10 Rated Games and Continuous Membership

[Kirby]

...

In comparison, which is more difficult?

Even if the AGA requirements are not difficult, there is no reason to have them. Picking up a "random go player" along the way brings benefit at no cost - unless you have some kind of anger toward the "random go player".

[quantumf]

Referring to the tennis example given earlier, it should not be possible to represent the USA without going through a reasonable qualification process. It should not be that winning one tournament allows you to represent the USA, unless playing in that tournament in itself requires a qualification process.

Some kind of points system that rewards sustained participation (and performance) over a period of time is the norm in many other sports (as the tennis example illustrates) in the USA, and is the norm for Go in most other countries, as far as I know.

[Kirby]

...the AGA tries, however well or poorly, to represent all go players in America.

Does it? Then, how about letting any go player in America participate in a tournament qualifier for an international tournament?

This confuses me. Are you saying the only way that the AGA can represent a player is by allowing that player unconditional access to anything the AGA does? That seems to be a peculiar way of understanding representation.

The AGA does various go activities. This is great.

If the purpose of the AGA is to represent all go players in America, as you say, we know that there are some go players in America that are not a part of the AGA.

So we have a dilemma. We want to represent these players, but they do not show interest in being a part of the AGA. Or maybe it's more laxed. Maybe these are AGA members, but they don't meet some other requirement for going to the tournament. In any case, if we want to find a "representative go player of America", there's the issue of those that aren't involved with the AGA to consider.

Since these players are separate from the AGA, there are a few ways that I can think of to bring us together:

1.) These players can come to the AGA's terms, doing whatever the AGA says to play in an international tournament.

2.) The AGA can give the players a chance to participate in a tournament, without enforcing AGA regulations on them.

3.) They can meet somewhere in the middle.

---

We cannot control what "random go players" do, but we CAN control what the AGA does - it's a small organization. If the goal for an international tournament is to get representatives from the USA, then it would be ideal if the AGA included any go player from the USA.

---

This is the part that really makes me see this perspective: costs and benefits. If we make those that haven't met AGA requirements pay their way for participating in an international tournament, there is *no cost* to the AGA for allowing these players to participate. However, there *is* a benefit.

Let's say that the strongest amateur in the world was a USA citizen. As such, if he participates in an international tournament, he will probably win. Let's also say that he has no interest in the AGA.

If we allow him to play in the qualifier, and make him pay for airfare costs, etc. of participating in an international tournament, it costs the AGA nothing at all. But if he wins the tournament, it brings a lot of publicity for go in the USA. It's a win-win situation.

If we don't allow him to play, we turn him off to the AGA and lose that publicity. We are not spreading go in the USA. We are hiding it.

Bottom line: People that want to be involved with the AGA will be involved with the AGA. People that don't want to won't. We shouldn't stifle go activity in the USA because we don't like people that aren't involved in the AGA. If it's an AGA tournament, then I can see these regulations being in place. But an international tournament is an opportunity to get go more popular in the USA - we don't have to funnel it through AGA regulations.

[Kirby]

Referring to the tennis example given earlier, it should not be possible to represent the USA without going through a reasonable qualification process. It should not be that winning one tournament allows you to represent the USA, unless playing in that tournament in itself requires a qualification process.

Some kind of points system that rewards sustained participation (and performance) over a period of time is the norm in many other sports (as the tennis example illustrates) in the USA, and is the norm for Go in most other countries, as far as I know.

Then have the qualifier over a longer period of time.

[xed_over]

Then have the qualifier over a longer period of time.

in effect, we do (or did). consider the 10 rated games in the previous 12 months to be part of the qualifier.

[etower366i2]

This is Lisa Scott.

In my research/travel so far, it seems that in most of the country there is actually more difficulty finding tournaments than people think. Even in Colorado and Chicago, which both have unquestionably strong and vibrant communities, it can be hard to find 3 tournaments per year. There are generally 3-4 tournaments in Colorado, but often times someone may have a conflict with one or two off these tournaments, making it hard for them to reach the prior number of required games.

Additionally, many of us can find great rated games at a normal club meeting, assuming we live in a vibrant go area, but it can be hard for strong players to find reasonable games. Theoretically, an 8d could play 6-9 stone handicap games against the 2-4 players who are this strength in most areas, and these games could be reported as rated games. In many areas, however, there are a not a lot of dan, and certainly not a lot of high dan, players to compete against for those strong enough to participate in tournaments in order to represent the US internationally.

From what I hear, the tournament scene in Houston has diminished considerably in recent years, as tends to happen when it has been a long time since a Congress was in an area.

I think that we need more tournaments, and this was one of the things that I urged when visiting clubs. It does, however, take time and resources to build a community and to train volunteers so that tournaments are a worthwhile pursuit. In many areas, this process has been started, but it will take time to come to fruition. This was a major part of my consideration in determining my position on this issue. I certainly want to encourage face-to-face and tournament participation, but I think that this is best accomplished using a grass roots approach.

[Kirby]

Then have the qualifier over a longer period of time.

in effect, we do (or did). consider the 10 rated games in the previous 12 months to be part of the qualifier.

I would much rather see an official qualifier specifically for the given international event, with no other strings attached. If the goal is to promote go in the USA, then we don't have to push everything through an AGA funnel. Finding strong representatives to play go for the USA should be reward enough IMO

...

I think that we need more tournaments, and this was one of the things that I urged when visiting clubs. ...

Agreed.

[daniel_the_smith]

Welcome to the forum, Lisa.

Regarding rated games at clubs-- At the beginning of the year I offered to submit them for my club if people wanted to play them. No one has taken me up on it. People seem to just prefer to play rated games at tournaments vs people they don't play often.

---

This thread sounds like a political debate, and it's going nowhere. One way to make sure it is a productive conversation: Are you willing to change your mind if it can be shown that you're wrong? (The answer "but I'm not wrong" is equivalent to "no".) We all want the AGA to be a better organization. We do not all agree on what will make it better. Our task is to decide what, in fact, will actually make it better. If a 10-game/12 month membership rule improves the AGA, I want to believe that a 10-game/12 month membership rule improves the AGA. If a 10-game/12 month membership rule harms the AGA, I want to believe that a 10-game/12 month membership rule harms the AGA. If we cannot say those two sentences and mean them, then we are just fighting and not having a productive argument. Our goal is to discover the truth, not argue for the truth we think we know.

Currently, I believe there are better ways of accomplishing that goal (participation) than those two rules. I will change my mind upon evidence or a sufficiently good argument showing I'm wrong.

If we cannot collectively agree on the best way of proceeding (and perhaps even if we can) then we need to find ways to try multiple things to compare how well they work.

[Kirby]

...Our goal is to discover the truth, not argue for the truth we think we know.

Currently, I believe there are better ways of accomplishing that goal (participation) than those two rules. I will change my mind upon evidence or a sufficiently good argument showing I'm wrong.

...

I'm not really sure about the distinction you're making. Of course, the reason we are having discussion in general is to establish a good direction to move forward with.

I believe that the appropriate direction to take is to relax the requirements for participating in international tournaments, and I am arguing for that cause. Others have a different viewpoint, and are arguing for that cause.

The purpose of the discussion in general is, of course, to bring about greater insight toward the correct direction to take. I don't think that anyone doesn't have this goal in mind.

The goal is to discover truth, but to get there, we are discussing our viewpoints. What's wrong with that?

[daniel_the_smith]

The purpose of the discussion in general is, of course, to bring about greater insight toward the correct direction to take. I don't think that anyone doesn't have this goal in mind.

Agreed, but my perception is that people (not saying who) are not actually listening and evaluating each other's statements.

The goal is to discover truth, but to get there, we are discussing our viewpoints. What's wrong with that?

Nothing, and it's possible I'm the one misreading things.

[Kirby]

...
Agreed, but my perception is that people (not saying who) are not actually listening and evaluating each other's statements.
....

OK, fair enough. In an effort to get closer to "finding truth", I will try to more concisely outline the points that I have not found addressed, which make me tend to think that it is better to relax the requirements.

If somebody can point out a good counterargument to these points, I will be open to changing my mind:
1.) It costs the AGA nothing to relax the requirements for international tournaments, provided that those that aren't involved with the AGA pay their own costs.

2.) Benefit is brought to go in the USA by allowing the strongest possible representatives to play. This is because we can have positive publicity by having our representatives win more games abroad, and it can help go to become more popular.

Are these statements not true?

[Horibe]

1.) It costs the AGA nothing to relax the requirements for international tournaments, provided that those that aren't involved with the AGA pay their own costs.

2.) Benefit is brought to go in the USA by allowing the strongest possible representatives to play. This is because we can have positive publicity by having our representatives win more games abroad, and it can help go to become more popular.

Are these statements not true?

The first statement may or may not be true, though I am not sure it matters. Many people question involvement in the AGA - what do I get for it? With the rule, people are encouraged keep their membership current, and support AGA events. And you get something, eligiblity. Does it actually work? Some people say no, some yes. Whether it actually impacts individual behavior or not, relaxing requirements seems to further marginalize the AGA.

It does not matter because the sponsors of these events provide free expenses to the AGA for our designee. I think the suggestion that if one person wins he gets the free trip, but if another wins, we are going to make him pay is bizarre, and would not be approved of by the sponsor. And, with cash strapped events like the WAGC it would be like "We like you, we will help you go" "But you have to pay". It just does not sound like a boundary lowering to me. The idea of the 10 game rule is "We have a cool prize, free trip - get involved and you can go". Again, maybe that doesn't work. I can understand the argument - "Get them in by letting them try to qualify, and maybe they will stay" - but I do not see the attraction of "You can try but its going to cost you".

The second statement sounds true, but probably is not. We have a group of strong players, and I certainly want to choose the strongest. However, the only people who follow this publicity are go players. And go in the USA probably gets more benifit, more excitement, if known players that have fans go on these trips. I suppose if we had someone win one of these events, that may create some notice beyond those that already play, but I do not think we are keeping that person out, if he or she exists. I think qualification events online can certainly create some of this excitement, but so does giving players the chance to actually meet some of these guys at tournaments around the country.

Personally, I think it is impossible to evaluate whether the marginal benefit of finding someone who might be slightly better in an online match would outweigh giving the community more opportunities to see how representatives perform in actual touranment conditions, meet them and create real excitement about real people.

[Kirby]

It does not matter because the sponsors of these events provide free expenses to the AGA for our designee. I think the suggestion that if one person wins he gets the free trip, but if another wins, we are going to make him pay is bizarre, and would not be approved of by the sponsor.

Please correct me if I am not summarizing you correctly, but it appears to me that you are saying that it does not matter if there is no cost to the AGA for providing a way for people uninvolved with the AGA to participate, because sponsors would not approve. Is this what you're saying?

If so, why do you think that the sponsor does not approve? I'd like to get your opinion on this before analyzing this further.

but I do not see the attraction of "You can try but its going to cost you".

The attraction, to me, is that the person would get the opportunity to participate in an international tournament if he wanted to. If nobody takes advantage of this option, nothing is changed from the current policy.

The second statement sounds true, but probably is not. We have a group of strong players, and I certainly want to choose the strongest. However, the only people who follow this publicity are go players. And go in the USA probably gets more benifit, more excitement, if known players that have fans go on these trips.

So again, I want to see if I accurately understand your view before continuing. A summary of what you are saying is:

"It is better to have popular players that have fans participate in tournaments than players that are relatively unknown in the go community."

Is this what you are saying?

Personally, I think it is impossible to evaluate whether the marginal benefit of finding someone who might be slightly better in an online match would outweigh giving the community more opportunities to see how representatives perform in actual touranment conditions, meet them and create real excitement about real people.

Finally, just to be clear, are you saying here that go players that are not involved with the AGA are not "real people"? If not, could you clarify what you mean by this last part?

[Horibe]

If so, why do you think that the sponsor does not approve? I'd like to get your opinion on this before analyzing this further.

So again, I want to see if I accurately understand your view before continuing. A summary of what you are saying is:

"It is better to have popular players that have fans participate in tournaments than players that are relatively unknown in the go community."

Is this what you are saying?

Finally, just to be clear, are you saying here that go players that are not involved with the AGA are not "real people"? If not, could you clarify what you mean by this last part?

Question One. Sponsor tells AGA to pick someone to represent U.S. and will pay the expenses. AGA sends someone, charges them and pockets the money. Or perhaps you want the AGA to get into the habit of telling sponsors, we do not need your help? Either way, I think it is at least possible that the sponsor will be offended.

Question Two. No that is not what I am saying. You stated it is better to open quailification up as much as possible, and that will mean we have a better player, and that will create more excitement. I am saying that picking the best online player, unless he does significantly better than the people we have sent in the past, will not necessarily create more excitement than sending someone people have had the opportunity to meet, like and root for in the type of face to face match they will play in overseas. The point I am addressing, which is the point I read in your post, is your statement that it would create more excitement. You turn that point in your summary to a more vague value "better", which is a different thing. I am not saying this should be a popularity contest, but I was addressing your comment about creating excitement, and popular players do bring excitement.

In absolute value - the better implied by this post - the strongest face to face player should be the one we send to a face to face event. This is, unfortunately, impractical. What I am saying is that sending an unknown player, who has not played any tournament face to face AGA games recently, is not necessarily going to be more successful, or more exciting than sending a Feng Yun, Mingju, Jie Li or Andy Liu, who many U.S. go players follow and we know can stare down an opponent across a board and beat them.

Question Three - Of course everyone who plays go are real people. However, when I meet them, when they play in AGA tournaments, when Chris Garlock interviews them and posts their picture, they become more real to me, because I get to know them as more than simply an avatar online. I do not think you can argue that people will get more excited and more interested - which again, was the measure you set in your question - in following someone they know something about who finishes 12th, versus someone they do not know at all, who finishes 11th.

And when these "real" players show this type of interest, pay to join the AGA, pay tournament fees and put gas in their cars to travel and take time to follow their passion, they demonstrate a commitment and interest in the game that makes them more real to potential sponsors who might want to support go in this country.

[daniel_the_smith]

There's a misunderstanding here as to who is doing the paying. I (*) thought the AGA is shelling out for (at least some of) these trips. Horibe thinks it's the sponsor.

...if it's the sponsor, then there's no reason to charge non-AGA members extra (beyond what it costs for them to join-- you can't play in a rated tournament without joining and the qualifiers are rated). There's also no reason to heap restrictions on them, since they aren't costing the AGA any extra.

*EDIT: removed Kirby's name so as not to assume I've been reading his posts correctly