How strong is it possible for most people to become?

[Abyssinica]

But perhaps there are common fundamentals that everyone needs to learn to get passed these barriers?

I wonder what they are

[ericf]

It think this has parallels in chess, where the claim is that anyone can be a master (2200 rating), with the proper training. (I think it was Capablanca who claimed that he could train anyone to be a master in a year -- which I've seen happen with several friends who had the time and money to do it. However, most club players never make it due to weak fundamentals and lack of time to study opening theory.) The climb to "senior master" (2400) is much harder and I think probably less than 20% of those who seriously try to make it succeed. Then, the climb to grandmaster winnows it even more as even extremely motivated senior masters rarely make it to grandmaster (or even international master).

(This is based on memory from discussions and I think an academic paper, but it was a few years ago so this might not be totally accurate )

[DrStraw]

It think this has parallels in chess, where the claim is that anyone can be a master (2200 rating), with the proper training. (I think it was Capablanca who claimed that he could train anyone to be a master in a year -- which I've seen happen with several friends who had the time and money to do it. However, most club players never make it due to weak fundamentals and lack of time to study opening theory.) The climb to "senior master" (2400) is much harder and I think probably less than 20% of those who seriously try to make it succeed. Then, the climb to grandmaster winnows it even more as even extremely motivated senior masters rarely make it to grandmaster (or even international master).

(This is based on memory from discussions and I think an academic paper, but it was a few years ago so this might not be totally accurate )

I know nothing about chess ranks. I don't even know anything about chess except for how the pieces move. But I am curious. What is the hierarchhy of ranks and what are the corresponsing numbers. You mentioned master (2200) and senior master (2400), but what else?

[fishesandcats]

But perhaps there are common fundamentals that everyone needs to learn to get passed these barriers?

I wonder what they are

Check out http://senseis.xmp.net/?RankAndWhatYouKnow

[ericf]

I know nothing about chess ranks. I don't even know anything about chess except for how the pieces move. But I am curious. What is the hierarchhy of ranks and what are the corresponsing numbers. You mentioned master (2200) and senior master (2400), but what else?

In chess it's mostly ratings -- except for international titles like international master IM and Grandmaster GM. Here's my quick, slightly tongue in cheek, survey
600 -- your uncle who can beat all of your relatives at chess
1000 -- 12 year old who has been training for a year at the kids chess club and camps
1400-1600 -- typical club players
1800 -- serious local club player
2000 -- local champ, quite serious (to reach this level and above you need to keep up to date on opening theory which changes monthly)
2200 -- local master, for example this about the rating of the is the top non-pro player at a typical chess club (or a retired pro who's not keeping up with opening theory.
2400 -- International master (likely a pro)
2600 -- grandmaster (elite pro)
3200-3300 -- top chess computers on strong PCs ( a bit different from go!)
I've avoided lots of complications such as FIDE vs USCF etc. If you want more details wikipedia has a nice discussion. Perhaps more relevant is the comparison to go ratings in an old thread:http://lifein19x19.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=11234&p=187335&hilit=chess+ranks#p187335 (is there a nicer way to internally link?)

[fishesandcats]

So why is it that these tiers exist? What determines who can make it to the 4-6 dan tier or beyond? Why is it some people can't get past 1 dan or 3 dan? What's the typical rate of progress?

There's no typical rate of progress. Some people it makes sense, some people it doesn't. Some people pick it up faster, some people don't.

However, if you put work into it, you will progress.

but.

any time you can't get any further in Go, it is because of a "deficiency" in fundamentals. as a pro once told me "if the foundation is good, you can build as high as you want".

so why can't people get past 1d or 3d AGA? pretty much that. there are other reasons that can be extremely caustic that i will not mention here. but at the very base level, it is a lack of fundamentals.

BTW, i say 1d/3d AGA because that same bottle neck occurs at different ranks else where (KGS for example).

As for "What determines who can make it to the 4-6 dan tier or beyond?" It's just simply the amount of work and effort put in. Ask any 4-6d AGA how much work they put in to get there and compare it to a 1-3d AGA. you'll definitely see a difference.

I'm very interested in the "extremely caustic" reasons. Can you PM me? Do you mean some people just lack the intelligence? Do you mean you need early exposure?

What kind of lack of fundamentals do you mean? What fundamentals can be shaky at dan level?

Can you quantify the difference in the amount of work it takes to get to the different tiers?

Thanks for taking the time to write your thoughts on this!

[Jujube]

I know nothing about chess ranks. I don't even know anything about chess except for how the pieces move. But I am curious. What is the hierarchhy of ranks and what are the corresponsing numbers. You mentioned master (2200) and senior master (2400), but what else?

Names and rating boundaries change depending on the association and what system they use for ratings. Generally for an association using ELO it will be something like this:

Candidate Master (or National Master) - 2200
FIDE Master - 2300
International Master - 2400
International Grandmaster - 2500
Super GM - 2700

So, Master grades start at 2200. Personally I've not really seen the term Senior Master used.

[Uberdude]

Can you elaborate on the evidence from Go Congress and distribution? How does one know which tier one is in?

This will be hard to demonstrate without extensive work. It's easier to see just from year to year at the Congress. Simply put, if you pay attention to the movement of people in their ranks from year to year, you realize where the tiers are.

First, the strong players room. Nobody there is ever anybody "new" that rose up through the ranks, other than the random asian kid.

Then, the 4-6d, You'll get some new comers occasionally, but most are a lock and have been there forever. Rarely will you ever see somebody new that is rising through the ranks. If they had a teacher it was when they were younger and had it for awhile. If they still have a teacher they're young.

Perhaps this is a difference between American Go, in which the vast majority of the top players are of Asian origin (though quite a few born/raised in the USA), and Europe in which few of the top players are of Asian origin. If you take a look at, for example Pavol Lisy's rating graph at http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/Pl ... y=12686597 you will see him moving up through the ranks. At the 2009 EGC he was a fast improving "1d". A year before that an unremarkable 1k in the European Youth Championship (which was won by a then 4d Artem Kachanovskyj, and many other of the now 6-7d top young European players were then mid-dans like Ali Jabarin, Thomas Debarre, Dusan/Nikola Mitic, Mateusz Surma, Andrej Kravec etc etc). But even in the USA there are the occasional non-Asian rising top players like Ben Lockhart (though he studied in Asia).

[EdLee]

Perhaps this is a difference between American Go, in which the vast majority of the top players are of Asian origin (though quite a few born/raised in the USA), and Europe in which few of the top players are of Asian origin.

Yes.

[SoDesuNe]

I'm just curious about people's perspectives about this. Do you think there is a limit on how strong you can get?

No.

Obviously time is a factor.

In my opinion (changes over time) THE limiting factor is enviroment. You don't have any Go schools here, most clubs don't have enough active players and/or stronger players to learn from. Second comes motivation.

Do you think there are factors like "talent," [...] that limit how strong you can get?

No. Starting young does help, time-wise. But without the right enviroment or motivation it does not really change anything.

What's your personal limit [...]?

I don't believe in intrinsic limits. Not having a good learning enviroment will limit you. Not having sufficient motivation will limit you. Time will limit you eventually but until then it's only decided by how you spend your time.

OT: By writing in this forum, you already made the first step in the wrong direction. I'd be interested to know, whether any member in this forum made any real improvements reaching higher Dan-ranks while being active?

[Uberdude]

OT: By writing in this forum, you already made the first step in the wrong direction. I'd be interested to know, whether any member in this forum made any real improvements reaching higher Dan-ranks while being active?

I've gone from 3d to 4d in the 4 years since joining! (I improved from beginner to 2d in my first 2 years, and from 2d to 3d in the next 4). Regarding my limit, I think I could get to EGF 6d if I worked harder and did more tsumego than I am prepared/able to do. In reality perhaps I will continue going up a dan grade every 4 years or so but even that could be over-optimistic as each step gets harder as you get stronger and my brain is probably getting dumber. I think I mentioned on that unfulfilled goals thread that I had a vague aim to be British Champion in the next 5 years which I think is still possible (particularly if the opposition is only Andrew Kay, a strong 4d, rather than someone stronger like Matthew Macfadyen, Vanessa Wong or Chong Han), but not this year as I am out of practice and am only the challenger because no one strong turned up.

[daal]

Can you elaborate on what constitutes "ability"? Is this a function of intelligence?

I strongly suspect that go ability is pretty specific to go, and that it mostly consists of the abilities to visualize sequences of stones, to remember patterns of stones and to execute go concepts well. Additional factors such as one's level of interest, determination and thoroughness as well as one's self-discipline, patience and composure also play a role. Whether these abilities coincide with other mental abilities (being good at math or languages or IQ tests for example) is guesswork unless someone has some statistics, but I have heard that whereas it is common in the West for go players to also have a talent for software engineering and other hard sciences, this is not necessarily the case in Asia. My point is, one can be quite intelligent as measured in other abilities, and nonetheless lack a talent for go.

[Abyssinica]

I just think all the computer scientists try to learn Go because they have an interest in wanting to solve it or have machines beat stronger players.

[Uberdude]

I just think all the computer scientists try to learn Go because they have an interest in wanting to solve it or have machines beat stronger players.

Certainly not all: I started playing Go whilst doing a Computer Science degree (though was introduced to it by a friend reading Theology) and that wasn't an interest of mine, I just found it a really fascinating game.

[Knotwilg]

I don't believe in intrinsic limits. Not having a good learning enviroment will limit you. Not having sufficient motivation will limit you. Time will limit you eventually but until then it's only decided by how you spend your time.

There once was a famous intuitive mathematician called Ramanujan who was obviously extremely gifted for number theory, to the extent that he predicted certain results that could only be rigorously proven by the most ardent and talented (!) mathematicians after great effort. He was a savant.

I believe that it is impossible for me, even if I study number theory for the rest of my life, to achieve the level of intuition with which he was apparently born. And I'm a good mathematician, with a few nerdy traits that set me apart in my childhood.

I have acquintances who have a hard time remembering numbers beyond 5 digits. I've serious doubts they could ever reach the mathematical intuition of Ramanujan.

We all have intrinsic limits. The fact that we don't know what they are, doesn't detract from the fact they exist.