Where are go's golden oldies?

[dust]

Great post - and agree with your analysis of these trends.

But I do wonder about this:

China's exploding middle class expands the talent pool for professional go players exponentially...

Will the rise of AI in the Go world disrupt this? Perhaps being a go professional will soon be seen as a much less stable career to aim at, and wont be supported by families in the way it has been in recent years.

[John Fairbairn]

Brooklyn: Your ideas are interesting, thank you, and possibly correct, but I do have some reservations:

1. To posit a change in behaviour I think you need to offer a reason for it. Maybe the rise of tv go is enough of an explanation, maybe the increasing number of games under Chinese rules (tedious counting) is a factor. But I would have thought that if you use reasons like that you'd have to ask why games under slow time limits, where counting can be accurate, are more often played out.

2. Not sure about calling the likes of Kobayashi and Cho Chikun in evidence works. Young players were artificially kept down then through giving seeded places in higher levels of preliminaries on the basis of dan grades.

3. Your arguments on the internet make sense, as far as I can see, and they have also been made to explain the quick rise of Magnus Carlsen, but none of that seems to explain the discrepancy in age profiles between chess and go (which was my main question).

Although javaness's suggestion got shot down quickly, I'm attracted by it enough to reserve judgement - there has been a bit of an argument recently on a chess.com site about pattern recognition in chess (hard or easy, possible or delusional?). But it could be that pattern recognition is both more important in chess than go, and at the same time is easier to shape into a useful tool because of the different textures of the game positions.

On the question of what effect AlphaGo will have on the popularity of go, I'm sanguine except in the case of Korea. I'm old enough to remember the time when computers first became prominent and the consequent death of mathematics as a profession was predicted (admittedly among the ranks of not too well informed people like careers advisors). In chess, computers seem to have boosted interest in the game. In Japan, despite almost fanatical resistance in some shogi pro quarters, shogi computers are now being taken in their stride. I expect to see that in the case of go.

The reason I think Korea may be different is that the recent rise of go was to a large degree driven by a worthy kind of nationalism - both a "let's beat the Japanese" urge and also a small-nation pride in becoming a world leader with its telecoms superhighway and being part of being a world tiger economy (translating into early use of the internet and sponsorship opportunities). On past experience, though, I would have to question whether go will retain its popularity there if the nationalist impulse wears off. AlphaGo may contribute to that. It seems strange that, for all its telecoms and computer skills and resources, Korea has not really kept up with AI go.

[Brooklyn]

Brooklyn: Your ideas are interesting, thank you, and possibly correct, but I do have some reservations:

1. To posit a change in behaviour I think you need to offer a reason for it. Maybe the rise of tv go is enough of an explanation, maybe the increasing number of games under Chinese rules (tedious counting) is a factor. But I would have thought that if you use reasons like that you'd have to ask why games under slow time limits, where counting can be accurate, are more often played out.

If you watch current games regularly, this is very obvious. It is almost standard for these days for a game with a difference of only 4.5 to get resigned. Kang Dongyun is well known for almost always resigning if he's losing rather than finishing it out. I remember being very surprised to see a game record where he lost by 3.5 as it was the first time I saw him finish out a game where he lost by more than 0.5 or 1.5. This is not a case of me stating an opinion, this is very well accepted fact.

2. Not sure about calling the likes of Kobayashi and Cho Chikun in evidence works. Young players were artificially kept down then through giving seeded places in higher levels of preliminaries on the basis of dan grades.

I am using ELO ratings so yes this evidence is applicable.

The reason I think Korea may be different is that the recent rise of go was to a large degree driven by a worthy kind of nationalism - both a "let's beat the Japanese" urge and also a small-nation pride in becoming a world leader with its telecoms superhighway and being part of being a world tiger economy (translating into early use of the internet and sponsorship opportunities). On past experience, though, I would have to question whether go will retain its popularity there if the nationalist impulse wears off. AlphaGo may contribute to that. It seems strange that, for all its telecoms and computer skills and resources, Korea has not really kept up with AI go.

Again, I totally disagree with your opinion. Korean nationalism is fierce in many competitive arenas but to attribute the rise of Korean go "to a large degree" by a motivation to "beat the Japanese" is misguided. Go was hugely popular as a recreational pastime in Korea before Cho Hunhyun's international titles and Lee Changho's rise. What sparked Korea's dominance in international go from the early 1990's was a developing middle class that expanded the talent pool for kids that have the talent, interest, and most importantly the resources to devote full time study to try and turn pro. While Koreans may watch sporting events against Japan with passion, the motivation to beat the Japanese has not been even a tiny factor in Koreans becoming professional go players. They became professional go players due to a love of the game and the desire to become successful, period.

In fact, Korea is going on the same trajectory as Japan in that the youth of today as a whole have many other forms of entertainment and few are picking up go. Smart young kids that have the potential to become professionals at go are more likely playing starcraft or other e-sports and not even bothering to give go a shot. Go is considered an old man's game in Korea and the thinning out of young talent that happened in Japanese Go is well underway in Korea as well. This trend started years ago way before AlphaGo.

[hyperpape]

2. Not sure about calling the likes of Kobayashi and Cho Chikun in evidence works. Young players were artificially kept down then through giving seeded places in higher levels of preliminaries on the basis of dan grades.

I am using ELO ratings so yes this evidence is applicable.

Whose ELO ratings? Are you sure they're accurate for that time period?

[Brooklyn]

3. Your arguments on the internet make sense, as far as I can see, and they have also been made to explain the quick rise of Magnus Carlsen, but none of that seems to explain the discrepancy in age profiles between chess and go (which was my main question).

As I pointed out in my previous post, the discrepancy in age profiles between go and chess is a fairly recent trend. So logically, the reason for the recent discrepancy will likely be due to a recent change in the go scene. My strong suspicion is due to the increase in competition in the go scene.

For arguments sake, let's break down skill in chess/go to two factors - experience and reading ability. As experience goes up, reading ability generally goes down. Internet go has made it easier for kids to get a whole lot of quality experience in a short period of time so that has shifted the age younger. If you think about the once in a generation type young go prodigies, Cho Chikun, Lee Changho. They were both identified as potential stars at the age of 5 or 6, and apprenticed to top pros where they were able to devote full time study. Compare to a player such as Yoo Changhyuk. He had no teacher or formal training. In the pre internet days, the quality of his games were limited to strong amateurs at the local go club. He would be hard pressed to even get a few games against professional quality players until his teenage years. Yoo Changhyuk turned pro at 18 and started climbing the ranks in his early twenties. If he had the same environment as Lee Changho, he would've had a strong chance to turn pro in his early teens.

Let us also think about how many kids would be in the position to devote full time study with a professional from the age of 6. How many parents would even want that for their child? Yoo Changhyuk's path is much more common than Lee Changho's and Yoo in this day and age would have improved a lot faster with the internet and probably broken the top 10 in rankings as a teenager.

So then if chess has the same access to internet play as go, why has go ages skewed younger while chess has remained the same? Again, let's think about the factors that it takes to even turn pro. You generally need to have been raised in a developed country, or be the child of an elite in a poor country. To be able to devote the time needed, one generally needs the encouragement and support of parents from an early age. In the western world today, balanced lifestyles are encouraged. Very few parents in the US would encourage a 6 year old child to obsessively study chess at the cost of other interests and pursuits. The pro path of a chess player usually starts later and at a slower pace than in go.

With the sheer number of Chinese that are dedicating tremendous time and resources in go training at an early age, the pool has gotten very deep and I would posit that it is far deeper than serious young chess players in the west.

[dfan]

By the way, chess has been getting younger over the years as well, for many of the same reasons (such as the immense amount of playing experience youngsters can pick up over the internet). These days, when a player continues to perform at the top level well into his 40s (like Anand), it is considered notable. Perhaps go has been getting younger even faster; it's hard to come up with a good quantitative metric for comparison. But I'd be wary of making generalizations about the two games based mostly on personal impressions.

[John Fairbairn]

Brooklyn wrote

If you watch current games regularly, this is very obvious. It is almost standard for these days for a game with a difference of only 4.5 to get resigned. Kang Dongyun is well known for almost always resigning if he's losing rather than finishing it out. I remember being very surprised to see a game record where he lost by 3.5 as it was the first time I saw him finish out a game where he lost by more than 0.5 or 1.5. This is not a case of me stating an opinion, this is very well accepted fact.

This is anecdotal and not evidence for anything. Every generation (and country) has had players who resign earlier or later than their peers. Without looking anything up I can take you back as far as the 1930s: Miyasaka Shinji was prone to resign if he fell behind by a small amount. Sakata didn't like resigning and several times played on even when over 20 points behind, even in title games. We even have claims that Otake Hideo would resign games if he made bad shape!

It makes much more sense to look for an explanation for the change in number of resigned games (if true) within the conditions under which the game is played. The apparent coincidence of the change with the rise in short time limits and with the rise of young players is no proof of cause and effect, but it's a good place to start.

Incidentally, I also don't accept the alleged embourgeoisement of go as a reason for the upturn in Korean go (or in China). I suspect it's only a factor in accelerating the rise. The initial impetus had to come from elsewhere, and in fact from the fledgeling pro community itself. Cho Nam-ch'eol had laid the ground work, and the likes of the Japanese-trained Kim In, Ha Ch'an-seok and Yun Ki-hyeon ensured that a decent standard of play was maintained, but it was the return of Cho Hun-hyeon from Japan that attracted major sponsors. The fact that the Japanese were then still top dogs and so were the target to beat played nicely into nationalist feelings (and let us not forget that Cho himself suffered from these, especially during his air force days, so to say it wasn't present is bunkum). It was only when these players and their sponsors had done their work that the middle classes could even begin to think about setting pro go up as a career path for their sprogs. In China the equivalent process, also driven by a "let's beat the Japanese 9-dans" slogan among the pros, was provided by the state.

I would accept that the talent pools that subsequently became available did then come into play as a major growth factor, but it is still a case of jumping on the bandwagon as opposed to creating it.

[hyperpape]

By the way, chess has been getting younger over the years as well, for many of the same reasons (such as the immense amount of playing experience youngsters can pick up over the internet). These days, when a player continues to perform at the top level well into his 40s (like Anand), it is considered notable. Perhaps go has been getting younger even faster; it's hard to come up with a good quantitative metric for comparison. But I'd be wary of making generalizations about the two games based mostly on personal impressions.

The age of top competitors also fluctuates. I looked at top ratings, and in January 1995, 6 of top 48 chess players were teenagers. Still less than today's top go players (here are 7, and the list is probably not complete: Ke Jie, Shin Jinseo, Mi Yuting, Li Qingjang, Huang Yunsong, Byun Sangil. Maybe also Gu Zihao, and surely one or two others).

Based on several current top players in their early-mid 20s (Carlsen, Caruana, So, Giri, Karjakin) I had thought if I looked around in the 2008-2016 period I might find some other good periods, but other than Carlsen reaching #2 as a teenager, I didn't find much.

[idontgetit]

Brooklyn wrote

If you watch current games regularly, this is very obvious. It is almost standard for these days for a game with a difference of only 4.5 to get resigned. Kang Dongyun is well known for almost always resigning if he's losing rather than finishing it out. I remember being very surprised to see a game record where he lost by 3.5 as it was the first time I saw him finish out a game where he lost by more than 0.5 or 1.5. This is not a case of me stating an opinion, this is very well accepted fact.

This is anecdotal and not evidence for anything. Every generation (and country) has had players who resign earlier or later than their peers. Without looking anything up I can take you back as far as the 1930s: Miyasaka Shinji was prone to resign if he fell behind by a small amount. Sakata didn't like resigning and several times played on even when over 20 points behind, even in title games. We even have claims that Otake Hideo would resign games if he made bad shape!

It makes much more sense to look for an explanation for the change in number of resigned games (if true) within the conditions under which the game is played. The apparent coincidence of the change with the rise in short time limits and with the rise of young players is no proof of cause and effect, but it's a good place to start.

Incidentally, I also don't accept the alleged embourgeoisement of go as a reason for the upturn in Korean go (or in China). I suspect it's only a factor in accelerating the rise. The initial impetus had to come from elsewhere, and in fact from the fledgeling pro community itself. Cho Nam-ch'eol had laid the ground work, and the likes of the Japanese-trained Kim In, Ha Ch'an-seok and Yun Ki-hyeon ensured that a decent standard of play was maintained, but it was the return of Cho Hun-hyeon from Japan that attracted major sponsors. The fact that the Japanese were then still top dogs and so were the target to beat played nicely into nationalist feelings (and let us not forget that Cho himself suffered from these, especially during his air force days, so to say it wasn't present is bunkum). It was only when these players and their sponsors had done their work that the middle classes could even begin to think about setting pro go up as a career path for their sprogs. In China the equivalent process, also driven by a "let's beat the Japanese 9-dans" slogan among the pros, was provided by the state.

I would accept that the talent pools that subsequently became available did then come into play as a major growth factor, but it is still a case of jumping on the bandwagon as opposed to creating it.

This is anecdotal and not evidence for anything. Every generation (and country) has had players who dominated more than their peers. Without looking anything up I can take you back as far as the 1950s: Wu Qingyuan was able to beat the top players of the time down to handicap!

The apparent coincidence of the appearance of Cho Hunhyun with the rise of Korean go is no proof of cause and effect. It makes much more sense to look for an explanation involving the "embourgeoisement" of the population.

See? It's not so hard to be difficult.

[Brooklyn]

This is anecdotal and not evidence for anything. Every generation (and country) has had players who resign earlier or later than their peers. Without looking anything up I can take you back as far as the 1930s: Miyasaka Shinji was prone to resign if he fell behind by a small amount. Sakata didn't like resigning and several times played on even when over 20 points behind, even in title games. We even have claims that Otake Hideo would resign games if he made bad shape!

Fair enough, I will concede that my assertion was based primarily on casual observation and is not a hard proof.

I'd like to point out however that I clearly talking about a very specific type of resignation - one that occurs in the late end game, with only a small number of obvious moves remaining, and the resigning player trailing by a small margin. Judging by the examples given above, you seem to have the understanding that I am talking about a wider range of resignations.

Based on my casual observations of pro games in the past, the outcomes of +2.5 to +5.5 were often played to the final move, resulting in a W+2.5 or B+5.5 result.

Based on my casual observations of pro games recently, the outcomes of games where pro commentators say that the margin is only 2.5 to 5.5 points is often resigned in the latter stages of the end game when the losing player could have played out a few more moves and lost by a few points rather than by resignation.

I also distinctly remember pro commentators mentioning this behavior in the past so that added to the confident manner in which I made this statement. Do I have a tape recording or do I remember the exact commentator and date when this comment was made? I do not, so if that is the bar to convince you, then I must admit I fall short and we must agree to disagree.

Incidentally, I also don't accept the alleged embourgeoisement of go as a reason for the upturn in Korean go (or in China). I suspect it's only a factor in accelerating the rise. The initial impetus had to come from elsewhere, and in fact from the fledgeling pro community itself. Cho Nam-ch'eol had laid the ground work, and the likes of the Japanese-trained Kim In, Ha Ch'an-seok and Yun Ki-hyeon ensured that a decent standard of play was maintained, but it was the return of Cho Hun-hyeon from Japan that attracted major sponsors. The fact that the Japanese were then still top dogs and so were the target to beat played nicely into nationalist feelings (and let us not forget that Cho himself suffered from these, especially during his air force days, so to say it wasn't present is bunkum). It was only when these players and their sponsors had done their work that the middle classes could even begin to think about setting pro go up as a career path for their sprogs. In China the equivalent process, also driven by a "let's beat the Japanese 9-dans" slogan among the pros, was provided by the state.

I would accept that the talent pools that subsequently became available did then come into play as a major growth factor, but it is still a case of jumping on the bandwagon as opposed to creating it.

Statement 1: Japanese Go played a crucial role in the development of Korean and Chinese Go. Without the foundation that Japanese Go built, Korean and Chinese Go would not be close to where it is today.

Statement 2: The development of Korean and Chinese Go was driven "to a large degree" by "nationalism" and an urge to "beat the Japanese"

I completely agree with statement one and totally disagree with statement two. Two completely different conclusions that you are conflating. The bandwagon that you are talking about is Japanese Go as a whole that is described in statement one. The love of the game, a drive to be the best at what you love (regardless of the nationality of the opponent) and financial rewards are in my opinion the primary motivating factors for any Go professional, regardless of nationality. The urge to beat the Japanese is so far distantly behind that it isn't even on the map. Again, my opinion and not a scientific proof.

[John Fairbairn]

The love of the game, a drive to be the best at what you love (regardless of the nationality of the opponent) and financial rewards are in my opinion the primary motivating factors for any Go professional, regardless of nationality. The urge to beat the Japanese is so far distantly behind that it isn't even on the map. Again, my opinion and not a scientific proof.

I share your opinion - for individuals. But you know I was talking about the institutions (pro guilds, sponsors, state) that make it possible for them to play. These entities are driven by different urges. Today it's now a case of Japanese sponsors coming in or making changes to catch up with the Chinese. The lack of these entities in western go also illustrates what happens when they don't exist.

[John Fairbairn]

To put more flesh on this business of more resignations:

I took some snapshots of GoGoD database games for 1996, 2006 and 2016. There appears to have been a drastic shift of some sort.

In 1996 (1905 games) 17.1% of games ended in a counted result between 2.5 and 5.5 inclusive.
In 2006 (2854 games) it was 14.4%.
In 2016 (3413 games) it 8.6%.

It seems that this change was reflected in more resignations rather than in higher scores.

In 1996 and 2016 the number of resigned games with fewer than 150 moves was almost identical (23.5% and 23.7%).

But in 1996 48% of resigned games were resigned before move 180 whereas in 2016 it was 62.8% - again a rather marked changed.

I think we all agreed before that this sort of change had taken place, but in my case it's a bigger change than I had expected.

I still don't know the reason. I suggested before that we looked at changed time limits, a change in go style or a change in the age profile. If I understand correctly Brooklyn rejects all these reasons in favour of a behavioural shift, players simply choosing to resign earlier. I suppose changes in fashion can explain anything, but my inclination is to say that's a cop out. My attention is grabbed first (but inconclusively) by two things: the big increase in resignations during the last decade which was also the decade that saw more short games, and the higher incidence of Chinese games nowadays.

Anyway, now that we have some figures, I'm even more interested to hear other opinions.

[daal]

Statement 1: Japanese Go played a crucial role in the development of Korean and Chinese Go. Without the foundation that Japanese Go built, Korean and Chinese Go would not be close to where it is today.

Statement 2: The development of Korean and Chinese Go was driven "to a large degree" by "nationalism" and an urge to "beat the Japanese"

I completely agree with statement one and totally disagree with statement two. Two completely different conclusions that you are conflating. The bandwagon that you are talking about is Japanese Go as a whole that is described in statement one. The love of the game, a drive to be the best at what you love (regardless of the nationality of the opponent) and financial rewards are in my opinion the primary motivating factors for any Go professional, regardless of nationality. The urge to beat the Japanese is so far distantly behind that it isn't even on the map. Again, my opinion and not a scientific proof.

Here is a short excerpt from a book by Nie Weiping describing his development as a go player:

Chen continued, saying that "weiqi was invented in China It was introduced into Japan before the Tang Dynasty,. In Japan weiqi skill blossomed and even surpassed that of the Chinese. There are now dozens of Japanese 9 dan players. They have defeated our Chinese players with ease, even giving a two stone handicap. This clashes with our international status. I once asked a Japanese 9 dan. 'In your opinion. how soon do you think the Chinese can catch up with you guys'? In ten years? He replied, China has a lot of people. so that might be possible.' However. when that same player came to Hong Kong later, he said, 'There is no way that the Chinese can catch up with the Japanese in twenty years.' " Chen sighed, and then continued, "China is the birth place of weiqi, with a long history and a lot of people. Today. we represent the new China under Socialism. As our country prospers. our weiqi skill should also blossom. We must develop our weiqi skill quickly, and catch up with Japan. I have asked for permission from Chairman Mao and Prime Minister Zhou Enlai to pursue this. and both of them approve."

Chen then stroked Nie's head with a smile and asked, "Can we surpass the Japanese?"
Nie replied. "We can. We must"
Chen then asked the older players, "Do you think we can catch up with them in ten years?"
All thc older players nodded, agreeing with Chen. Guo Tisheng answered "If we try hard, we can do it in ten years, but we need to train the young players"
Chen turned to Nie and Jibo saying, "The job of carrying on and developing weiqi skill lies on your shoulders! You should study hard, beat the Japanese 9 dans and bring honor to your country!"' Chen's remarks left an indelible memory in Nie's young mind. He began to believe them; he must surpass the Japanese! He expressed his resolve to Chen by saying, "l will study hard and bring honor to China'"
"Go for it,'" Chen said, giving a thumbs up sign to Nie and adding encouragingly. "l will take you to see Chairman Mao after you beat a Japanese 9 dan."
Nie glanced at his brother, feeling that he was the luckiest person on earth.
Chen preceded to talk to Guo Tisheng and Guo Xuchu. "Both of you should help these two young players. In order to surpass Japan. we must carefully analyze and study the top Japanese players' games. Try your best to get all their game results. We should concentrate on their strategy. We have to know our opponents before we can hope for victory.'"

[Javaness2]

Here is a short excerpt from a book by Nie Weiping describing his development as a go player:

It seems doubtful that this was his own writing. Nevertheless it does show that those on high can invest in national success - Soviet Chess was not an isolated case. It's unclear to me what the reality of South Korean or Chinese government intervention was.