Pair Go Rules

[Javaness2]

Is it time to update the pair go system rules at https://www.eurogofed.org/egf/pairsystem.htm ? They strike me as being very long winded, pretty tricky to keep up to date, and probably not very effective at promoting pair go.

The basic idea of giving out points in terms of performance at the European Pair Go Championship seems fine to me. The size and activity rules don't seem useful. Size is looking at the individual go rating lists, which is a bit wrong. It measures the number of people playing go, not the number of people playing pair go. Many countries have no pair go championship, even after so many years, but they are still gaining points for playing go. Wouldn't the EGF do better to create a requirement of "having organised a pair go championship" in order to get some points? That way it would actually be promoting pair go, not go.

[John Fairbairn]

Do we actually want to promote Pair Go?

I'm well aware of the usual social arguments in favour, but it seems like a committee designing a horse and ending up with an elephant to me. At any rate, I always have a "why am I doing this?" moment whenever I include a pair go game or a rengo in the GoGoD database. In the case of pair go, the usual pro rules that the pro pairs are chosen at random seem to make the game even less interesting. If a pair could stay together and acquire some good team strategy and deeper understanding of each other's play - so that it really becomes a team game - I would see more sense in it.

But if it's just about bringing men and women together in happy concourse, fine - but aren't other activities that don't require long years of prior practice more logical and much easier?

I would suggest that promoting women's go demands much higher priority, and if that works, at least pair go would have a better basis to develop from.

[Javaness2]

If we is the EGF, then the answer to the question seems to be yes, although the promotion does seem to be a bit aimless. If the IAPGC vanished tomorrow I don't feel that Pair Go would completely vanish. The way the rules are written at the moment doesn't support my feeling though.

[Matti]

The current system was started from 2003. Until 2002 the system was that each year the Big Five: Germany, France, UK, the Netherlands and Russia got four places to be shared, so one country sat out, and smaller countries rotated with the remaining places. I was the EGF secretary and made a proposal for AGM that basically the places should be given according to the results of the EPGC. At the AGM Germany made a counter proposal to install a commission the prepare a point system to choose representatives. The current system is from that commission. My idea was to reward Pair Go activity, but big countries managed to insert a component which depends on the countries sizes.

[Javaness2]

It is interesting to know the history of how this ruleset came to be created.
For me the rules of 2003 have run their course. 15 years later they should be updated. EGF already has a lot of places, no need for protectionism anymore.

[Matti]

It is interesting to know the history of how this ruleset came to be created.
For me the rules of 2003 have run their course. 15 years later they should be updated. EGF already has a lot of places, no need for protectionism anymore.

However, it is too late to submit an update for the AGM 2018.