new low

[Javaness]

Membership of the British Go Association hit a new post 1972 low this year - but why? Is Go becoming less popular, or is membership just less attractive? http://www.britgo.org/history/bgamem.html

[stalkor]

hmm even the netherlands have more members in their association (about 800) thats quite concerning. maybe more promotional activities would help go in britain?

also, what would be a reason to sign up for the BGA? i only signed up for the dutch go assoc. because i otherwise could not take part in the national championship qualifiers.

[Dusk Eagle]

I don't know about Britain, but here in Canada there is very little reason to be a part of the Canadian Go Association. My membership from 1.5 years ago may have expired by now, and tournaments are so rare here that I won't rejoin until a new tournament that requires it is organized.

[gowan]

Most of us feel some obligation to help newcomers learn the game. Likewise we might feel some obligation to promote its spread in our home countries. I belong to my country's go association (the AGA) even though I don't play in tournaments any more and don't belong to a go club. I feel paying my dues is the least I can do tosupport the promotional activities of the AGA.

As for the apparently slow growth of membership ingo associations I wonder whether the internet has anything to do with it. On KGS or any of many different servers (e.g. IGS, wbaduk, cyberoro) you can get a game with a good opponent any time of day and any day of the week. If you have a go club near you likely only a dozen or so people show up most nights and the club only meets one time per week. The internet's variety and easy availability of playing makes belonging to a club or national association somewhat unnecessary.

[CnP]

This probably sounds awful but for me membership would seem much more attractive if I could easily buy Go books through the BGA online - since they had/have the best prices available. I guess I'm a selfish person but the retirement of the BGA bookseller and the lack of a replacement is why I let my membership lapse this year. I don't have the time to go to tournaments and am quite happy just playing online.

[John Fairbairn]

Most of us feel some obligation to help newcomers learn the game. Likewise we might feel some obligation to promote its spread in our home countries. I belong to my country's go association (the AGA) even though I don't play in tournaments any more and don't belong to a go club. I feel paying my dues is the least I can do tosupport the promotional activities of the AGA.

For people of gowan's and my generation I think this attitude was very common. Before there were just too many similar books, I used to try to buy every go book in English, most still unread, just to support the publisher. Like gowan, I also felt obliged to join my go association just to help the finances. I never once thought what I might get out of it, although there certainly were benefits, mainly the BGJ journal and the many tournaments.

I don't think younger people have become any less willing to be loyal or supportive, but such feelings are always finely balanced (there are so many things you can support - which to choose?) and probably the balance has altered in the case of go. If you and others can get most or all of what you want free from the internet, why support what seems an irrelevant organisation? Even among existing members, the "and others" is important, I think, because, even if we are reluctant to admit it, most of us perversely resent paying for something that others get for free, even if we don't necessarily want it for free ourselves.

In my case, I stopped being a BGA member a couple of years ago by way of a protest. The BGA has an e-mail forum and I got fed up mostly at people telling me they didn't want online discussions because they already got too many e-mails. For no doubt related reasons, most attempted discussions died after one or two posts. Also, some energetic people have tried to organise an online tournament for BGA members. It was popular on paper (and GoGoD, not otherwise involved, provided a trophy and prizes), but it virtually died when a large number of registered players refused to answer e-mails or even give out their e-mail addresses so that games could be arranged! That, to me, is just shooting yourself in the foot, and I see no reason to support such people.

As witnessed by British results in the recent London Open, as well as the declining membership figures, the bulk of the BGA seems to be at the silver end of the spectrum. It's great to have experience and hopefully wisdom in the mix, but with the attitudes mentioned in the previous paragraph so prevalent, there seems to be a disconnect between many of the old faithfuls and the newer generations.

I think the days of national associations are not necessarily over, but they probably do need a big injection of young talent. But it seems, from many postings here, that young people want different things from the older generations. One thing is actual benefits. The idea of a discount for books, mentioned above, seems a good one, though in the case of the BGA. at least, that's surely old hat? Another thing some younger volunteers want is more freedom and responsibility. I have some sympathy with their frustrations. There is probably too much old-style control freakery in some national association hierarchies (I don't think that applies to the BGA, though). Especially with fast-changing web technologies, volunteers must be allowed more often to try and fail.

Another thing younger people seem to want is more recognition for what they do. That's not unreasonable in itself - being able to put proof of "I did XYZ" on a CV is some compensation for volunteering one's time. There is also a human nature angle. I have said before that the way some strong players treat association volunteers like skivvies, there just to organise free trips for them to the Far East, is despicable. Free trips for the volunteers and young are much more important.

[deja]

Out of the many associations that I've belonged to over the years, I've never gotten more out of them than what I put in, monetarily or voluntarily speaking. That's not the way it works. In fact, I feel like a deadbeat if all I've done is pay my yearly dues. They are volunteer organizations for a reason and not a Sam's club or a Cosco.

[stalkor]

wouldnt be bad to skip country x association and someone aiming to make a worldwide go association with a world tour on tournaments and also some control in ranks worldwide to get rid of those pesky differences in strength ranges. also having connections over the entire world makes lots of things possible, like discounts or big sponsors. there is almost no go associations that makes it possible to play online tournaments that count for your rating.

[Laman]

wouldnt be bad to skip country x association and someone aiming to make a worldwide go association with a world tour on tournaments and also some control in ranks worldwide to get rid of those pesky differences in strength ranges. also having connections over the entire world makes lots of things possible, like discounts or big sponsors. there is almost no go associations that makes it possible to play online tournaments that count for your rating.

that all sounds good, but it is also too simplifying in my opinion. worldwide go association - IGF - already exists but another question is what it does, what authority it has and how much do local organizations want to obey it

world tour on tournaments - if you mean only for amateurs, it would be difficult for players to get money for their travel expenses, i guess this is already hard enough inside Europe, where we have a tournament tour (Pandanet Go European Cup)

unified ranking - again, even national associations inside EGF don't show much will to unify their ranking systems (and we all use the same GoR rating, not speaking about rest of the world with completely different ratings)

rated online tournaments - i would agree with your other propositions, they would be nice to achieve, but i doubt it is really good idea to rate real life and online games together - at least for unavoidable possibility of cheating when playing online. it is probably not a problem in current Pandanet Go European Team Championship, mainly because it is designed for the strongest players who cannot cheat so easily but how do you want to prevent a 10k from persuading his friend 5k to play instead of him and help him to achieve a long-desired SDK (or anything)

[stalkor]

but how do you check in real life tournaments? For all i know the same could be happening there because there is no id check when you play in a tournament.

[mohsart]

and we all use the same GoR rating

Some countries use GoR, some use it as a guideline and eg in Sweden we don't use it at all.

/Mats

[hyperpape]

but how do you check in real life tournaments? For all i know the same could be happening there because there is no id check when you play in a tournament.

I can recognize about half of the top ten active players in the US, and I haven't even been to a tournament in two years.

[topazg]

and we all use the same GoR rating

Some countries use GoR, some use it as a guideline and eg in Sweden we don't use it at all.

/Mats

Not only that, but GoR varies between countries. A French 1900 is typically stronger than a UK 1900.

[Laman]

ok, i guess i also simplified it too much with the GoR mention but it was only side supporting argument for my (i believe agreeable) statement that it is difficult to unify only european rankings and that whole world would be even harder

[hyperpape]

Not only that, but GoR varies between countries. A French 1900 is typically stronger than a UK 1900.

1. Anecdote or statistically based?
2. Are there efforts to fix it?
3. It must really tear your nerves up to lose to the French that way. Amirite?