Iyama's world ranking

[Krama]

I think the problem with WHR is that Japanese pros don't play that much against Chinese or Korean pros. So you actually have 3 groups of players, C, K, and J but C-K also has bridges between them. The number of bridges from J to C/K is small so it is hard to estimate how strong J players are.

Imagine if only one japanese player ever played international titles. So out of hundreds of chinese/korean and japanese only one player linked them. Then whole rating system would depend on that player alone. Japanese players should really play more international games.

[gowan]

From my position as a watcher of pro games I think a big factor in the shorter time limits is the watchability, in real time, of those games. This must definitely influence sponsors since their commercials would get greater exposure. Personally I've enjoyed watching real time long time limit games on the internet. I try to find the next move and what the players might be thinking about. As for errors, even with unlimited time games people will make
errors because no one, not even alphago, plays perfect go. My impression is that the short time limits push players to make gambles, playing risky moves, and hoping the opponent will make a mistake. Of course, people make mistakes in slow games too. But I want players to win by outplaying their opponents, not relying on chance. I admire the attitude of Otake Hideo 9p who resigned a game when he was dissatisfied with his play in a game in which he was ahead. Another admirable thing is how a two stone game between Dosaku (w) and Yasui Shunchi in 1683 considered Dosaku's masterpiece even though Dosaku lost by one point. There is so much more in go than winning.

[idontgetit]

From my position as a watcher of pro games I think a big factor in the shorter time limits is the watchability, in real time, of those games. This must definitely influence sponsors since their commercials would get greater exposure. Personally I've enjoyed watching real time long time limit games on the internet. I try to find the next move and what the players might be thinking about. As for errors, even with unlimited time games people will make
errors because no one, not even alphago, plays perfect go. My impression is that the short time limits push players to make gambles, playing risky moves, and hoping the opponent will make a mistake. Of course, people make mistakes in slow games too. But I want players to win by outplaying their opponents, not relying on chance. I admire the attitude of Otake Hideo 9p who resigned a game when he was dissatisfied with his play in a game in which he was ahead. Another admirable thing is how a two stone game between Dosaku (w) and Yasui Shunchi in 1683 considered Dosaku's masterpiece even though Dosaku lost by one point. There is so much more in go than winning.

Actually, pros tend to make less "gambles" in faster games. The thing is, pros usually don't like to completely lose after a single, huge battle. They would rather pick a way that would be less risky, and with less time, many more moves become risky (because with more time, they can read it out and realize that's it's actually not risky).

[dhu163]

goratings seems to be just based on win and loss of games from go4go data?

If so, that seems pretty objective.

I think I understand right that other systems often place extra emphasis on winning/doing well in world title competitions (other sports often do this I think). And that would hit Iyama's rank for not turning up.

[hyperpape]

If so, that seems pretty objective.

It is objective in the sense that it's not driven by bias, but it may not be accurate. I believe it's using something like a prior for each player, and so if there are too few games between Japanese and non-Japanese players, the resulting rating for Japanese players will be too influenced by the prior.

[gowan]

From my position as a watcher of pro games I think a big factor in the shorter time limits is the watchability, in real time, of those games. This must definitely influence sponsors since their commercials would get greater exposure. Personally I've enjoyed watching real time long time limit games on the internet. I try to find the next move and what the players might be thinking about. As for errors, even with unlimited time games people will make
errors because no one, not even alphago, plays perfect go. My impression is that the short time limits push players to make gambles, playing risky moves, and hoping the opponent will make a mistake. Of course, people make mistakes in slow games too. But I want players to win by outplaying their opponents, not relying on chance. I admire the attitude of Otake Hideo 9p who resigned a game when he was dissatisfied with his play in a game in which he was ahead. Another admirable thing is how a two stone game between Dosaku (w) and Yasui Shunchi in 1683 considered Dosaku's masterpiece even though Dosaku lost by one point. There is so much more in go than winning.

Actually, pros tend to make less "gambles" in faster games. The thing is, pros usually don't like to completely lose after a single, huge battle. They would rather pick a way that would be less risky, and with less time, many more moves become risky (because with more time, they can read it out and realize that's it's actually not risky).

I think you've got it reversed. A visiting Japanese 9p told me that the fast TV tournament games have more complicated fighting because no one can read things out at 30 seconds per move. In the long time limit games they can read out the fight and see whether it is worth initiating the fight. In the fast game they may start the fight based on "intuition" rather than reading. My observation of TV games confirms that in these games there tends to be more risky fighting.

[Kirby]

Couldn't it depend on the pro? Some people are more risk averse than others. Given a situation you can't totally read, your intuition plays a role in your decision, and I doubt every pro reacts the same way under time pressure.

[idontgetit]

Sure. Of course it depends on the pro. But let me ask you this. How often do you see a pro game finished by move 150? Move 130? Move 100?

Not very often at all. That's what I mean. They might "fight", but it won't be a battle they absolutely positively MUST win. There has to be some flexibility in an eventual trade that still keeps the game relatively balanced or something.

Given a 60% chance for a kill that will end the game right there, and another way that will net them maybe 4-5 points advantage to endgame, they'll pick the latter. The vast majority will, anyway.

But with longer time, that 60% could become 80% or even 100%.

And, I've also heard pros comment in NHK cup and in weiqitv about how they end up not taking risks probably because of time pressure.

[John Fairbairn]

idontgetit: logic is a treacherous mistress because one step seems to lead seductively and inexorably to the next. But if you change the starting point you usually end up, just as seductively and inexorably, up another staircase.

If you change your starting point here, you can also get a different perspective. Start with the premise that pros are super good at making good shape and so rarely leave groups in a state where they can ever be killed, then a cataclysmic fight may never be likely to occur. To follow Thurber, when challenged to a duel, you can choose swords but you can also choose nuclear submarines or dirty words at 30 paces. Slightly different scenarios in each case. But you can also avoid challenges.

In any event, early finishes to games may be more common than you suspect. In the last screen page of the GoGoD database, only 4 out of 43 games went to a count. One third finished in under 200 moves, which I suggest is enough to say they usually ended after the middle game and before the endgame.

More important, you may wish to look up a very long article on the topic of risk in Weiqi Tiandi by Wang Xi. He pinpointed the different approaches in national style between Japan, Korea and China in terms of their approach to risk. He identified the Japanese as relatively much more risk averse (their characteristic souba style). One obvious factor to consider in that was, of course, their much longer time limits.

[idontgetit]

we're not having a poetry competition here.

Having good shape doesn't mean pros don't make weak groups. In fact, it's very rare to see pros without weak groups. There are certainly a lot of times when pros could choose a more risky way to attack that might get a better result, but they choose not to.

But all of that is just me trying to rationalize the point. The reason I hold it though, is simply because I heard pros say it in commentaries that I have watched. That's all.

But it is interesting how pros can have wildly differing opinions on the same things. One thing I find funny is how guys like Meng Tailing ('87) always talks about how he is an old pro now, and can't compete with younger pros in close fighting and reading. Even guys like Shi Yue (born '91) are considered "old" in the go world.

Compared to that, the Japanese go world still sees guys like Terayama Rei ('90) and Mukai Chiaki ('87) as "wakatte".

EDIT: I would also like to clarify my other point before.

I am NOT saying that longer games WILL result in a lower quality game.

What I am saying are two things:

1. OCCASIONALLY, you will have found a move with a shorter time, but then because of a longer time, you end up over thinking and choosing another move, when the first move was actually better. OCCASIONALLY.

2. Longer games ARE NOT NECESSARILY better quality than say 4 hour ones. could they be slightly better sometimes? Sure. But they're probably not better all the time, and not by a huge amount. I mean, do you think a 10000 hour time limit would be significantly better than a 9950 hour time limit? Obviously not. There IS a rate of diminishing returns.

The question is just about how much marginal return can you get with an extra 4 hours, when you have 4 already? On one hand, your time just doubled. Which seems like a lot. But on the other hand, people do have a limit with how much their brain can process.

[Kirby]

Sooner or later we'll have computer software that can help in evaluating move quality, so the generalizations about game time to move quality can be more precisely known.

[sparky314]

Sooner or later we'll have computer software that can help in evaluating move quality, so the generalizations about game time to move quality can be more precisely known.

Hopefully sooner.

[trout]

Sooner or later we'll have computer software that can help in evaluating move quality, so the generalizations about game time to move quality can be more precisely known.

Even if Computer software do this stat, it is not going to make any difference. There will be always someone complaints. There is saying "Garbage in, Garbage out.".
Someone will manipulate input to software to produce results they wants. All stats are just reference not absolute. Just leave it alone.

[Kirby]

Sooner or later we'll have computer software that can help in evaluating move quality, so the generalizations about game time to move quality can be more precisely known.

Even if Computer software do this stat, it is not going to make any difference. There will be always someone complaints. There is saying "Garbage in, Garbage out.".
Someone will manipulate input to software to produce results they wants. All stats are just reference not absolute. Just leave it alone.

True, I see your point. On the other hand, I think analysis software like CrazyStone (but stronger) can be more objective than a human. The argument of move quality vs. time limits has been discussed here often, and typically the same set of people have the same opinions.

Software could at least add semi-objective analysis to the argument instead of all the hypotheticals. I agree that people can pick and choose their data set, but at least there is real data in that case.

Not that it really matters in any case.

[hyperpape]

The real difficulty is that changes in theory matter too. So to answer the question, we have to distinguish cases where the pro makes a mistake because they misread from the case where they didn't know about theory that would be developed later.

It's a variant of the old "how would Shusaku do if he could learn modern joseki?" question.