feel like probably most people feel when they have a very strong opinion about something, have been preaching in the desert for a long time, having some converts in the club but mostly because of my personality I'm afraid, and then someone who's an (aspiring) authority in the field declares himself a convert: I'm suspicious and anxious about the lizard hiding in the grass. "Err, you agree?"
So, let me immediately utter some caveats. I have not had that much of teaching experiences. Over the years I've accumulated them and recorded them here. I'd love to teach more and gain experiences with the recommended lecture and also would love to see more accounts of experiences with similar methods, or with capture go or the classical way.
As for your question "perhaps they (capture go and stone counting on small boards) can be combined to capture the best of both approaches", I'd love to return the favor of agreeing but being true to what I sense to be true :), I don't agree. I think I already wrote about my experiences with capture go but let me repeat it here.
With each teaching method there is a price to pay. For the classical method the price is the amount of conceptual explanation to be done. For stone counting it's the need to switch scoring methods and proving the equivalence (including the omission of group tax for the smart-asses). For capture go it's the switch of one game objective to very different one.
Before, I was also a convert of Yasuda, because like him and many others I assume I was frustrated with the amount of explanation required with the classical method that was clearly putting off novices. In that respect, capture go came as a marvel. It had the virtue of getting people to play immediately. It even shares the virtue of having territory occur quite naturally: the place where your stones cannot be captured. But it had a big flaw, which "classical fans" would point out but I dismissed at the time: you have to switch game objectives and very fundamentally so. Any player of capture go will immediately wonder "why putting down new stones at all if they can be captured?" Especially when you stretch the objective to "capture 5" you must prohibit passing.
Pedagogically too, it feels awkward to authoritatively start with a game which is not the real game for educational purposes. It leads to suspicion about the real game in the novice's mind: "Is it so complex?" - "Am I too stupid?" - "Shouldn't capture go be the real game then?" I gradually became unsatisfied and when I discovered stone counting on small boards these issues vanished.
Now I'll admit it's very awkward for me too to oppose the method advocated by a Japanese professional who dedicated a part of his life to teaching go and went around the world doing so. But I truly think Yasuda got caught up in his own invention and would probably choose stone counting on small boards if he were exposed to it early on, or perhaps if there weren't the issue of yielding to Chinese scoring practices (I'm being very malicious now). It's preposterous, I know, but deep inside I think Yasuda is wrong and I am right.
You see, I see no practical coexistence for these methods. I do not see what capture go has to offer that the other hasn't. Capturing is a means to an end and should not be promoted to an objective. If you do, then I think you distort the balance of the game early on which truly is to defend before you attack, on all levels.
Of course, all methods effectively coexist as teaching devices. I'm sure you will come up with an even better approach, or an alternative which works better in different circumstances. I'll end with paraphrasing Bill Spight: "Teach Go the way you like".
Yours sincerely,
Dieter
Hi Dieter,
Well one wouldn't expect us to agree on everything, would they? :) And it's ok, we are all zealots and we know it...
Since you've explained your views with candour, I'll do the same. I'm assuming that neither of us are going to misapprehend it as rudeness and anyone else who joins the conversation can take that into account.
To me the advantage of teaching capture go isn't just that it's the fastest way to get people started, but that helps to make sure they can see liberties properly before proceeding.
I've found when teaching a class that some people will grasp liberties and capturing quickly, while others take a bit longer to see. You don't want to go too quickly here, because losing people early on massively reduces your overall success rate in making people into Go players. That's why I've already spent three lessons on capturing. (of course it's different when teaching a small group because you have more flexibility)
If everyone has developed a reasonable understanding of liberties and capturing, the subsequent lessons can proceed much more smoothly, with less confusion and fewer awkward questions breaking the flow. It also tends to result in tactically stronger beginners in my opinion. I think wanting to capture stones helps people learn much faster. It's only the experienced player, who has forgotten their own beginnings with go, who doesn't differentiate between beginners and advanced players and scorns at capturing...
I don't believe there's an ideal way to learn most things, learning and unlearning when the time is right can make things faster sometimes. The 'ideal' course can only be contrived in retrospect using the hidden premises you've forgotten about to achieve superficial perfection.
With the online text based format, there's only a limited way for people to ask questions or provide feedback, so it's more important to make everything as clear as possible. I personally feel that's one of the problems with many existing online tutorials (including the interactive way to go). Because there are sections where they gloss over things or go too quickly (it's not that I think they're bad, rather that there are opportunities to keep improving our teaching). In a series of online lessons, people can easily skip ahead if it's easy for them, so erring on the side of simple (but entertaining) makes sense to me.
The disadvantage of capture go, as you've pointed out, is the need to make the sudden switch to the idea of territory. In a practical sense one almost has to introduce the concepts of territory and two eyes simultaneously and this is very jarring from the learner's perspective.
For Yasuda, teaching mostly in a Japanese context, that made sense. In my case, I already prefer to teach area scoring, because it's simpler. Stone counting just seems to remove even more unnecessary baggage.
In real life this 'switch over' is manageable, because you have all the advantages of the class's body language and free flowing communication to guide you as a teacher. In the online format, I think it's very difficult. Maybe people would laugh, but I've actually been pondering how to deal with this problem on and off for several months.
I think that stone counting will slot right into an existing lesson I've been planning. Imagine the black and white ninjas racing to colonise the island of Goban. As you know, it seems to solve the problem of explaining territory in a non-intuitive way and there's a clear way to introduce two eyes as well. It's similar enough to area scoring too.
In terms of a transition in the objective of the game, it's perhaps not as different as you think? The objective simply changes from capture 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... stones to - OK this is ridiculous, let's just see who can keep the most stones on the board. It's only a subtle change in perspective, despite the ramifications.
Area scoring and territory scoring can naturally be introduced from there, in the context of Go being a very old game, where slight variations in the rules have evolved in different countries over time.
P.S. I should add, that even with area scoring, one of the difficulties is convincing existing go players that the approach is good (I noted you've experienced this first hand too). I'm actually more concerned about whether other go players will share the finished course with their friends than beginners who find it by themselves. Beginners have the advantage of fewer preconceptions.
The "ideal" course can only be contrived in retrospect using the hidden premises you've forgotten about to achieve superficial perfection.
That's a profound statement. It's indeed difficult to judge just how much hidden premises I've failed to identify in my attempt to contrive the ideal intro.
The objective simply changes from capture 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... stones to - OK this is ridiculous, let's just see who can keep the most stones on the board. It's only a subtle change in perspective, despite the ramifications.
In practice, yes, so perhaps altogether: yes. Still I'm uncomfortable with the fact that one hides the plain and simple objective (keep more stones) to focus on the means to that end (capture more opponent stones) and the twist in the rules that forbid passing as a way to deny victory to an opponent. True: capture go simplifies even more than stone counting, since the means and the end are unified. For me, the price to pay in shifting the objective does not outweigh the gain in simplicity.
With candour (a new word for me - I sensed it to be "sweet", given "candy", or "concealed", given that the "candid camera" is hidden: it appeared to be not quite that). Of course I appreciate this conversation with no intended or perceived rudeness on either end. If only there were a smiley for holding a very interesting discussion with the greatest friendliness and respect.
I like the stone counting method, and my father in law has recently expressed some interest. But it's unlikely I'll have another beginner for him to play. Do you have any thoughts on how to handle the case where you must play them?
I think the problem of not having two novices playing each other is there irrespective of the method. It may even be worse with the classical method where the teacher obviously has a good grasp on the concepts of life and death and territory, whereas with stone counting, all that really matters are liberties.
I think that in a 1-1 tutelage you'll feel the need to explain those concepts earlier and shift to larger boards earlier, because the entertaining effect of both making silly mistakes is hard to emulate without feeling guilty of treason. Handicap is perfect to create a balanced game but only feels sensible from 9x9 onward.
But I've done it myself: start on a 5x5 with stone counting. One of the big plusses is that any beginner who grasps the importance of connection will soon defeat you with Black on 5x5.