When are you not a "beginner"?

[tj86430]

'not a beginner' definition: Those who know and follow all go rules perfectly to the point that they can be a judge in tournament match.

I'd say that in most games and sports, go included, this definition means that a wast majority of players will always be beginners.

I consider myself as "not a beginner" in e.g. go, golf, poker and bridge, but I most definitely couldn't act as a referee in a (serious) tournament in any of them.

[Carcosa]

I read somewhere that some kinds of territory scoring in rare cases can be very difficult to determine and they actually call in a tribunal of professionals to judge the final score...

[Gotraskhalana]

Success at finding the end of beginner.

The question was a joke. Someone must have realized that, right?

[DrStraw]

By the way TofuPython, you are no longer a beginner. You have graduated to Double-digit kyu (ddk) player

Graduated from triple-digit or single-digit?

[emeraldemon]

Success at finding the end of beginner.

The question was a joke. Someone must have realized that, right?

I thought about it, but if you were serious and I was just confusing I didn't want to blow off your question, especially since some members don't speak english natively....

Communication is fraught with peril.

[Pio2001]

I read somewhere that some kinds of territory scoring in rare cases can be very difficult to determine and they actually call in a tribunal of professionals to judge the final score...

That's right.
I consider myself an expert in go rules, but I recently found one that I didn't know yet :

"When only one player can start a ko and the other can do nothing but kill himself, the group of the latter is considered to be dead without further play" (Chihyung Nam, Baduk Made Fun and Easy vol 2, p 163).

This is not part of the Professional japanese rule. Maybe it has been part of the japanese 1949 rule. But since the author is korean, and a specialist of the rules, I suppose that this statement is actually a part of the current korean rule.

In conclusion, I'm a beginner in Korea, China and Taiwan. But I'm no more beginner in France, UK, Japan and USA

[EdLee]

The question was a joke. Someone must have realized that, right?

If you have to ask...

[Drew]

I have found that from the perspective of Chinese go introductory books （围棋入门）, a beginner could be ranked as highly as 10k on a typical server. What constitutes "beginner" curriculum is much more comprehensive and expansive in Chinese texts than it is in Western texts, sites, or popular opinion.

I'd also go so far as to say that claiming "I can play Go" in China is equivalent to saying you're 1dan in ability.

[Bill Spight]

I read somewhere that some kinds of territory scoring in rare cases can be very difficult to determine and they actually call in a tribunal of professionals to judge the final score...

That's right.
I consider myself an expert in go rules, but I recently found one that I didn't know yet :

"When only one player can start a ko and the other can do nothing but kill himself, the group of the latter is considered to be dead without further play" (Chihyung Nam, Baduk Made Fun and Easy vol 2, p 163).

This is not part of the Professional japanese rule. Maybe it has been part of the japanese 1949 rule. But since the author is korean, and a specialist of the rules, I suppose that this statement is actually a part of the current korean rule.

In conclusion, I'm a beginner in Korea, China and Taiwan. But I'm no more beginner in France, UK, Japan and USA

That sounds like a Moonshine Life rule. (See http://senseis.xmp.net/?MoonshineLife .) IIUC, all modern pro rules make it dead. AGA rules may allow it to live.

[Pio2001]

That sounds like a Moonshine Life rule. (See http://senseis.xmp.net/?MoonshineLife .) IIUC, all modern pro rules make it dead. AGA rules may allow it to live.

Not really, the figure illustrating the rule was this :

$$B
$$ -----------------
$$ | . X . X . O X .
$$ | X X X O O O X .
$$ | O O O X . O X .
$$ | X O X X O O X .
$$ | X O O O O X . .
$$ | X X X X X X . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ -----------------
$$ | . X . X . O X .
$$ | X X X O O O X .
$$ | O O O X . O X .
$$ | X O X X O O X .
$$ | X O O O O X . .
$$ | X X X X X X . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]

and the situation is described as "dual life and a big eye vs small eye simultaneously". The logic is the same as the bent four in the corner.

[Pio2001]

I'd also go so far as to say that claiming "I can play Go" in China is equivalent to saying you're 1dan in ability.

That sounds perfectly logical if we consider Weiqi (the game of go) as an art equivalent to Guzheng (playing the chinese zither).
When you say that you can play an instrument, you are supposed to be able to play something nice, not just identify which string plays which note.

[hyperpape]

I know this thread is old, but the gowan's comment stuck in my head.

Whatever rank we decide, I think it has to be respect the idea that just by playing, without extensive studying, you can expect to no longer be a beginner after 5 years.

Based on that, I'd have to argue that being a beginner ends somewhere in the DDK range. Almost no one I've observed playing at a club has been lower than 15k after five years, but I've seen players who are 10k or 12k after a decade or more.

P.S. emeraldemon, I agree we're never going to be able to decide between 13k and 14k, but when someone suggests amateur shodan, and someone else says 20k, I think there's a real disagreement to discuss.

[Bill Spight]

That sounds like a Moonshine Life rule. (See http://senseis.xmp.net/?MoonshineLife .) IIUC, all modern pro rules make it dead. AGA rules may allow it to live.

Not really, the figure illustrating the rule was this :

$$B
$$ -----------------
$$ | . X . X . O X .
$$ | X X X O O O X .
$$ | O O O X . O X .
$$ | X O X X O O X .
$$ | X O O O O X . .
$$ | X X X X X X . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ -----------------
$$ | . X . X . O X .
$$ | X X X O O O X .
$$ | O O O X . O X .
$$ | X O X X O O X .
$$ | X O O O O X . .
$$ | X X X X X X . .
$$ | . . . . . . . .[/go]

and the situation is described as "dual life and a big eye vs small eye simultaneously". The logic is the same as the bent four in the corner.

Thanks.

BTW, Nam's language is not how I would describe this situation.