Pio2001 wrote:Last, a much more atavic aspect, rooted deep in the community, is the assumption that anyone should progress.
A lot of the more dedicated players like to dream of greatness in the nebulous future. A shared desire for self-improvement is always there in the background. I think it's also because there are so few players, that more casual board game fans don't pick up go at all and that leads to a lopsided environment.
But try playing casually with tournament chess players, and you'll see a similar pattern.
Why ? If a player can't devote a huge amount of time studying, but if he likes playing games from time to time against players of his own level, why should we judge that his level is "not good enough" ? Everyone has the right to enjoy playing games, and not everyone has the possibility, or vocation, to become a strong player.
This also has to do with how a lot of players expect they will grow more dull and less able to compete if they play weaker opponents. It's a vivid phobia as far as I can tell. It's quite rare to see a strong player in a "humour the kids" mood, playing even games against 20k or worse, just for fun. Even handicap games are quite uncommon.
Then there's the endemic paranoia, that a lower rated player may in fact be a lot stronger, because it's a dastardly sandbagger. Just imagine if you lose imaginary internet points to one of these!