Robert

I think you miss the point of what I am saying, by a large margin infact. I am trying to say that if I was a top Asian ex-insei coming over to Europe, I would rather player 6/7 dans. It would more interesting for both players. If I play against a 2/3/4 dan, it would fairly straightfoward for me to win and I don't have to put in much of an effort. It wouldn't be a challenge for me either. I would also prefer not to play my own countryman as I could do that is Asia and would be a lot cheaper and less time consuming but I understand the need to if there are a lack of strong players.

If you take the top europeans out to form a top table group than my chances playing against weak dans and my countryman will increase. Therefore, why would I travel half way across the world inorder to play against my countryman and with weak dans. I might as well stay at home.

To be honest I doubt an ex-insei/ ex-pro could expect to learn any significant go playing knowledge whilst at the Go Congress due to the fact that they are so much better than the rest of us (including you Robert). Only a handful could give them a good game and have a decent chances of beating them

Reflect what I have said once more! You have not understood it yet.

Current situation: A Top Players Tournament does not exist.

Possible situation: There would be a Top Players Tournament.

There are too many proposals going on to keep their details in mind. I think that Robert is referring to the idea to make an additional tournament for all top players (european and non-european) in the evening, while the european and non-european top players would be more or less separated in the main tournament.

_________________
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.

Harlequin, I understood what Robert is trying to do and is glad that some sort of comprimise is being sought. However I am just worried that after playing a full day of Go I would go and play another 'tournament' in the evening. The danger is that this might force some players to choose one other another. Surely it would tiring to play so many games in one day. Would it not be easier to hold a closed title that is seperate from the Go congress?

It is an obvious point.

If you are seriously trying to become European Champion, why on Earth would you drain your mental stamina by playing in another tournament during Congress? It applies directly to two proposals up for consideration this year.

Has anyone sought the opinions of Cho Seok-bin, Hwang In-seong, Junfu Dai and Oh Chi-min?

It strikes me that if we really want a system that works for everyone, they should all be consulted with some weight given to their feelings on the issue.

The Korean 7d were not too tired to play in quite some side tournaments during afternoon and evening. And they did play well there, too, I can tell you from having played and watched them:)

First of all, all the top Europeans should be asked or state their opinions by themselves. After all, it is the "European Championship" - not the "Asia in Europe Championship".

That the Strong Players Commission has not survived does not make it easier to get all opinions though.

To get your teaching games?

Apart from that, different players have different opinions. Some play in several tournaments a day while others play in only the main tournament. One cannot generalize for all players.

BTW, my proposal for a Top Players Tournament makes participation VOLUNTARY every round! I.e., each player can CHOOSE whether to play. Players without enough "stanima" for 2 weeks non-stop concentration can thus choose not to play in the Top Players Tournament.

Nevertheless, the fact you said it strongly affects them means that not getting their opinion is, in my opinion, simply very rude.

I don't get it. What do you mean to be very rude?
- That some have not expressed their opinion yet?
- That some particular Europeans do not actively try to seek their (whom do you mean?) opinion?
- That I do not actively try to seek their (whom do you mean?) opinion?
- That I would like to see top Europeans' opinions more than non-Europeans' opinions on the European Championship?

And why "very rude"? (Don't you think that such an expression is better used for hitting someone physically?) Is it equally "very rude" in your opinion not to ask top, say, Canadian or Japanese players? Why, possibly IYO, is it not "very rude" not to ask top Europeans first?

I mean if a decision is made that is going to affect them badly, and is made without consulting them and their opinion, that this is rude.

To applease both sides - how about a 'compromise' proposal, one that I have not seen yet.

1) Restrict the top group to a certain specific number of players, say 24/32/48/whatever.
2) Make certain percentage of them to be 'mandatory' Europeans - say 'at least 60%' or whatever.
3) Make selection towards this group based on results from other major European tournaments, including online ones.

This way, the top group will be closed - and top Asian players will be able to play in the top group - provided they also 'paid their due' by playing in some other European or online tournaments and scored well enough. I know - there are problems with this proposal, but there will be problems with EVERY proposal, we still have to apply something. So lets separate those Top World Players who just wish to have a pleasant European vacations, expenses paid by tournament prizes, and those Top World Players who are genuinely interested in playing the Euro-elite and supporting European Go.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Controversial personal opinions below, please disregard if you have high blood pressure.
So here I go, putting my foot in my mouth yet again... enjoy.



This topic has been around the block quite a few times, discussed by all from the weakest to the strongest, and I think it will always be a highly polarizing issue, but still a matter of personal opinion only. There is no perfect solution. Thus I always feel sad when I see a latter like the above, by somebody respectable (I assume) trying to push their agenda and their opinion by using big (but inappropriate) words like 'discrimination' and 'spirit of Baduk', and all that BS.

What we have here is two conflicting interests and a bunch of weak(er) players being fooled into thinking they are caught in the middle. The interests are:
1) Strong Asian players, wishing to have pleasant 'vacation' in Europe, with sort-of interesting games against Euro-elite, and possibly with expenses at least partially covered by prizes.
2) Strong European players who want to have a bigger slice of the tournament prizes, who are bitter to see monies going to strong 'visitors', and who wish for a more meaningful Euro Championship (whatever that means.)

I am not really sure how the above affects players outside of supergroup, unless they are seriously afraid that if Mr.TopKorean7d does not come, then also all the Mr.ResidentKorean7k will not participate out of spite. Sure, the overall 'delegations' from outside of Europe might be smaller, but it has yet to be shown how this will affect the average club player, if at all.

All of that has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination (or 'racism' as some claim, quite foolishly), and none of that really concerns most of the people speaking on the topic, me included. I am not even sure it has anything to do with Strong Asians visiting Europe - sure, they'd rather play better players, but lets be honest, if their primary interest was to play strong(er) players, they'd say in Asia and play the pros. I assume there are many Mr.Taranus and Mr.Pops in Korea, not to mention Mr.AverageEuropeanHighDans in any given Korean club. If their interest is to help European Go, they would play more simuls against weak players, come to more tournaments (not just to EGC), give more lectures, and so on... If they really wished to play the Euro elite, nothing stopping them from inviting said Euro-elite to their own tournaments, or even organizing special Elite-only tournaments in Europe or outside - I am sure EGF would cooperate. As far as I know, such proposals are not very common, if they exist at all. Do they?

On the other hand - there are countless 'closed' tournaments all over the world, not only in Go - although examples of such in Go are plenty as well - so such concepts are not outrageous or 'discriminatory'. Many of these 'closed' tournaments are in Asia, and many Europeans would give a lot to be able to play in some of them - yet it does not seem such options are even considered. The original letter argues vehemently for Asian/Korean participation in the top European event(s), so how about open the door the other way as well? How would that be for 'spirit of Go'?

Well, maybe I am too biased, so take the above with a grain of salt.

Personally, I find it great pity that resources of the EGF or the availability of the top players prevent a system in which we would have a separate Open Congress and a Closed Championship at separate times. This would be an ideal system, I think. Or would some people still cry 'foul' for not allowing the whole world into the Closed events?

There will always be people and opinions. This is mine.

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

Playing in a tournament is also one of the choices. And they are the ones who choose which way they want, not you.


They possibly just want to play local Elite.


Anyway, what i want to say is that the decision maker is the Europeans. If Europeans welcome them, they come; if not, they don't. That's simple. But wanting them to come and at the same time restricting them from getting any good (prize/playing local/etc...) sounds like you just want free-lunch. That won't work.

I agree with you the wording(discriminatory/races/etc...) used in the letter is truely stupid, and I agree close tourneys everywhere and Hahn-ssi should not point his fingers to Europe. I just think he goes one way too far, and you go the other way.

_________________
长考出臭棋.

Bantari, I can agree to much of what you say (surprise!). Below I concentrate on only where I have a somewhat different opinion.

Something like your proposal was made some years ago. Too complicated qualification tournament conditions were rejected by the AGM.

Your proposal alone is pretty much the same as the current system with its known drawbacks (not enough European-only games, final result tiebreakers are too important). It brings me to another proposal though: Enhance the current system besides your rough ideas as follows:

- Let the top players (those wishing to compete for the EC title(s)) play in 14 instead of 10 rounds: Also on the central weekend and the Wednesdays.
- Ensure enough European-only games for each top European.
- (Only) those Europeans wishing to play for the title have to play in all 14 rounds.

Advantages:
- Enough top European-only games.
- Enough top European - non-European games.
- Every top European's number of non-European opponents can be set fairly.

Disadvantage:
- No free (holiday) days in between. Therefore some top Europeans might consider it too much stress.

Neutral:
- Because not all players play all rounds, final tied places are required to remain tied. (Unless one substitutes the final two days by playoffs.)

***

The EC played at a different place and time as the congress's Open-EC is seen problematic mainly because not all top Europeans can take enough holiday for both and some don't want to miss the congress. (There are also other reasons related to letting the ordinary players watch at site and to avoiding a too encapsulated qualification scheme with too little access for newcomers.)

I do not think that it is really possible to have both "enough european-only games" and "enough korean-european games" in 10 rounds. However, I do not think that the main tournament should have more than 10 rounds either, and even if it had 14 rounds, I do not believe that the above mentioned conflicting goals would really be satisfied.

The wish list is just too long. Therefore, I predict that all the proposals of this year will be scrapped again.

I can only give the advice to hold off on proposing solutions, and instead focus first on defining the goals and constraints. Note that this cannot be done by voting.

_________________
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.

I think this is one of the wisest bits of advice in the whole thread.

Sadly, I think it requires a working group to be set up with a good understanding of all the different viewpoints and enough credibility to be left in charge of defining the problem and producing solutions. There are so many disparate goals here depending on whose "side" you are supporting, that consensus is unlikely to be achievable.

Bantari, there is much I find sad in your post. The main sadness is that you appear to have swallowed the activists' claim that this is a bipolar issue between an open and a closed event. This issue is certainly entitled to a fair hearing, but there is a broader overriding issue that needs to be attended to first.

This is the question of how we deal with the hands that feed us. It is a fact of life that sponsorship and support of western go has been and is almost entirely Oriental. And very substantial at that - from governments, companies, professional organisations, individual professionals and individual amateurs. So long as that is the case we need, both as a matter of self interest as well as politeness and gratitude, to pay special attention to the views, perceptions and requirements of the Orientals, even if deep down we don't agree with, or even dislike, their preferences (e.g. Ing rules and clocks).

It is a perfectly valid stance to refuse such support and to hold a close European Championship, or even Congress. I would not consider that discriminatory. But it reeks of the foullest hypocrisy to take the Orientals' money and support and then try to close doors to them (and it is even more hypocritical and cynical to leave doors slightly ajar and pretend they are open).

It would be half-way acceptable, however, if the EGF (by which I really mean European players in general rather than specific council members) publicly declared to the sponsors that they wanted to try to stand on their own two feet and would like to continue taking the money for a short interim period before declaring "independence". The sponsors may not like that and may refuse, but at least it would be a more honest approach by the EGF membership. However, I have seen no evidence of that approach, and since the EGF's treasurer has said that the removal of Ing funding now puts the EGF on course for losing all its reserves within three years at current levels of spending, a declaration of independence at the moment seems an act of supreme folly.



This is another very sad point. Ignoring easily checked facts. Foreigners can and do enter tournaments in Japan, Korea and China. In the case of events such as the Agon-Kiriyama Cup (far from the only case) in Japan, these foreigners even get to play Japanese pros. Many of these foreigners are amateurs, some are pros. They visit Japan for this purposse from China and Korea. There is absolutely nothing to stop western players likewise going to Japan and entering these events - except of course that, far from "giving a lot", maybe they expect free air tickets in return for gracing the events with their presence?

Even the supposedly closed events such as the Meijin are actually open in the sense that anyone is entitled to try to qualify to become one of the pros invited by the sponsors to play. Joanne Missingham from Australia entered the pro qualification event in China without living there before or after (and qualified as pro). Many westerners have been accepted as inseis. Some have even qualified as pros and have been allowed to play in Japan and Korea. I'm sure westerners would be welcomed in China, too, but they currently have little chance of making the grade. However, players from Korea, Japan and Taiwan have already been allowed to play professionally inside China.

How about that for the spirit of go?

I prefer Europe to become independent financially and concerning teaching. (Catalin seems to have said something similar.) E.g., I think that Europeans could easily fulfil the teaching tasks at congresses. (E.g., the supergroup members could be required to teach in announced teaching events for at least 3 hours during the congress. In some Ing Cups, we participants had to sign that we would teach if desired, but then nobody asked. This does not mean though that Asian teaching guests would have to be rejected.)



The interesting point rather is: May they enter the most important Asian tournaments? Only then one can compare the situation to Europe's most important tournaments.

I do not know much about that but last time I read something related about the Japanese Kisei, there were difficulties for Chinese professionals (except those being member of a Japanese Go association) to participate. Would that be any different for Europeans?



No. But airtickets are expensive and few want to afford it for that purpose.