John Fairbairn wrote:
it is my belief [...] that obsession with rules has badly affected western go.
Obsession with rules started with obscurity of Japanese rules in Japan and as a consequence the centuries-lasting delay in the spreading of go to Europe and then the entire world. The obsession for obscurity badly affected western go because it made it particularly hard for Europeans to understand at first what go was at all.
The obsession of Europeans to understand the rules and the game nevertheless made it possible for go to reach Europe as a game rather than to continue to be nothing more than playing material without known function.
Then, when the game was finally played as a game in western countries at all, came the obsession by Robinson and Olmsted. It came in a time when go started to grow in the USA. If there should have been any relation, then it must have been a positive one and not, as you suggest, a negative one.
Apart from side tracks like Ikeda (in Japan!), the next rules obsession was Ing's, who is not exactly what one might call a "westener".
Western countries saw a next wave of rules obsession starting around 1990; pretty much at the same time when Ing sponsored tournaments affected also western countries. Two rules obsessions met. Now western rules freaks were faced with two serious problems: to understand Japanese rules and to understand Ing rules. What (besides the bad Ing playing material) badly affected western go was the difficulty lying in those rules.
The rules obsession (besides its rules explanations) also created a great effect for the western go: a much deeper understanding of some kinds of fundamental go theory with explanations far better than eastern descriptions.
Quote:
including the possibility that sponsorship has been lost
The major reason for sponsorhip loss was the 2008 world finance crisis. There are also other reasons like the idea that westerns countries should learn to stand on their own feet.
It is very good if bad rules (both rules of play and tournament rules) are not spread any longer together with associated sponsor money because being forced to apply inapplicable and bad rules is not worth the money. Money does not make sponsors' rules any better. Bad rules must be changed also in the sponsors' countries themselves because internationalism keeps creating impacts of bad rules from one country to other countries.
Quote:
a few individuals [...] making [...] noise [...] about Ing clocks and rules
It is not a few but many individuals. You would know if you attended, e.g., European congresses regularly and sought opinions about such topics.
Quote:
when they could just as easily and probably more effectively have made their case in many other less offensive ways,
What is offensive about stating facts? Isn't the spreading of bad rules more offensive?
Quote:
none of them prohibited or likely to be prohibited (e.g. letters to Ing, words in the ears of influential people, motions at conferences
As said many times before, all that was done.
Quote:
thousands of other western go players may have lost sponsorship and friends through no fault of their own.
Money does not buy friends.
Again you like to construct your bombastic theory that openly discussing people would be responsible for stopped sponsorship. Well then, blame the majorities of participants of European tournaments, EGF politicians, the rules experts and yourself (because you make all that more and more public). I have the theory that sponsors decide about sponsorship on their own. If they want to spread go in the world, then they do it. If they want to spread go in their own countries, then they do that. If economy is worse than they can bear, then they keep their money together. Western people have always enjoyed open discussion and sponsorship has increased or declined nevertheless.