Popularity of Go

[Marcus]

Though reading ability tends to transfer.

Reading ability transfers much more easily between Chess games than between Chess and Go, because the judgement used to evaluate a position, and the intuition required to filter out bad moves, are of a fundamentally different nature between the two games.

I don't think this is true. When evaluating a position in either Chess or Go, the prerequisite is understanding how the pieces in each game are used and an ability to superimpose various outcomes onto the current board using whatever visualization technique you prefer.

In both games, there are open-ended moves that could have multiple responses from your opponent, and there are moves that limit the reasonable moves by your opponent.

In both games, having a plan in the opening and understanding how your opening moves facilitate that plan later in the game help to prune choices and "bad" moves from selection.

In both games, there is local reading to gain marginal advantages over the global position.

Tell me again how the fundamental principles of strategy don't apply to reading in both games?

Also, the fact that Go is "marketed" as an intellectual profound game will keep people away. Who want to "lose" intellectually? While I think losing is what makes you learn, the question is more important than the answer, other people might not like it.

This stabs at the heart of, I believe, nagano's question. Go IS an intellectual game, and how do we attract people to the game despite this? Chess is the same way. It's the same question all over again.

Exactly. This is what I intended this thread to focus on.

So, here's something I was thinking about ...

I play Chess. I got into chess as a progression from Checkers (Draughts, for those who know it by that name), because it seemed like a natural progression. I play Bridge. I got into bridge as a progression from Euchre. And Go? Well, it took me a long time to actually get into Go, as there didn't seem to be much of a gateway game for it.

The closest to Go I played before I actually began playing Go was playing Gomoku on Playsite.com back in the late 90s. It introduced the pieces and the board, but it was more of a progression FROM Tic-Tac-Toe. Later, after I'd already begun playing Go, I discovered the existence of PENTE, which I'm only just now finding out is a Trademarked variation on the Japanese game of Ninuki-Renju. There we have the concept of capturing pieces.

Can we find a natural-feeling progression of games that leads to a fun introduction to the Game of Go? I know that some who have tried and have given up the game just found the influx of new concepts to be overwhelming. Why do we play on the intersections? Gomoku can introduce this concept. Why do we remove pieces from the board? PENTE or some variation of Ninuki-Renju could introduce this idea. What about the idea of territory? The Go community throws the concept of "eyes" around a lot, but to a newcomer the concept is one that feels very arbitrary until they understand more about the game ... I mean, why is two eyes alive? Why don't we separate all our territories into two eyes (since we sometimes have large open spaces that are only one eye)? To a newcomer, these questions are difficult questions, and it's hard to grasp the ideas.

So, my conclusion lately has been that the teaching method used to teach beginners, while effective for some, cannot be applied across all situations and students arbitrarily.

This leads into another fact that sometimes seems to be overlooked: not everyone who COULD enjoy playing Go is going to want to become the best player they can. Go is supposed to be a game. Games are supposed to be fun, not work. How many Chess players do you know? How many of them work a little every week to gain strength? How many others simply play when they feel like it and never improve? Now, compare those numbers to the Western Go community ... I'm not sure, but I get the feeling that if someone new to the game is not in the first category of Go players (striving to improve regularly) they feel a bit outnumbered.

[dave]

At least in the US, I think Go remains small and mostly unkown due to lack of exposure. I would agree that almost every American has at least heard of Chess and Checkers, even if they do not play. Those games are part of our culture. Go is not part of the culture in the same way. Most US newspapers have a chess column, and/or a Bridge column. Neither of which are required to recap the basic rulesfor readers. American bookstores have many books on Poker, Bridge, Chess, even Backgammon, but I have seldom seen a book about Go on the shelves.

I do not believe that it is because of fundamental differences between Eastern and Western mindsets. There are far to many examples of "Eastern" practices that have becomepopular in the West. Even Sumi-e or Chinese Brush Painting books are now fairly common.

Go lacks a critical mass of enthusiasts and the commercial exposure that other games have. If you had told me even five years ago that Poker would be a popular televison game I would laughed myself sick. What could be more boring than watching a Poker game? But it is now quite popular and has definite "personalities", as do many other sports.

I have been looking for Go players in my area for years. Whenever I mention the game the response I get is "Huh? What's Go?" I really do not enjoy Chess, but I know I can find a chess oponent where ever I go.

Teach the school children in the US how to play GO. Figure out how to put it on telvision, commentators explaining play would be a start. Get inexpensive Go sets in a mass retailer like Toys-R-Us or Walmart and I expect the game will grow in popularity. It just needs to be "de-mystified".

Go-Moku, Pente, and "First Capture Go" may be a way to start as entry games.

[palapiku]

Can we find a natural-feeling progression of games that leads to a fun introduction to the Game of Go?

Yes, Atari Go (first capture wins) followed by 9x9.

[Marcus]

Can we find a natural-feeling progression of games that leads to a fun introduction to the Game of Go?

Yes, Atari Go (first capture wins) followed by 9x9.

This is a teaching method, not a progression of games. You seem to have missed the point of my post.

People don't play Atari Go (except when teaching or being taught). It's not a gateway game, it's an introductory lesson. People do play Connect Four. It's a small step from that to Gomoku. From there, introducing captures (via Pente or similar) seems like it would be a good in-between game. It's a much smaller step from there to Atari Go than it is from nothing to Atari Go (which is almost as hard as going from nothing to 9x9).

Anyways, my point is that for each step there needs to be a community of players, and it has to be FUN! Not just for the new player, but for older players as well. People still play Checkers and there's a community of Checkers players even though many people decided, like I did, that Chess was similar enough to make the switch. There's no community of players who just play Atari Go.

[Solomon]

I don't understand why there needs to be such a "natural progression" to begin with for the introduction of Go to be fun, Go really isn't that difficult to get introduced to.

[palapiku]

True, and I don't think most chess players come to chess from checkers - they just start playing chess right away. Similarly, go is popular in Asia, even though there's no "natural progression" to it there, either.

[Kirby]

...

According to Peter Shotwell (in Go! More Than a Game, page 133), "Confucius called Go something that was only slightly better than 'doing nothing with a full stomach.'" Shotwell goes on to say that the (early Chinese) Confucians rejected Go for a variety of reasons, including it's addictive gambling qualities. This probably doesn't contradict your point, because the Seonbi are a Korean phenomena, but nonetheless I find this Confucian attitude amusing.

I don't know if it's always believed that Confucius didn't like go. That is, not everyone thinks that way.

Here's an article I was looking at on Cyberoro:
http://www.cyberoro.com:8080/column/col ... =&m_div=A2

One relevant section is quoted here:

선비는 가볍게 움직이지 않는다. 선비에게 오락은 중요치 않다. 때를 보아 목숨도 초개같은 선비에게 오락이 자리할 틈은 없다. 그러나 선비가 단 하나 예외를 둔 것이 있다. 그것이 바둑이다. 바둑은 금기서화(琴碁書畵)다.

Basically, this speaks about the nature of the Seonbi. It says that the Seonbi didn't hold importance to recreational things, or things to do for fun. It wasn't something that they found to be important. However, it notes that the exception to this is the game of baduk. It says that baduk is "琴碁書畵". The characters comprising this word are characters for four categories of activity:

* Music
* Baduk
* Caligraphy
* Art

Later on, it goes on to talk about the 논어 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analects):

논어는 놀고먹는 것보다 바둑이라도 두라(以奕爲爲之猶賢乎)했지만 공자의 후학인 선비들은 아예 바둑을 사예(四藝)의 하나로 특정했다.

To explain this, there are two guys that are highly respected in Korean Confucianism: 맹자 and 공자. 맹자, in English, is sometimes known as "Mencius". You can read about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mencius

공자, on the other hand, is Confucius himself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius).

The quote above says that, in the 논어, it says that it is better to be playing go than to be sitting/playing around. However, according to this, Confucius noted baduk as one of the four things that Seonbi should spend their time on. I believe that the other three are Music, Caligraphy, and Art, as referenced above.

This, along with other things in the article, lead me to believe that Confuciusism, and perhaps Confucius thought in general, had a positive outlook on go - at least in Korea.

However, further investigations shows that, as you say, some people had the feeling that Confucius himself didn't care for the game. But some believe that this is not true in the context of the quote. For example, you can take a look at this article here, which I'll also summarize below: http://www.chosun.com/site/data/html_di ... 01999.html

The guy shown in the picture is a person from Bulgaria named Constantine Beraktarof(?).

At a conference on Baduk education, Constantine presented his thesis, "Confucius about the game Go". Constantine, a studier of philosophy, economics, and computer engineering, is a guy from Bulgaria that has given various Baduk presentations in the past, and his presentation that's discussed here, "Confucius about the game Go" was met with a positive response.

The article then goes on to highlight some points from his presentation.

It says that, it is commonly quoted that Confucius said (in the 논어), "More than laying around and idling, you'd better play baduk". This is commonly thought to be a negative opinion about Baduk. However, Confucius points out in his presentation that he doesn't think that this was a negative quote at all. He says that the context of the quote was from a time when Confucius had been unsuccessful in influencing the government with his ideas. He had tried to influence the government in various ways, but he didn't succeed. Constantine says that it was at this stage that Confucius made his famous quote, in the context that he had tried to make a positive influence on the government, but his efforts were futile - so rather than idling around, the best thing he could do with his time was to play Baduk.

He goes on to say that Confucius categorized games into two classes: games of luck and games of logic. And he said that Confucius found Baduk to be a game that truly met his standards for a logical game.

He said that Confucius believed that Baduk was analogous to the government, and that Confucius was among the first to start the history of Baduk in Korea.

It's not directly related to the topic of whether Confucius liked go, but the article goes on to compare Confucius with Laozi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laozi), a philosopher that had some influence on Taoism.

It notes that the two had different opinions on baduk: A game of competition vs. a game of cooperation, and that this reflected their different doctrines. As a closing note, he goes on to say that their different, yet complementary opinions on baduk can be thought of as the black and white stones on the go board, completing one another.

---

So I think that there is certainly a feeling of respect for Seonbi, and I know that playing go is something that they spent their time with. Whether or not Confucius loved the game is debatable, but there's at least some evidence that points to the possibility that he may have been an advocate of the game.

[Marcus]

I don't understand why there needs to be such a "natural progression" to begin with for the introduction of Go to be fun, Go really isn't that difficult to get introduced to.

From the OP:

... but people have indicated to me that they are easier to relate to at first because they feel the basic goal is clearer. "Checkmate your opponent's King" is seen as an easier concept to understand than "make more territory than your opponent". In that sense Baduk maybe takes a little bit longer to get used to, and ends up losing more beginners in countries where these other games are prevalent. ... <snip> ... So, the question now is: how can we take these things into account to help spread the game?

This statement resonates with my own experiences with games in general, and the difficulty I see in growing the Western Go Community forcefully (as nagano seems to want to do). We can introduce the game all we want, but it will always seem strange and difficult to a beginner. To someone who has had no exposure to Go, the board seems strange. To someone new, it's strange to place the pieces on the intersections. To someone just starting to try to understand how to capture, "surrounding" is a strange concept.

Compare this with learning Chess. The board is 8x8. (hey, like Checkers!) The pieces are placed in a starting position. The pieces have straightforward rules for movement. There's never more than the starting number of pieces on the board. There are rules for promotion. To a new player, that familiarity from a game they already know can make them curious, and can give them that extra push to actually try the game.

In addition, it seems like teaching chess takes a lot less time and is more effective for a broader audience. Perhaps Go is not popular because the teaching method is tailored to be effective for a narrower personality type, and isn't as effective for a broader audience.

True, and I don't think most chess players come to chess from checkers - they just start playing chess right away. Similarly, go is popular in Asia, even though there's no "natural progression" to it there, either.

Which category of Chess players are you considering? Tournament goers? Online players? What about those that play casually, with family or friends? I've found (admittedly, in my experience) that a number of people who play chess casually learned checkers first, and chess came later for a "greater challenge".

Are we losing sight of the goal? We want more players, right? Not all of those players are going to be serious about the game. People are MUCH more likely to spread the game if they don't feel that it is MANDATORY to put your heart and soul into studying it.

Concerning Asia, just browsing around while considering this topic I came across things like Gomoku and Renju and similar "lesser" games. It would be interesting to know if those games are played, and how frequently, and by whom, in Asia (perhaps by children?). Just the existence of games like this provides more exposure for Go, as the same board and stones are used.

In addition, Asia has had Go for thousands of years. You can't expect Go to reach the same kind of saturation in Western Society in a "mere" two hundred years or so.

[nagano]

Perhaps Go is not popular because the teaching method is tailored to be effective for a narrower personality type, and isn't as effective for a broader audience.

Are we losing sight of the goal? We want more players, right? Not all of those players are going to be serious about the game. People are MUCH more likely to spread the game if they don't feel that it is MANDATORY to put your heart and soul into studying it.

Did anyone ever say it was mandatory? I'm not going to put a gun to someone's head.

In addition, Asia has had Go for thousands of years. You can't expect Go to reach the same kind of saturation in Western Society in a "mere" two hundred years or so.

Who knows what could happen with a proper marketing strategy? Read this article about Thailand.

[Marcus]

Perhaps Go is not popular because the teaching method is tailored to be effective for a narrower personality type, and isn't as effective for a broader audience.

Are we losing sight of the goal? We want more players, right? Not all of those players are going to be serious about the game. People are MUCH more likely to spread the game if they don't feel that it is MANDATORY to put your heart and soul into studying it.

Did anyone ever say it was mandatory? I'm not going to put a gun to someone's head.

I never said anything like this. My point is that the PERCEPTION (one that must change if we are to get more players), from the outside looking in (again, from my own experiences within my own community and in discussions with various people), is that the Game of Go is a game requiring study to play. This is quite different from the perception of Chess, which is that it is a game that requires study to play well, but anyone can play.

Now, that's not EVERYONE's perception. I also note the perception that some people have is that they just aren't "smart" enough to play (though they play Chess). Others don't "recognize patterns well enough" to be good, so they give the game up almost immediately.

The underlying theme I get when talking to non-players about Go is that the game requires a set of skills that is either too much work to acquire, or is beyond "normal" people. Change that perception and you will get an influx of players.

In addition, Asia has had Go for thousands of years. You can't expect Go to reach the same kind of saturation in Western Society in a "mere" two hundred years or so.

Who knows what could happen with a proper marketing strategy? Read this article about Thailand.

Good article. Now, if the AGA and the EGF got together with corporate sponsors and major Universities and started a similar program, we'd be all set. A crusade like this requires a framework of support that we just don't have here. What benefit does this bring to the corporations involved? In Thailand, they get (ostensibly) skilled workers. I'd be all for a program like this here in the West, if a group could be brought together to pull it off.

[nagano]

Perhaps Go is not popular because the teaching method is tailored to be effective for a narrower personality type, and isn't as effective for a broader audience.

Are we losing sight of the goal? We want more players, right? Not all of those players are going to be serious about the game. People are MUCH more likely to spread the game if they don't feel that it is MANDATORY to put your heart and soul into studying it.

Did anyone ever say it was mandatory? I'm not going to put a gun to someone's head.

I never said anything like this. My point is that the PERCEPTION (one that must change if we are to get more players), from the outside looking in (again, from my own experiences within my own community and in discussions with various people), is that the Game of Go is a game requiring study to play. This is quite different from the perception of Chess, which is that it is a game that requires study to play well, but anyone can play.

Now, that's not EVERYONE's perception. I also note the perception that some people have is that they just aren't "smart" enough to play (though they play Chess). Others don't "recognize patterns well enough" to be good, so they give the game up almost immediately.

The underlying theme I get when talking to non-players about Go is that the game requires a set of skills that is either too much work to acquire, or is beyond "normal" people. Change that perception and you will get an influx of players.

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood.

Good article. Now, if the AGA and the EGF got together with corporate sponsors and major Universities and started a similar program, we'd be all set. A crusade like this requires a framework of support that we just don't have here. What benefit does this bring to the corporations involved? In Thailand, they get (ostensibly) skilled workers. I'd be all for a program like this here in the West, if a group could be brought together to pull it off.

I know such a program at this point is unrealistic. I just cited that article as an example of how the game can be spread rapidly, if proper methods are used. Of course the specific methods will vary to suit the abilities and interests of each individual country.

[dave]

I have, at least notionally, prefered the idea of playing Go to the idea of playing Chess.

My perception of the two games is that Chess is a game of rigid logic, and mathematical patterns. If you memorize enough patterns and combinations of moves you become a master player.

Go by contrast seems a game of intuition. You look at the board, recognize patterns or shapes and draw conclusions of the best play from there. At least as much art as science.

As a creative, intuitive, right-brained, artistic type I find Go more apealing.
This is all perception. It may or may not reflect the actual nature of the two games. If we can create the perception that Go is an enjoyable game to play, and is accessible to players of all ages, skill levels, and personalities then Go will increase in popularity. If Go comes to be percieved as a game for the intellectual and mystical elite, and inaccessible to comon people it will decrease in popularity.

Perhaps one of the best ways to spread Go is for all of us to talk about the enjoyment we get from playing Go and teach new players how to play the game.

[palapiku]

I dunno, I'm fine with being perceived as the intellectual and mystical elite.

Although, everyone knows that's really just the dan players...

[Suji]

Perhaps one of the best ways to spread Go is for all of us to talk about the enjoyment we get from playing Go and teach new players how to play the game.

You can talk all you want until you're blue in the face to some people, and they still won't pick the game up. That being said, it may be the critical thing that Go players have to do in order for the game to get more popular.

[Kirby]

I thought about this topic a little more, and if I'm honest with myself, I didn't even like go when I first started playing it. I watched Hikaru no Go, became inspired, and forced myself to keep at it. That got the ball rolling, and I started to actually enjoy the game after that.

Considering the number of people I hear talk about Hikaru no Go when they are starting to play the game, I wonder if I'm not the only one like this…