On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Michael Alford <[email protected]> wrote:
> This has been a most interesting discussion, thanks to all that > participated. As far as tricks, hard and deliberate practice, or focus > goes, I would like to share an observation from Guo Juan: The only > difference between an IGS 3k and a 3d is the 3d knows more tricks. To get > beyond 3d you have to learn something about the game. I don't know enough about go to comment on that, but as I said early "tricks" was an unfortunate choice of terminology and it's my wish we dont' get hung up on semantics. What I should have said which is far more accurate is "insights" - a single insight can be worth a lot. So maybe strong players beyond 3d they have no additional insights? That does not seems likely. I know that strong chess players just know stuff that I don't know and they know INSTANTLY - and it's a major shortcut that I do not posses. You could call it a "trick" but that cheapens it. It's an insight they learned long ago and is not a part of them. Don > > > > On 8/11/12 5:52 AM, Don Dailey wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 2:38 AM, Sam Stewart <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hello all, >> As a student and mathematician, I am particularly interested in the >> complex process of accumulating, understanding, and remembering >> difficult information. In regards to the most recent posting by Don, >> while I agree that there is initially some "low hanging fruit" in >> most areas, these options quickly disappear as we become better. >> Breaking the barrier between amateur and expert is particularly >> difficult and is rarely achievable through "quick tricks". >> >> >> There is nothing here I disagree with. The sophistication of the >> "tricks" increases but probably calling them "shortcuts" and "tricks" >> was not the right terminology. Some of them seem like cheap tricks >> but really they are just mental reorganizations and the recognition of >> patterns which already have a solution or partial solution. I know >> in chess almost any position seems reasonable and suggests moves to my >> mind - but when I first learned the game it was just a random >> configuration without any clue of what move to play. >> >> The *hard and deliberate* practice I simply called focus - I do not >> >> believe it necessarily has to be unpleasant but it is hard work. >> Sometimes you can enjoy hard work but without doubt you have to push >> yourself against being lazy. >> >> >> Instead, we improve in proportion to the amount of /deliberate and >> strenuous /practice we invest. As Mark described, he knew the steps >> >> needed to improve drastically, but opted for the easier route. Why? >> Because deliberate practice is often grueling, repetitive, and >> exhausting; we prefer tasks which are within our purview. >> >> Having programmed since age ten, and then up into my college years, >> I can say from personal experience the largest jumps in ability >> occurred when I concentrated on my weakest areas. For example, while >> initially doing web programming, I decided to learn the iOS SDK. Of >> course, this required studying Objective-C (really just C and some >> compiler macros) which does not use automatic memory management. >> Needless to say, as a fifteen year old coming from Python, Java, and >> PHP, this was a hurdle. I spent hours finding obvious memory leaks >> before I could even display something onscreen. The process was >> laborious but I finally gained competence /over a three year >> period/. I emphasize this statement because there was no shortcut. >> >> Although the authors on this list hold no such misconceptions, I >> cannot count the number of times people have approached me asking >> how to write iPhone apps. I always answer, "you'll need lots of >> time, patience, and diligence….then start practicing". >> >> The mental jump from managed languages to manually managed languages >> shed light on the "low level" details of programming which I had >> missed previously. The /deliberate /practice in an area of weakness >> >> enabled me to "level up" in the end. >> >> On the other hand, I have also played jazz piano for about five >> years. Like Mark, I have taken the lazy route, even though I have >> played through hundreds of songs. As with most classically trained >> musicians, I found sight-reading and memorizing an explicit >> transcription of a standard far easier than practicing the numerous >> chords and modes required for free-form improvisation. Only now, am >> I painfully practicing the many chord voicings I glossed over years >> ago. In sight-reading the music, I allowed my skill to plateau by >> sticking to the "stuff I knew". >> >> Similarly, I am a better programmer than mathematician. While >> varying across individuals, I find programming intuitive, or as Mark >> said "Learning to program never felt like work". On the other hand, >> many concepts in mathematics require abstract and flexible thought. >> Hence, since I find math more challenging than CS, I purposely fill >> my schedule with math courses. Pushing myself in a weaker area will >> ultimately render me a better computer scientist. >> >> In summary, the /key /difference between amateurs and experts is >> /*hard and deliberate* /practice. In order to move from novice to >> >> professional, you must not only practice, but you must focus on >> honing your "pain points". While I wish there were other options >> available, my own experience has lead me to this conclusion. >> >> However, I'm not the only one who holds this opinion. I'd like to >> offer this paper I read a few years ago which speaks to this issue >> precisely. I've also pasted some relevant sections below: >> >> http://psycnet.apa.org/**journals/rev/100/3/363.pdf<http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/rev/100/3/363.pdf> >> >> Our review has also shown that the maximal level of performance >>> for individuals in a given domain is not attained automatically as >>> function of extended experience, but the level of performance can >>> be increased even by highly experienced individuals as a result of >>> deliberate efforts to improve. >>> There is a relatively widespread conception that if individuals >>> are innately talented, they can easily and rapidly achieve an >>> exceptional level of performance once they have acquired basic >>> skills and knowledge. Biographical material disproves this notion. >>> In their classic study of expertise in chess, Simon and >>> Chase (1973) observed that nobody had attained the level of an >>> international chess master (grandmaster) "with less than about >>> a decade's intense preparation with the game" (p. 402). >>> >> >> This discussion has been quite entertaining and I look forward to >> any comments or further thoughts, >> Sam Stewart >> Lewis & Clark College >> >> >> On Friday, August 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Don Dailey wrote: >> >> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Mark Boon >>> <[email protected] >>> <mailto:tesujisoftware@gmail.**com<[email protected]>>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Don Dailey <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> > I'm not real big on natural talent either. I know it exists but >>>> it is >>>> > somewhat over-rated. The people who are really good at >>>> anything invariably >>>> > worked pretty hard to get there - and the natural talent aspect >>>> may simply >>>> > be internal drive - the ability to focus on what needs to be >>>> done. So I >>>> > do believe that some people have more talent than others but >>>> maybe it's a >>>> > bit over-hyped. Bobby Fischer is said to have been >>>> absolutely obsessed >>>> > with chess as a boy - an obsession you don't usually see in an >>>> old man or >>>> > woman. Was he talented? I'm sure he was, but this insane >>>> obsession >>>> > was probably more important to his success than his natural >>>> talent. >>>> >>>> Erik Puyt (Dutch 5-dan) once summed it up nicely: "when people say >>>> you've got talent, what they mean is you're (still) young". >>>> I do think talent exists. The same way some people are more >>>> intelligent than others. But starting young and working hard at it >>>> is >>>> needed by everyone to become good at anything. Nobody gets it for >>>> free. >>>> >>>> > And even just putting in a lot of time is not the same as >>>> working hard at it. >>>> >>>> I'm a bit of a lazy type. As a teenager I spent a lot of time >>>> studying >>>> Go. But I found that some types of study felt harder on my brain >>>> than >>>> others. Replaying professional games, while certainly helpful, was a >>>> lot 'easier' than doing life-and-death problems, which I hated >>>> doing. >>>> Later I heard some successful professional players claim that the >>>> only >>>> way of studying really worth anything was life-and-death. All the >>>> rest >>>> comes relatively easy through just playing. I would characterize >>>> replaying pro games as 'putting in time' while life-and-death was >>>> 'working at it'. >>>> >>>> I started computer programming when I was 18-19 years old. I knew >>>> straight away this was my future as all the studying felt easy >>>> compared to studying Go, even though I was a little afraid I had >>>> started too late. But it turned out child prodigies in >>>> programming, or >>>> whizz-kids as they were called, only existed in movies at that >>>> day and >>>> age. Learning to program never felt like work. >>>> >>> >>> Being lazy could be a good thing - it is in programming! How >>> many times have I started to code something up, realized how much >>> work it was going to be, then stopped myself and said, "there must >>> be an easier way!" And lo and behold, there usually is. >>> >>> I think this works with everything. In Chess my master friend >>> was big into organizing your thinking and making things easier - >>> usually with clever rules. Very often just one tiny piece of >>> knowledge can save you years of figuring it out for yourself. >>> In one opening I played he said, "it's all about the black >>> squares - if you control them you win." An aha moment for me >>> as I was busy computing variations and doing things the hard way. >>> >>> So I believe than in many ways being "lazy" can be an asset - if >>> you are always trying to figure out an "easier way" to do it you >>> will do much better. >>> >>> Have you ever heard of "square of the pawn?" Or when being >>> checked by the knight in the endings when there is very little >>> time on the clock there are certain squares you can move the king >>> to which guarantee you cannot be checked for 2, 3 or 4 moves - >>> depending on where you move and these are trivial patterns. >>> Also, the say really intelligent people are internally taking >>> shortcuts, they get way more accomplished with very little effort. >>> >>> And I did a simple thing when I was improving in tournament chess. >>> I just happened to notice that 90% of my losses were due to >>> trivial blunders. I went up something like 400 ELO just >>> realizing that. It was a lazy way to get 400 ELO without >>> studying hard or anything else, I just made it my determination >>> and goal not to blunder and before every move I did a quick >>> superficial check, nothing fancy and yet 400 ELO! Everyone >>> thought that I had been studying and learning and getting much >>> better. >>> >>> This is actually a general principle of almost any endeavor: "stop >>> screwing up!" If you play tennis you know that at the club >>> level you don't win games, you lose them. Get the ball back >>> with any consistency and you are suddenly a half way decent club >>> player - even if you don't do it with much style or grace. >>> >>> So I don't think study has to be painful and hard - in fact true >>> "hard work" can be very pleasurable. But it does have to be >>> productive and focused. >>> >>> >>> >>> Don >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Mark >>>> ______________________________**_________________ >>>> Computer-go mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> <mailto:Computer-go@dvandva.**org<[email protected]> >>>> > >>>> >>>> http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/**mailman/listinfo/computer-go<http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go> >>>> >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> Computer-go mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> <mailto:Computer-go@dvandva.**org<[email protected]> >>> > >>> >>> http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/**mailman/listinfo/computer-go<http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go> >>> >> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Computer-go mailing list >> [email protected] >> <mailto:Computer-go@dvandva.**org<[email protected]> >> > >> >> >> http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/**mailman/listinfo/computer-go<http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go> >> >> >> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Computer-go mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/**mailman/listinfo/computer-go<http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go> >> > > > -- > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Pale_Blue_Dot<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Blue_Dot> > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/**mailman/listinfo/computer-go<http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go> >
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
