Bantari wrote:Which makes it important and interesting to precisely state what the Euro-pro will be, and what organization he/she will belong to, what will this organization do, and so on... I don't think this question should just be brushed away like that.
That's fair. For me, I work as an engineer and have for a fairly long time now. However, I am not a Professional Engineer. That has a very different meaning. Maybe this is a more appropriate way to view the difference of a Go Player/Teacher and Professional Go Player/Teacher. Accreditation matters in some industries.
Bantari wrote: But HH likened a Go Professional to a baker, so I wanted to know *his* definition of the term. To me Go Professional is not at all like a baker, precisely for the reasons described on the page you gave.
My claim is that the word "professional" in a go context is pretty much identical to the word "baker" in an English context. Both are words with a well-understood meaning. In the same vein, "professional" is pretty much identical to "bicycle", "water" or "dinosaur".
What I am not claiming is that professional and baker are in any way comparable concepts. The closest English equivalent to "professional" that I can think of is "PhD" (except professional titles are much rarer).
Why would you expect the EGF to take the word professional and apply it to an entirely different concept like a 1 year vanity title?
I think a more apt comparison of professional go players would be professional golfers, though even that is not exact.
In golf, there are really two kinds of professionals, whom you could describe as people who no longer have amateur status. One is a teaching professional, who often has some sort of teaching accreditation and works primarily giving lessons. The other is a playing professional, which requires going through a series of tournaments to join a professional tour, which one could liken to a professional go association. In order to join the PGA tour(until recently) for example, you went through a series of qualifying tournaments culminating in a final qualifying tournament which granted a tour card, allowing you to play on the standard PGA tour events. There are also some elite tournaments, such as the masters, which are invitation only, and which invite a few amateur players in to the tournament, or the US Open, which allows anyone of a certain handicap (read: rank) to participate in a set of qualifying tournaments, though playing professionals generally don't have to go through these.
In relation to the go world, being a professional has typically been about being a playing professional, and joining a professional association for the right to participate in tournaments and be compensated for that participation. Teaching by playing professionals has always happened as well, but there isn't really a way to become a teaching professional without the playing rights, as far as I know, and I gather that teaching is often a supplemental form of income to augment winnings into a decent lifestyle for many professionals. People generally want a teacher who has demonstrated that they can excel in their domain, and this system provides that.
For European and American professionals to live in a similar manner, they would really need to set up their own professional tournament system which is adequately funded to provide a living to the people who participate in it. My understanding of current proposals is that they come with limited playing privileges in an Asian professional association (China and Korea), but have no special tournaments or other funding of their own.
I think it's a safe assumption to say that the term 'professional' implies that you are able (if you so choose) to make a living off of that profession, and what's left would seem to be teaching. There is nothing wrong with teaching for a living, by any means, but in the west, there are already many successful teachers with no professional accreditation. That said, what does this professional accreditation give, and how do the accrediting organizations expect their professionals to earn money?
OT, but what are golfers, who have lost their amateur status, but neither teach nor play golf professionally? Or golfers, who try to make a living by playing golf, but fail to get playing right on any of the tours?
I've often participated in discussions about professional poker players (="who/what is a professional poker player"), and based on that, as well as above comments on golf professionals and this discussion, I'd say that "professional" is by no means a word that is well defined and understood.
tj86430 wrote:OT, but what are golfers, who have lost their amateur status, but neither teach nor play golf professionally? Or golfers, who try to make a living by playing golf, but fail to get playing right on any of the tours?
In golf, you lose your professional status if you do not perform well enough on tour. I guess "former professional golfer" and "aspiring professional golfer" would be a reasonable terms (=
tj86430 wrote:OT, but what are golfers, who have lost their amateur status, but neither teach nor play golf professionally? Or golfers, who try to make a living by playing golf, but fail to get playing right on any of the tours?
I've often participated in discussions about professional poker players (="who/what is a professional poker player"), and based on that, as well as above comments on golf professionals and this discussion, I'd say that "professional" is by no means a word that is well defined and understood.
Well, in golf you lose amateur status by doing non-amateur things, which include accepting cash as a prize for a tournament, or a prize valued over a certain about ($750 maybe?), or otherwise earning a certain amount at golf. Once that happens, though, I don't know that anyone would consider you a professional apart from the rulemaking bodies and amateur-only events unless you made your living doing golf in some manner or other. This is somewhat tied in to the idea of noble amateurhood that was exemplified by the olympics until relatively recently, that one should perform an activity for love of the activity and not to earn a living, with all the classist assumptions that includes.
Edit: Regarding Mef's statement, you can lose your tour card if you don't perform well enough as a professional, which would require you to requalify if you wish to rejoin that tour. Once that happens, though, you don't revert to amateur status unless you make a specific request to the USGA or the R&A, and they only grant it if you haven't had much of a professional presence or tenure, so it happens quite rarely. The same request is necessary for teaching professionals and others who have lost amateur status.
tj86430 wrote:OT, but what are golfers, who have lost their amateur status, but neither teach nor play golf professionally? Or golfers, who try to make a living by playing golf, but fail to get playing right on any of the tours?
In golf, you lose your professional status if you do not perform well enough on tour. I guess "former professional golfer" and "aspiring professional golfer" would be a reasonable terms (=
Depends on how you define a professional. In golf, professional can also be defined as "not an amateur", in which case it is not at all as you describe it.
As skydyr explains, you can lose your amateur status for a variety of reasons. IIRC then you may e.g. only enter tournaments that are open to professionals. Also, AFAIK you must "turn pro" before you may even try for a place in a tour. Then you are professional much (in some cases years) before you actually start earning any money. And even if you have a place on a tour, you may not win any money - are you still a professional golfer even if you have to find some other means of income? It's not clearcut at all.
tj86430 wrote:Depends on how you define a professional. In golf, professional can also be defined as "not an amateur", in which case it is not at all as you describe it.
As skydyr explains, you can lose your amateur status for a variety of reasons. IIRC then you may e.g. only enter tournaments that are open to professionals. Also, AFAIK you must "turn pro" before you may even try for a place in a tour. Then you are professional much (in some cases years) before you actually start earning any money. And even if you have a place on a tour, you may not win any money - are you still a professional golfer even if you have to find some other means of income? It's not clearcut at all.
I'm starting to think golf may not have been the clearest analogy after all. But basically, professional by the rules is defined as 'not an amateur', with no other assumptions, and what makes you not an amateur is spelled out at least somewhat explicitly. Being professional in that sense, though, is very different from the sense of a playing professional on a tour, which is much more similar to professional status with a professional go association.
Has the EGF in any way indicated that its professional status was temporary? If not, wht are we discussing it? It seems highly unlikely their approach towards professionals would be different than every other country/region's.
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders
wineandgolover wrote:Has the EGF in any way indicated that its professional status was temporary? If not, wht are we discussing it? It seems highly unlikely their approach towards professionals would be different than every other country/region's.
I thought we were discussing what gaining professional status gives to the new professional? I agree that losing professional status because one does not win the same tournament the following year seems very strange and unlikely, and if that's the case, should not be called as such.
The discussion on what the word "professional" means has been carried out time and time again. It's not very productive. Everybody but a few people understand that a professional is someone being affiliated to a national body of go with the status of professional, with which comes a number of duties and rights, both of which make for the primary income as a professional.
Then there are people who consider themselves professionals, because they make some income through go related activities, rarely enough to live off it though, and spend a tremendous amount of unproductive time establishing themselves as professionals in go forums. You'll be hard pressed to find the likes of Lee Sedol coming here to recall their professionalism if our definition would not befit them.
But this discussion distracts from the interesting issue: which restrictions would the EGF body impose on "their professionals". Why do we need European professionals in the first place. Apparently the potential go community needs role models they currently cannot find among the Asian pros in order to become stronger. We need people who are of professional calibre, have the potential to compete with the Asian pros and most importantly feed back to the European community, by either education, or engagement or sheer image.
This is where a further discrimination may be justified, on top of the awkward restriction of nationality. We may therefore reserve a spot for a woman, or for an adolescent, or make sure Germans, Englishmen and French women are balancing out. This will soon turn into politics taking over strength.
Personally I don't believe it will work out. Either the European players go to Asia to compete and hence they are just Asian players with a Kaukasian appearance. Or we enforce them to play in European tournaments only, for which we'll need a long time building up the critical mass to achieve the same quality as the likes of the Samsung Cup.
Myself I've never dug this artificial national argument. I relate to Gu Li for his playing style (or so I make myself believe). I do not relate to Dinerstein or Taranu for their being European. I like Alex for what he's done for the European go community and I like Catalin's character though. But still it is Lee Sedol and Gu Li making me passionate about the game. It seems I'm an exception at that but I really don't see how we are going to move the masses by creating an artificial zoo of European professionals.
I think the initiative is more about making it commercially viable for the strongest players in Europe (or rather citizens of EGF member countries) to make Go their main living. Thus, if they are able to devote their time only to Go, the playing standard should rise from 'strong-amateur', to 'genuine' professional level.
The whole concept of professional strength is a fuzzy one, so I don't think it's that meaningful. Perhaps if restricted to active playing professionals it becomes clearer - but even then... not so reliable in my opinion.
So it is probably better to say that the rating of the top European players would increase by 100 points.
RobertJasiek wrote:IMO, the strongest European amateurs already are like 1p - 5p.
There's a "funny" remark used in Spain, which is accusing someone (usually a boss, person or company) of having "titulitis," from mixing "título" (title, as in a degree) with the "-itis" word ending which is used for some illnesses. I think it applies perfectly to this: even if the strongest European amateurs are of "Asian-professional" strength, they don't have the title, hence are not in a equivalent footing to them (and even when they do, they won't because they will be European pros, not "real pros"... Or at least this is what I think will happen, it may be different)
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net
