Koreans about EGC: Hong Seulki

[Javaness]

Not sure about this John. For one thing the Koreans probably knew already, there are enough Korean players in Europe to notice this kind of thing.

Know what?

The decisions taken at the AGM in relation to the European Championship was what I referred to.
Also, the ring fencing of some money in Pandanet Tour for European citizens was unmissable.

[RobertJasiek]

many people are unfamiliar with Ing rules, but are happy to use them when they are explained

Among regular congress participants, most players know the basics of Ing rules.

Whether players prefer either scoring method is a different question.

What many players dislike about Ing rules are their ko rules, terminology, fill-in counting, necessity of exactly 180 stones, necessity for Ing bowls and stones, flaws.

Those few people liking Ing rules are not actually happy about Ing ko rules but either are unhappy about them or do not know them. Most of those few people actually like and imagine something like Simplified Ing Rules.

When original Ing rules were explained, I do not recall anyone liking their ko rules. Maybe a dozen said that they liked the intention behind their ko rules but would like to see a different and much simpler implementation of that intention.

Some may object to the clocks

Over 95%.

but they fulfil the purpose they were designed for and I think that other clocks with similar facilities are just as difficult to set up.

You miss the major criticism of Ing clocks:

- Not always seen opposing time.
- Hard to use buttons.
- Buttons that tend to malfunction easily.
- Bugs in the software.
- Annoying voice one cannot turn off.
- Ugly design.

[C. Blue]

Anyone who does not wish for the strongest possible opponent, who does not rejoice from the prospects of getting outlined one's own limits and flaws clearly and well to analyze, and who isn't excited about the chance of putting one's very own plans of assault and resistance to the ultimate test, must be playing something Go-like but certainly not Go.

(PS: I'm not intending to directly judge the tournament system by saying this, it's merely sort of how I feel about the game itself. Also, if you think you ARE playing Go and I'm out of my mind, I'll tolerate that too )

[Bantari]

What I could never properly understand in this whole discussion is the notion that organizing a Closed European Championship (even at the cost of losing some top-players attendance at the Congress) automatically means that Europe does not welcome Asians or that there is some bias against strong Asian players. Neither does that mean that Europeans do not want to play strong Asians out of fear or greed or whatever.

Let me address a few issues here:

Point> Some European top players cannot afford to go both to the Congress and the Championship if they were separate.

Well, so what? I am pretty sure that most of the real top players already attend more than one international tournament a year, usually much more than one, and then can probably afford to go to another one if it looked attractive. In the worst case - they can skip some other tournament and still go to Both the EC's. And if they really can only possibly afford one tournament a year, well, tough. If they have no chance to place at the Championship, there is no reason for them to be there, and if they have a chance to place there - the money they can get can certainly help them attend more than one tournament.

Point> Lack of some of the top European players will scare off the strong Asian players and the won't attend the Congress.

I absolutely not buy that! For many reasons. One of them is the fact that most of the really top European players (Alex, Catalin, etc) the real contenders, would most likely find the time and resources to attend whichever tournament they wished. Same goes for most of the other top players, I would bet on that. Some second-rankers would probably skip the Championship, but so what? Even if they skip the Congress as well, I do not believe that those from the outside of the absolute elite are very attractive opponents for the strong Asians.

Point> The wish to have separate Championship means Europeans do not wish to play strong Asians.

I disagree. There should be a possibility to create a venue to have a closed tournament, and another to play strong outsiders. This is exactly how they handle it in Asia, and it works well it seems, so I absolutely cannot see any reason why Europeans should not be allowed to do the same. I don't understand why this should be taken as offensive by the Asians. I can however see why Asians trying to bully/blackmail the Europeans into not doing this can be seen offensive to the Europeans.

However, this is a loaded issue, and we need to tread softly here. We do derive a lot of benefit from the association with Asian Go communities and organizations, and unless we are ready to sever these ties, or at least some of them, we will always be open to such blackmail/bullying. It might be that we simply cannot afford to do that at this time, we have to dance to their tune. But then this should be clearly stated so that we know what the decision is REALLY about: they get upset when we do THAT and withdraw their support, and we cannot afford that, so don't matter what the morality of the situation they have us by the short-and-curlies. Same can be said about the point below.

Point> Organizing separate Championship send a message that Asians are not welcome.

It certainly does not! Asians themselves have many 'closed' tournaments, I am sure. It is very common to have both open and closed tournaments. I am not sure why the Asian take this stance, really. If they really do, or we just get their words filtered and then spun by people with Agendas. I would like to think that they are more reasonable than that. Or they try to bully/blackmail Europe into putting ALL available prize monies into the one event where the Asian can get it the easiest.

If this is the case, and it certainly looks like that sometimes, I am not sure if Europe should be just bowing down to that and bending over with a toothy smile. It is true that we learn a lot from the Asians, but if the relationship between these two cultures are ever going to be other than master/slave thing, Europeans need to learn to stand up for themselves even if that means getting shafted sometimes and incurring short-time losses. This is how you win respect, not by constantly bending over and taking it. Look at the history of the Go relationship between various Go countries in Asia. Even when one of them is clearly dominant, the others are not just subservient but fight for their rights.

Point> The main/only reasons strong Asians come to Congress is to play strong Europeans.

Well, this one I don't buy neither - or at least, not totally. Any other number of tournaments can be arranged to make this happen. I think it is 'nice' to the Asians to play all the European tops (and clobber them mostly) but my guess is that this is just the icing on the cake... Good price money to win, adventure of spending few weeks in a (for them) exotic country, maybe do some shopping for stuff which cannot be easily had where they came from, and oh... some cool games on top of that, perfect! Possibly in that order. If all the Asians want is to play strong opponents - they have more of that at home, much more, and better quality as well.

Point> Setting aside a portion of the prize monies for Europeans exclusively will scare off strong Asians.

Well, this might well be true. But it might be that not doing so will scare off some of the top Europeans. This comes back to the point from earlier - what is more important to us, cater to outsiders (bending over) or looking after our own (standing up for ourselves.) The two tasks do not have to be mutually exclusive - unless we put our whole efforts on the one side of the equation. Whichever side it is.

Point> This all somehow affect regular weak club players.

It does, to a degree, but I still am not convinced that this should somehow make it THEIR decision. And I am also not convinced that, in the long run, the benefits of this or that course of action are prevalent. In the short term, sure - if all of the above scares strong Asians and less of them will show up at Congress, weak Europeans have less top-level games to watch. I am not really sure if this is such a problem, though. There are plenty of top-level games available for admiration, and from my experience players usually concentrate more on their own games than on kibitzing. Also - for most of European players it makes absolutely no difference if the game they observe a game between Asian 7d and European 7d or between an European 7d and an European 6d. Both games are far above their level but still both have the same potential to be amusing or exciting.

In the long run? It is possible that investing more in European elite can produce better efforts than investing into pretty much bribing strong Asians to come and win top prizes. I suspect that whatever we do, there will always be contacts between Europe and Asia, there will always be games between top Europeans and strong Asians. The issue is one of deciding the most efficient way to invest the small amount of monies available for prizes, and it is not clear to me that one way should be so overwhelmingly better than the other. And there are certainly more than two possibilities.

PS>

Ideologically, both sides have logical arguments:
1) The more strong Asians we invite the better since this gives our top players the most opportunity to learn.
2) Top European players would like to have a more meaningful European Championship and possibly more access to prizes.

The groups which are the most affected by the choice we make are the European top players and the Asian top players. It seems these groups have opposite views. Question is - who do we listen to more, whose side should the EGF take in this dispute.

Sure, there are also all kinds of weak players taking part in the discussion, me included, but I consider us strictly minority players. We express our opinions, but I do not think we should have the decisive input into the decision.

[hyperpape]

I disagree. There should be a possibility to create a venue to have a closed tournament, and another to play strong outsiders. This is exactly how they handle it in Asia, and it works well it seems, so I absolutely cannot see any reason why Europeans should not be allowed to do the same. I don't understand why this should be taken as offensive by the Asians. I can however see why Asians trying to bully/blackmail the Europeans into not doing this can be seen offensive to the Europeans.

Well, any bullying or blackmailing doesn't appear to just be coming from Asians, unless I am wrong about where Mr. Fairbairn is born.

but if the relationship between these two cultures are ever going to be other than master/slave thing, Europeans need to learn to stand up for themselves even if that means getting shafted sometimes and incurring short-time losses

Ahhhh..the many centuries of European slavery to Asians, while they were too scared to assert themselves. Let us all tremble in fear of our Asian masters.

[Bantari]

I disagree. There should be a possibility to create a venue to have a closed tournament, and another to play strong outsiders. This is exactly how they handle it in Asia, and it works well it seems, so I absolutely cannot see any reason why Europeans should not be allowed to do the same. I don't understand why this should be taken as offensive by the Asians. I can however see why Asians trying to bully/blackmail the Europeans into not doing this can be seen offensive to the Europeans.

Well, any bullying or blackmailing doesn't appear to just be coming from Asians, unless I am wrong about where Mr. Fairbairn is born.

The point is that it should be an European internal issue rather than decided by pressure from outside.
Inside bullies are bad, but outside bullies are worse, imho.
Your mileage might vary.

but if the relationship between these two cultures are ever going to be other than master/slave thing, Europeans need to learn to stand up for themselves even if that means getting shafted sometimes and incurring short-time losses

Ahhhh..the many centuries of European slavery to Asians, while they were too scared to assert themselves. Let us all tremble in fear of our Asian masters.

Yeah, pick on the poor choice of words by a non-native English speaker, very classy, really.

Still, if this is the strongest argument you can make against what I say - then I feel I have already convinced you.
And yes, a lot of the attitudes displayed verges on 'trembling in fear of Asian masters'. OH MY GOD, THEY WILL NOT COME... OH MY GOD, THEY WILL DISLIKE US... OH MY GOD, THEY WILL WITHDRAW THEIR SUPPORT... THEY WILL DECLINE TO SHOW US ALL THE BEAUTIFUL WAYS THEY CAN CLOBBER OUR PLAYERS... HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY AFFORD THAT... WE SIMPLY HAVE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT, NO MATTER WHAT!!! Its ok if you see it differently, though. I might too, its just something to think about.

[hyperpape]

My point, to be perfectly clear was NOT that John Fairbairn is a European bully, but that many Europeans seem to want to welcome Korean players. You cannot sweep the matter under the rug as an issue of outsiders bullying you.

Yeah, pick on the poor choice of words by a non-native English speaker, very classy, really.

It was more than that. In your mother tongue or otherwise, what you posted was alarmist, pure and simple. You could have left the words master and slave out of it, and your comments would reveal a bizarre sort of ressentiment.

Even if the separate championships are a good idea, it is not a matter of the Europeans asserting themselves and changing their unfair relationship with Europe. It is a matter of what is best for Go in Europe. No need to be dramatic.

Although my gut says they are not a good idea, I'm a bit torn--it's interesting to know who the strongest native European is, and imho it's fine that you can't represent the US internationally until you are a citizen.

Lastly, if you're going to make the dodge that you don't speak English well enough to choose words properly, you can always speak humbly and straightforwardly, without rhetorical flair. You seem to be trying to have it both ways.

And yes, a lot of the attitudes displayed verges on 'trembling in fear of Asian masters'. OH MY GOD, THEY WILL NOT COME... OH MY GOD, THEY WILL DISLIKE US... OH MY GOD, THEY WILL WITHDRAW THEIR SUPPORT... THEY WILL DECLINE TO SHOW US ALL THE BEAUTIFUL WAYS THEY CAN CLOBBER OUR PLAYERS... HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY AFFORD THAT... WE SIMPLY HAVE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT, NO MATTER WHAT!!! Its ok if you see it differently, though. I might too, its just something to think about.

Or, alternatively, many Europeans may have a sense for how Koreans will understand their actions. They know that when they play the victim, it will make them feel unwelcome. Being kind hearted, they do not wish to do that. Being pragmatic, they consider the possible consequences.

Or maybe they are just pissing their pants in fear. Who knows?