I'm in favor of being taught by a pro who is a good teacher if you can afford it. At a U.S. Go Congress many years ago I watched a pro give a public commentary on a game between two SDK players. The pro was at first at a loss how to proceed because after the first few moves almost every move was a mistake, to some extent, in the pro's opinion. For me this has implications for who teaches go and how they do it. If you are an SDK teaching a DDK player you are probably unreliable at saying what the best move is in many situations but you might be able to explain what is wrong with some of the DDK's moves, without catching all of the DDK's mistakes. All of us enjoy having games reviewed by stronger players and we all end up not recognising all our mistakes. If you could recognise all your mistakes you wouldn't need the game review To the extent that we don't recognise our own mistakes we also don't see them in other players' games. So ... get the strongest teacher you can. Of course not every pro is a good teacher so that has to be considered as well.

Note that the OP inquired about a teacher, not just a game review.

Pro lessons are a good way to get better. They force you to unlearn your bad habits and develop good ones. Some will give lectures, and all will review your games.

I first went to a pro, Yilun Yang, with the problem that I didn't even know what to think in a fight, which I found frustrating. He gave me his lecture on how to respond to a cross cut.

1. Can I capture the cutting stone? If yes, do so. If no or unsure...
2. Can I save both of my stones? If yes, do so. If no or unsure...
3. Save the more important stone. (With an explanation of which is more important)

After the opponent answers, ask the same questions again each move. Funnily, the answer to number 1 often eventually becomes yes.

What did this have to do with fighting? Cross-cuts are the most elementary forms of fighting. This lecture holds true for larger fights, too. Pros won't teach you bad habits, and good-teaching pros will teach you the why's.

Final piece of advice, make sure your teacher is good, and that their style clicks with you.

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

I think there are more apparent disagreements in this thread than actual disagreements (of course, this statement could be made about many discussions). I'm not saying there are no disagreements, just fewer.

Everyone has an assumption about what "teacher," "pro," etc. means. Precision in definitions is only practical up to a point, of course, so this is really unavoidable. Attempting to be more precise makes replying cumbersome (and makes posts more complicated), which leads me to make fewer posts than I otherwise would. Indeed, the mere length of this post suggests why I don't post as much. That said, I humbly suggest giving posters the benefit of the doubt--that is, if a post can be interpreted in a reasonable way or an unreasonable way, assume the reasonable way was intended, but ask for clarification where needed.

(An important side note: I'm not at all attacking anyone here, and I don't think posters in the thread have been particularly "uncivil" or even rude or unreasonable--especially compared to many other threads. If you feel as though I'm attacking you personally, please ask for clarification before getting angry--chances are, something I wrote doesn't come across as I intended.)

Does "teacher" mean:
Someone introducing go to someone else for the first time?
Teaching someone the basic rules?
Helping someone review his game? (I can't bring myself to use "they" in the singular, so his/her is not meant to be gender specific)
Reviewing someone's game for her?
Playing a teaching game?
Teaching someone a joseki or joseki variation?
Going over life and death problems with someone?
Giving a lecture on larger concepts (middle-game fighting, the opening, etc.)?
Teaching a class/group of players?
Teaching anyone to become pro strength?
Opening a go school?

And for the above, is it for money? A one-off lesson/lecture/discussion/review? Or a series of regular lessons?

For that matter, what are "lessons"? The majority of my "lessons" with pros involve game reviews. But there are some differences between a self-review, a review with someone around my strength, a review with someone much stronger than I am, and a review as part of a more formal "lesson."

Does "pro" mean: certified professional from a recognized international association (the more technical definition)? Pro-strength (whatever that means)*? As strong as a typical Chinese 1p? A Korean/Japanese/American 1p? A certified professional that is also as strong as a typical 1p (in a chosen system)? Someone who used to be that strong?

In this context, I assumed the poster meant Pro=certified pro (maybe the poster considered the possibility of amateurs of "pro strength" roughly defined, or did not). I wasn't sure what the OP intended by "teaching" so I gave a more general answer.

So, with that tedious context, I stand by my original post. I didn't address more far-out concepts, because I assumed (and still do) that they are beyond the scope of the post: For example, if someone is thinking of moving somewhere to attend a go school a "teacher" just opened, there are considerations far beyond a teacher's strength and even teaching ability (e.g., making sure it isn't a total scam). But looking at strength alone, I'd certainly recommend some verification of the person's strength. A pro certification would certainly be helpful, but insufficient standing alone (maybe a pro certification along with recommendations from pros and strong players I know and trust).

If the hypothetical "go school" bills itself as teaching students to become pros, I'd probably say the "teacher" must have a pro certification. If someone, say 10k, is taking lessons to develop his hobby, I can't imagine a pro certification would be necessary--Yuan Zhou, for example, appears to be a fine teacher.

*As for "pro strength":
Of course, "pro strength" is practically impossible to quantify, even if someone has played several pros and won/lost. For most purposes, precision isn't necessary.
I think it is unreasonable to say that "unless someone is a certified pro, they aren't pro strength.
I think it is also unreasonable to say that every certified pro is stronger than every amateur player, or even that every pro is stronger than the average amateur 6/7/8/9d (depending on the system).

I think this must be one of the most stupid statements I have seen here in a long time, no offense.
Do you think 5d knows correct moves? Do you think 6d does? A pro? Are you that naive to think *anybody* is 100% sure?!?
We are all just doing the best we can...

For the record - I have seen 6d teaching beginners, and it gave me tooth-ache.
I have seen pros doing a bang-up job of trying to teach.

Anyhow... in most clubs, 5dan players are too high and mighty to teach beginners, so this task falls by default to DDKs... and if not for them, we would have no beginners who would grow to beat the pants off of you. I am a little bit tipsy, but hello... what you say is so dumb I really did not expect it of you. Nobody, and I mean -NOBODY- would play Go if we all thought as you apparently do. We need more tolerance and initiative and much less elitism you seem to be preaching here. You should be thankful to them, dude.

I mean - I understand that DDKs have a lot of things wrong, and from where you are it seems ok to look down on them, but get real, pal... They are good people just trying to help, and in the long run *you* are the one benefiting, so to try to shoot them down like that is just plain nasty and mean. You made some silly comments in the past, but still, I really expected better of you here.

Again - no offense.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Magicwand's post, and the last 4 posts by gowan, wineandgolover, judicata, and Bantari covered many of the aspects and angles
of this discussion.

Bantari, out of curiosity --

I just game across this thread and read it all. There are so many different opinions that it seems there must be no answer to the question. But, based on 40 years of teaching the game, here are my opinions:

Anyone can teach anyone else something, but for prolonged teaching over a number of games I think the teacher should be at least five stones stronger. But, if the teacher is more than nine stones stronger then it all depends on the relative quality of teacher and student. Some stronger players just are not good teachers because they have forgotten what it is like to be weak and cannot relate to the student. Other stronger players are great teachers for much weaker players. Some students are more interested in general instruction to improve a little and they may not be able to take advantage of the teachings of much stronger players. Other students are quick learners who really want to get strong and will follow up teaching games with private study. These people can learn from teachers much stronger than themselves.

Also, it depends on the style of the teacher - it may not match what the student needs. For some, a teacher who comments in detail on every move may be best, but for others all they need is someone who created interesting positions and games for later private study. I have personally never had a teacher more than 5 stones stronger than I since I was about 4k (almost 40 years ago). From that point on I have learned from people who were mostly 2 or 3 stones stronger at most. I have had lessons from pros and never once did I think it was worth the money.

So to answer the question, the bottom line is: IT DEPENDS.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

I have seen clubs like this. In retrospect, so lucky I was.

Hi Ed, sorry I did not get to your questions before. Was busy and did not even notice your questions.
I try tome fancy colors, so don;t get scared.




Now - all good questions, but missing a point, I think - at least with respect to what I was talking about.
Still, to answer you - I would ask the neighbor, if I thought he was a good teacher, and then if I find out the kid is talented, I would hire the best teacher I can afford from the available pool. Which does not mean "the best pianist", or "the most renowned pianist", or "the pianist who gives the most concerts", or even "the pianist who charges the most money". I will try to address it throughout the post.

But we are not talking about such kind of situation here, are we?

We are talking about a newbie walking into a Go club and asking: "what is this game, show me, ok, cool, its fun, show me more." The available pool of people who jump up and start teaching is usually one or two DDKs who don't play games at the moment - I have pretty much *never* seen a resident 5D getting up from his chair and taking on the newbie teacher role, and spending his evening explaining rules and basics. It happens, but not much. Many clubs don't even have dan players, let alone high dans. So to say that anything else than 5D should be rejected is the same as saying, in most cases, we should just send those newbies away and don't teach them anything. This is the reality of the situation here. Is this what we want?

I think we simply cannot afford to do that and still claim that we care about the growth of the Go community.

To reiterate - the issue is *not* who is the best teacher to *hire* here - but who, realistically, takes on the role of teaching people who walk into a club how to play Go and the basics that go past the mere rules. Or to teach complete newbies on the servers. If we wait for 5D players to take on this task - Go will go the way of the Dodo, I'm afraid.

PS>
We have had a similar conversation before, I believe, about the quality of the teaching versus the playing strength. And while you convinced me that you have a valid point in what you say, I still stand on the premise that playing strength and teaching skills can, but do not have to, go hand in hand. Most often they do now.

Examples abound: Best chess couches are usually not the best players, and vice versa. From the recent EGC reports I get is seems that the pros that teach the most and the best and the ones people enjoy the most are not the strongest pros out there... Most of the good teachers I have met in my university years were not the most renown scientists, and those who were, usually sucked as teachers. And so on...

Of course - to teach you need to know the subject you teach. But you do not need to be the absolute best in it, competitively speaking. You just need to be competent in the specific area you teach and then have a good communication skills (which is also not very common, but at least as important as knowledge of the subject.) And most importantly - you need to know what you don't know, and be confident enough to admit it.

Examples abound here too: You don't need a Fields Medal to teach 1st grade math, or even 5th grade math... you need to be a competent college graduate, if even that - and if your teaching skills are good, you can do as good of a job, or even better, than most Fields Medal winners. I would actually prefer a mere college graduate in such situation. To teach you how to drive you don't need a Formula 1 racer - you just need a competent driver with good teaching skills and a lot of patience. To teach you how to read and write, you don't need a Hemingway. And so on...

So, back to our imaginary kid/piano example: by 'the best' I mean the best piano teacher, not necessarily the best pianist. I would even say - the most suitable at the moment, rather than 'the best'. There is a difference, and its an important one.

PS2>
From the trend of where I think you are going here, and in our previous conversation, I sense in you the deeply ingrained perception that the best, and only the very best, is good enough to teach, or there is the danger of learning bad habits which you then have to painfully unlearn. There is some truth to that, which I can agree with. However, what we seem to disagree with is the evaluation of what it means to be "the best." You see to understand it means the teacher with the best possible playing strength, preferably a pro, preferably the best pro. For me, the perception of "the best" varies from need to need and from time to time.

A good teacher will know what to teach you and what not to teach you, regardless of strength. Just like a good doctor will know what to try to cure you of and when to send you to a specialist.

There are many bad teachers out there, especially among weak players. But there are some very good ones there too. The quality of the teacher to me does not come only from playing strength, but more from their wisdom of teaching what they can and leaving the door open to what they can not. The trouble with most poor teachers (both pro and ama) is that they try to be able to answer each question, even when they themselves don't know the answer, or don't have time to go into details, or whatever. But that's not the function of playing strength but the weakness of character.

So, I hope this gives you some insight by what I mean by "good teacher". It really does not have much to do with playing strength exclusively.



Interesting question, but also slightly off of what I was saying. Nevertheless, I try to answer them for you.

Answer #1.
I would hire a teacher, when I need one. For anything I need one for. But not for something I don't.

When I do need a teacher, I would look for one who can teach me what I need to know, and not necessarily for one who is most expensive or "the best" - whatever that means. As a matter of fact, I am currently looking for a teacher in a certain area, and I am trying to match the list of teachers I know to the list of qualities I find important. And price or the fact that somebody is 'the best' in the field are very low on my priorities list - as a matter of fact, they are not even there at all.

Answer #2.
Not really. I would say - I would hire the most suitable teacher at the given moment, whatever it means. Sometimes it might be the best teacher I can afford, sometimes not. Your words assume correlation about quality of the teacher and the fees he/she charges. I am not sure this correlation is true in all cases.

To give you a more practical example:
I could probably afford to hire the current "Best Player In The World," whoever he is, and whatever he charges, to teach my kid - it I had one. I could afford to move to Asia to provide my hypothetical kid with the best Go education from the best Go players in the world. Would I? Would you? Before you even know if your kid has any talent, or even any inclination to play Go? And this is even putting aside the fact that the "Best Player In The World" can completely suck as a teacher and actually do more damage to my kid's Go education than a friendly and patient DDK.

Answer #3.
This is true, although I have to admit its just my personal preference, and not a reflection of Go being "just a game." I have learned Go by people teaching me for free, and so I will return this value by never charging for teaching neither. Consequently, I will also not pay for it myself. Although this might also stem from the fact that I am not really looking to improve, so its not that important to me. What I say in this post is more my personal philosophy towards teachers in general than based on my immediate needs for a Go teacher.

Hope this helps.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Hi Bantari, no problem at all -- actually I was gone to Tacoma for US Go Congress and just got back, was busy too.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. For the most part, and this may surprise you, we actually agree on most of the things you brought up in your reply.By "we," do you mean "you" ? This is otenki's question:His question is open and general, not restricted to a beginner walking into a Go club.Then you have misunderstood me; I never said that. Like many here, I've seen pros who cannot teach,
and I've seen many kyu people who are very helpful to beginners.

But I do believe that a very good teacher, in any field, is not easy to find indeed.Yes, we both agree on this.

Thanks.

If "effectively" means "with little effort, make the Western pupil stronger quickly", IMX and on average, those amateur players that are effective teachers, teach more effectively than professional players. The latter are catching up though, because part of them has been realising the didactic needs of Western pupils.

It hardly depends on strength difference; it can happen to learn more from a few weaker (than the pupil) players with specific insight than from most stronger players.



That some have no clue about a specific topic says nothing about whether others have relevant knowledge.

I like this.

Someone could teach you something just by giving you tsumego problems to complete and help you go over them.

A good teacher is someone who can identify your common errors and give you tsumego that help you become more familiar with that problem.

So I suppose a teacher could be at any rank as long as they have more understanding in one area than you do, even if overall they aren't better than you.

alright, i'm going to make one last post on this and let you guys squabble amongst yourselves

to date, i've yet to see a good "amateur" teacher
by amateur i mean someone who did not formally learn go and instead was self taught (so someone who was an insei or maybe studied under a pro for a good 5+ years wouldn't be an amateur really)

does this mean they can't teach beginners? no
it just means that if you want to learn and get better, i would not recommend you just ask help from someone who is ranked higher
a higher rank might mean they play better, but it doesn't mean they'll give good advice. if they're good at fighting and horrible at the opening, they're not going to give you good advice as to what you did wrong in the opening
you need a pro who knows the correct move and can properly explain why it's good (if need be)
too many times i've seen people ask a higher dan what they think about a move and the higher dan chokes as to finding a good refutation

the reason i mentioned good shape is because it is the most obvious deficient example within most players (and stronger players) where they pass down faulty knowledge to their "students"
this is also ignoring the fact that some of them have no clue how to properly play the opening or well, any part of the game

but hey, if you think a 6k getting help from a 3d will help him get strong enough to 3d, go ahead and think so
i've yet to see it happen and don't think it ever will

This is a joke, right? You are claiming that Asian professional go teachers are just now catching up with their Western counterparts? I guess this explains why Asian players are just now catching up to the west in tournaments such as the WAGC.

Seriously Robert, I guess it's okay to promote yourself, but to do so by constantly knocking the opposition (professional teachers and other authors) is off-putting.

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

Which amateur players have you or have you not seen teaching seriously thus far? Of whom have you not read books yet?



This applies to both amateurs and professionals. Everybody has his knowledge gaps.



Professionals tend to be stronger than most amateurs at two aspects: 1) speed of tactical reading, 2) speed of almost-correct endgame reading / value of endgame move calculation. Therefore, usually your observation for high dan amateurs confronted with a tactically complex problem makes sense.

No. It is my observation since ca. 1991 of hundreds of professionals teaching live or in books. (There are exceptions of good Asian pro teachers or books.)



Exactly. (With the following exceptions: 1) complex tactical reading, 2) fast endgame move choice, 3) a professional's strong teaching points.)

In particular, during the recent European Go Congress a young Chinese(?) female professional gave good lectures by providing reasons and principles (even written) and proceeding methodically. This has been the first time I have seen such a level of quality from a professional player while teaching live.

Just a few years ago, teaching was often similar to Kobayashi Chizu 6p(?)'s "In a life and death problem, first reduce, then occupy the vital point" and otherwise teaching only by examples. (This is a fake principle, which can be wrong.) Weak teaching from a pretty strong player and particularly active sensei.



I have said NOTHING about playing strength. To clarify, the playing strength of Asian professionals tends to be (much) greater than that of Western amateurs. However, playing strength and teaching skill are two very different things.



Instead of misinterpreting me, please notice that I have praised also other specific teachers, amateurs and authors, such as Elwyn Berlekamp 10 kyu, Andre Engels (then ca. 1 dan) or James Davies (ca. 4 dan?).

I'm guessing for the level of class, it wasn't a bad example. Many 4d who go to US Go Congress lectures can be bored by the lectures, but this kind of teaching is useful for the weaker players who do attend. One on one lessons to a 4d, she won't teach that to you.

But it's OK if the principle is sometimes wrong, is it not? Go is a complex game, and to try to capture its entire essence in a set of universal principles seems more difficult than acquiring knowledge of the game through experience and examples.

When a pro says "first reduce, then occupy the vital point", it doesn't mean that the student should be a robot and always follow this advice. Students still need to think for themselves, and such sayings should be used as starting points - not laws that cannot be broken. Takemiya 9p has time and time again stressed the importance of playing your own moves and learning from failure. When you reduce the game of go to a set of principles that cannot be broken, it hinders students from progressing. The purpose of examples and principles is to point a general direction and to give students something to think about - not to say, "when intersection X and intersection Y are present, you must play intersection Z".

You seem to define the quality of a teacher by their adherence to truthful and universal principles. This is one way of teaching, but it's not the only path toward helping students. People are different, and some may very well learn better from examples and "semi-truths" than from a set of laws that should not be violated.

_________________
be immersed

It was for an audience from ca. 15k - 6d with a majority of 5k - 5d.



A principle, unless designed to be 100% correct, may sometimes be wrong, say in the 5% range of being wrong. However, 1) the specific "principle" in question is wrong much more often in practice and 2) the teacher of a principle must explain the (low degree of) reliability of a principle.



The result of thinking for myself is: there are ca. 200 (if not more) instead of 2 (reduction, vital point) techniques for local life and death problems; the appropriate principle about reductions and vital points is "It is more often correct to use reductions before occupying vital points, but the converse order must be considered as an alternative. This has to be applied in the context of many possible other techniques.".



Uh, I expect this not earlier than 400 years later...



In case of examples: if only this were always so...



Exactly. Therefore, proverbs must not be called principles and must not be misleading.



No. (E.g., principles are only one aspect of teaching. An important aspect of teaching is identification of the pupil's systematic mistakes.)



IMO, even they can learn better with the accompanying characterisation, that a statement is just more frequently correct than wrong, instead of giving the false impression of being a truth. Even more important, also they can learn more if they are told about more techniques than always only reductions versus vital points. (I have seen several such professionals teaching only the reductions before vital points idea and otherwise only examples. Needless to say, the literature and go theory about life and death need a revolution, so that teaching on the topic can become better than "Take that pile of problem books and solve them!".)

Nothing more to say on this for me, really. My conclusion remains that people are different, and some people may very well learn best from a pro. Based on the discussion so far, I have no reason to believe that pros, in general, are bad teachers compared to more principled amateurs.

_________________
be immersed