John Fairbairn wrote:What struck me instantly about this photo is how few of the players are looking at the board. In my experience that's not pro or insei behaviour.
John Fairbairn wrote:...focusing your attention on the board at all times...
Interestingly, as can be seen in honte's second set of photos, the semi-finalists (Shikshin, Surma, Pop and Kachanovskyi) are focussed on the board immediately (at 2-5 moves into the game).
Personally, I have the experience of playing a young Korean insei who did not focus on the board. Rather, he would study the position after my move for 5 seconds, then look at the ceiling and do all the calculation in his head. And his reading was frightfully accurate too
I remember there was an article on a similar fashioned website, about how one top pro would start mumbling japanese kids songs when he is ahead, another would break a bunch of match sticks on his lap to cope with the stress, and a few more weird stuff O_o
My guess is someone looked at his EGD page and saw his GoR as "2755 (3p)". In the EGF rating system 7d at 2700 is considered equivalent to 1p (New 1ps into the system are set at 2700) with 30 rating points per pro dan rank (rather than the 100 per amateur rank) so 2755 translates to 3p. When Pavol and Ali got their 1p they got reset to 2700, getting a rating point boost (from 2654 and a peak of 2686 for Pavol, and from 2658 (peak) for Ali, since then Pavol has risen to 2717 and Ali dropped to 2673). Ilya's 2755 on the other hand is earned from his skill in winning games rather than pro qualification tournaments, so it would be rather perverse if his rating were to be reset down to 2700!
My guess is someone looked at his EGD page and saw his GoR as "2755 (3p)". In the EGF rating system 7d at 2700 is considered equivalent to 1p (New 1ps into the system are set at 2700) with 30 rating points per pro dan rank (rather than the 100 per amateur rank) so 2755 translates to 3p. When Pavol and Ali got their 1p they got reset to 2700, getting a rating point boost (from 2654 and a peak of 2686 for Pavol, and from 2658 (peak) for Ali, since then Pavol has risen to 2717 and Ali dropped to 2673). Ilya's 2755 on the other hand is earned from his skill in winning games rather than pro qualification tournaments, so it would be rather perverse if his rating were to be reset down to 2700!
I don't think they'd be so silly as to reset the GoR downwards This is not the first time the EGD has tricked somebody on the subject of a professional rank. Perhaps this means a change request is in order?!
On a side note, I think that the treatment of pro ratings is a bit naive. The idea that 3 ranks normally means 1 stone is something that seems to have handed down from folklore, and bears scant resemblance to reality.
Javaness2 wrote:On a side note, I think that the treatment of pro ratings is a bit naive. The idea that 3 ranks normally means 1 stone is something that seems to have handed down from folklore, and bears scant resemblance to reality.
Yes, but I don't think it matters much whether some Asian 9p has a GoR of 2940 or 3000 when a European 6/7d loses to them in the WMSG or such a tournament, and there's not a lot of those games either (and even if the European won somehow the change in rating points gained from beating someone 200 vs 300 GoR above you is not much). The resetting of new 1ps at 2700 when they are not 2700 strength seems potentially more important, but still rather minor. (I don't mean just the new European pros, but also how about Li Ting 1p for example who lost to 2 6ds in Strasbourg 2014).
Javaness2 wrote:On a side note, I think that the treatment of pro ratings is a bit naive. The idea that 3 ranks normally means 1 stone is something that seems to have handed down from folklore, and bears scant resemblance to reality.
Circa 1700 a difference of 2 pro ranks was equivalent to one handicap stone. It was common for pros to alternate between, say, giving the weaker pro 2 stones or 3 stones. By 1900 and earlier, pro ranks had tightened, so that a difference of 3 pro ranks was equivalent to one handicap stone. By 1980 or so, it seems like pro ranks had tightened even more, partly by having weaker 9 dans, and partly by having stronger shodans. Ing equated a difference of 4 pro ranks to one handicap stone. Pros don't seem to give handicaps to pros anymore, so who knows?
The Adkins Principle: At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins
Pippen wrote:I think the professional Go must behave professional, i.e. trying to go for the money. One way is to build up an image, a brand...and one important aspect is clothing. No top venture would sponsor guys that look like trivial students. Go tournaments and go players must be treated very closely to what composers and musicians in a classic orchestra are treated like. There must be a smell of elitarity around them and that starts with a dress and behaviour code. The next step has to be to choose only elitarian hotels for the top tournaments, even if that means less tournaments, continued by an constant push for publicity by trying to offer articles to big newspapers and to cover main matches through the Internet constantly. And then of course EGF has to use the advantage of the chaotic asian market and establish a simple world champ system very closely to what chess did till 1995.
I know that sounds bold and compromises a lot of inherent go values - it would destroy the loveliness of the small go community in the western world - but if you think professionally, if you want someone to "show you the money" you gotta act accordingly.
I think it would be counterproductive for go players to behave like professional footballers or pop stars.
Bill Spight wrote:Circa 1700 a difference of 2 pro ranks was equivalent to one handicap stone. It was common for pros to alternate between, say, giving the weaker pro 2 stones or 3 stones. By 1900 and earlier, pro ranks had tightened, so that a difference of 3 pro ranks was equivalent to one handicap stone. By 1980 or so, it seems like pro ranks had tightened even more, partly by having weaker 9 dans, and partly by having stronger shodans. Ing equated a difference of 4 pro ranks to one handicap stone. Pros don't seem to give handicaps to pros anymore, so who knows?
Nobody knows. Beyond which there are different professional associations whose professional ranks naturally may have different values. Then internally, male and female pro ranks can have different values. So yes, it is just this tale from history currently wearing mathematics as its underpants.
In the egd you can see that 6d to 1p has been reset, as has 7d to 1p
This is not the first time the EGD has tricked somebody on the subject of a professional rank. Perhaps this means a change request is in order?! 
. You play better moves if your clothes are comfortable.