Upcoming AGA projects, volunteers needed, info, etc etc etc

[snorri]

Some board members stood on a platform of making the board meetings more open...

That would be a huge understatement. Actually one screamed from the platform in a very public dispute, got elected member at large and made a lot of promises, but nothing much came of it, as far as I can tell. I'm still waiting for this so-called transparency.

[snorri]

I knew that a rank certificate program had been on the AGA's radar for a very long time, and had been told that it was a priority. It was a regarded as a potential revenue generator for the AGA--they had visions of being able to charge a fee (nominal or otherwise) for the certificates.

That's a sad story. When the KBA dan-level certificates were handed out as prizes for winners of the U.S. Open dan divisions, I had assumed that this was what had become of the certificate idea. Just a gift, not a revenue generator, and not even originating from the AGA completely. (I think it was Myungwan Kim's idea / sponsorship.)

I'm not saying the prize is a bad idea, but now it would be harder to do AGA rank certificates, because now people might think, "Hmm. I could pay for one from the AGA, or I can win one from Korea. Doesn't that make paying for one seem kind of lame?"

Your point is pretty clear, though, Phil. Priorities that just amount to one person's nifty idea or pet project aren't real priorities.

[gurujeet]

Serious planning means scoping out what you want, and how you intend to get there.

Good point. I would like to see the AGA implement some sort of scorecard system, agree at least annually what the priorities are and how they are to be measured, and then publish the scorecard of performance against the goals. Not hard to implement and would give members a simple view of priorities and performance.

[Yertle]

There has been some turmoil concerning the AGA webmaster position. After one was dismissed the replacement person stopped working without quitting the position, finally did quit, and a replacement hasn't been found yet afaik.

I sent an email a couple months ago offering my help, got a reply that they were interested, and haven't been contacted since.

[snorri]

Serious planning means scoping out what you want, and how you intend to get there.

Good point. I would like to see the AGA implement some sort of scorecard system, agree at least annually what the priorities are and how they are to be measured, and then publish the scorecard of performance against the goals. Not hard to implement and would give members a simple view of priorities and performance.

Forget the AGA, I'd like to see our political leaders do that one.

[EdLee]

Truthfully I don't think any of the AGA people long term goals; they have dreams. An American professional system...

Exactly. The highest priority is and should always be promotion of Go to children and young people,
since they are the next generation. Focus on a US pro system is focusing on the top, which is completely backwards and upside down, IMHO.

[seigenblues]

Yertle -- Could you pm me or mail me (operations@usgo)? I can find out what happened there.

For scoping out what we want to do, that's the board. For people who figure out how we want to get there, well, that's me. That's kind of one of the reasons i started this thread...

People who want transparency, or action, from the board, would do well to remember that the board is not actually designed to get anything done. It's designed to decide on *what* to get done. The number of people who volunteer to decide what to do will always outnumber the people who volunteer to actually do it. They're both very important jobs, especially if you feel like things are going in the wrong direction. For my part, i think board membership would probably make me an alcoholic (hi Lisa! ) but that's me.


Re: ratings certificates. that's something Allan has told me to make a priority. pwaldron, all that work you did on it has not gone to waste -- i'm going to be picking that up very soon and putting it into place once usgo.org has migrated to its new home.

As for other general priorities, my priorities have been as follows:
1) get everything out of the way so jkk's membership db could go live (check)
2) phase out outdated elements of the website (working on it)
3) reduce our online costs & improve responsiveness to the website. (working on it)

and for a while in there i had #0 - help Lisa direct the go congress.

Once those priorities are done, i'm going to re-order the rest of my list, which includes things such as the ratings certificate program, an online pairing program, other things to add to the 'members only' sections of the website, re-tweak the ratings algorithm to be more responsive (i'm counting on pwaldron's brilliant work there to help me out again ,) and a few others besides. Thus again, this thread. What would you like to see?

One of the first things on my list is to try and get the "build environment", as it were, as clean as possible, so that someone can clone our git repository and get dev/local versions of the ratings system, member db, website, etc., up & running. This should let a lot of the potential volunteers write some features, and push them back to us with as little friction as possible -- i.e., put up or shut up.

For that matter, if anyone wants to help with that process, let me know

gurujeet -- in addition to what justin mentioned about the API, we're hopefully going to be extending the documentation on the aga wiki. Assistance is welcome on that one.


Lastly, and you can consider this an open question to flame on about, but:
if the AGA were to implement a separate, online-only rating system, how would you like to see it implemented? Should it be integrated with certain servers? should it allow uploaded sgf's, or scrape server archive pages where those sgf's are automatically placed? How would you like to see the ratings information presented?
Think mockups & wireframes of what you'd like it to look like from going to http://www.usgo.org to finding your online ranking. Thoughts? Feelings? Ideas?

still 30k at these boards,
-andrew

[malweth]

Lastly, and you can consider this an open question to flame on about, but:
if the AGA were to implement a separate, online-only rating system, how would you like to see it implemented? Should it be integrated with certain servers? should it allow uploaded sgf's, or scrape server archive pages where those sgf's are automatically placed? How would you like to see the ratings information presented?
Think mockups & wireframes of what you'd like it to look like from going to http://www.usgo.org to finding your online ranking. Thoughts? Feelings? Ideas?

still 30k at these boards,
-andrew

It's a very interesting idea - especially for those of us AGA ranked but who don't make many tournaments (a few years ago I know people talked about an East Coast/West Coast split in AGA rankings due to little cross-over).

*** The most important part is to get buy-in from those servers. ***

With this information, the AGA is poised to make the following things possible:

1. API available ranks across servers. For example, L19^2 could interface with the AGA API and provide real, up to date ranks for a number of different ranking systems (AGA, KGS, IGS, Tygem, etc). It'd also be nice to correlate various usernames and IDs. (AGA# 11987 = L19 Malweth = KGS Malweth)

2. Correlation of ranks across the board. AGA 1k = KGS ? = IGS ?.

3. Micro-adjustment of AGA (face-to-face) ranks based on online ranks.

4. Online AGA tournaments.

5. Online games (tournament games, perhaps) that affect face-to-face rankings.

The difficulty is time. I personally don't think Blitz games should be ranked by an organization that promotes 30 minutes per side (plus a minimum of :15/move byo-yomi). This is an added difficulty in parsing out time controls. If blitz games aren't ranked, what time control minimums are required for online play? When I automatch on KGS I get 25 minutes per side, which doesn't meet the AGA tournament regulation.

[John Fairbairn]

Of all the million things the AGA could do for its members, especially in the wake of the enthusiasm created by an apparently very successful congress, the only thing that stands out in the follow-up so far is a call/promise to "improve" ratings. Administrators giving members what they want can justify it just on those grounds, I suppose, but how do the members themselves justify this obsession with numbers?

First, if you are an amateur you are weak anyway, so a even a grade (as in "I'm 1-dan which is like a black belt in judo") is not likely to impress anyone much. If you want to measure your improvement, OK, but getting a spuriously accurate number like 2345 is meaningless. You may be the equiavlent of 2319 or 2678 the next day without having played a single game or studying, depending on your bowel movements, the bills that arrive in the mail, or finding a valuable antique in the loft. What's wrong with simple 1-dan, 2-dan, etc? They may not be finely calibrated, but you know you're improving anyway if you beat the guy who used to beat you, and being 2345 has no real value in predicting whether you'll beat a 2344 guy.

I've asked this question on the BGA forum before and never saw a satisfactory answer. The nearest I can get to an answer is that western go has a lot of number-oriented people. Liking numbers doesn't necessarily make them useful, though.

This is not idle sniping. I think a rational answer would benefit national associations and adminsitrators. If there is no rational answer, I think administrators should work instead towards putting time and resources into other areas of go development. For those who need their number fix come what may, they can e.g. use the graphs on kgs instead.

[daniel_the_smith]

...and being 2345 has no real value in predicting whether you'll beat a 2344 guy....

Your point about prioritization is well made, so I will just comment on this:
1. Those numbers do make a prediction, that if you play the 2344 guy 100 times, you should win about 50.
2. My understanding of "tweak" means something like a tiny formula change, not a complete overhaul. E.g., we won't be switching to the EGF's Elo style presentation.
3. The AGA rating system does seem a little sluggish; for example, my friend is 1.94 dan, wins something like 75% of his games, but his sigma is low enough that he never seems to move more than .01 per tournament. I'm certain that he would have at least a 50% win ratio as a 2d.

[daniel_the_smith]

For my part, i think board membership would probably make me an alcoholic ...

Please let us know when the code for the usgo.org site is available on the aga's github page, I'm probably not the only person that wants to take a look.

[pwaldron]

I've asked this question on the BGA forum before and never saw a satisfactory answer. The nearest I can get to an answer is that western go has a lot of number-oriented people. Liking numbers doesn't necessarily make them useful, though.

I'll give you two reasons for the Western go organization's obsession with . The first is that ratings appeal to one's feeling of making forward progress. So the organizations focus on something that their members have some interest in.

I submit that the other reason the organizations focus so much on ratings is organizational deficiency. The North American go organizations (Europeans as well?) do not seem able to bring together a team of people for a project. They aren't able to identify a concrete goal and bring together the necessary talent for the time required to see it to completion. Ratings are one of the things that a single person can do, and so that's where the people go.

[John Fairbairn]

I'll give you two reasons for the Western go organization's obsession with . The first is that ratings appeal to one's feeling of making forward progress. So the organizations focus on something that their members have some interest in.

OK, but I said that already. It the members I want to hear from. Feelings of progress based on spurious numbers are not rational - and as in the adverts for financial investments: be aware that what goes up can go down.

Your point about prioritization is well made, so I will just comment on this:
1. Those numbers do make a prediction, that if you play the 2344 guy 100 times, you should win about 50.

But 2-dan playing 2-dan makes, as near as dammit, the same prediction. The accuracy of the extra digits is entirely spurious given all the other things going on in a typical amateur's life. Your point about sluggishness in the system just makes the spuriousness clearer.

Pros in Japan get by without such a fiddly system. The Chinese have an Elo system that only matters four times a year, but I get the impression that less and less attention is paid to it. The Koreans have fiddled around with such systems, but that work has become otiose. In both cases, though, the reasons for the system had absolutely nothing to do with pros wanting to know if they were 2-points up yesterday, 3-points down today. The Chinese introduced their system as a way of trying to be fair (in the wake of many complaints) in allocating seedings and trips overseas. In other words, it matters for only a small percentage of players, as far as I know. The Koreans tried ratings as a way of drumming up interest among the public, along the same lines as golf's PGA rankings and tennis's LTA rankings. So far as I can see, the public there paid not a blind bit of interest.

So, this is a western amateur thing. Again, why?

[seigenblues]

daniel_the_smith -- We have some scrubbing of licenses, etc., to do, before we can put the whole shmeer up on github for all various & sundry. We do have a nonprofit organization account there, so if you'd like access, you should pass your github handle along to Alf or myself so we can add you as a member & you can get access.

Mr. Fairbarn-
The reason to have an "online only rating" is because for large swathes of the central US region, commuting to tournaments is just not an option. There are any number of people who see no value in an AGA membership because they see the top benefit of membership as being the ability to play in tournaments. Now, if you can have tournaments held across sites (e.g., 5 in this coffeeshop, 10 at this local club, another few in a library, etc), then you might see a lot more interest.

Secondly, i'd like to think that having a real, honest to god person associated with an online handle can help address a lot of the problems in online go. people playing with free pseudonymous accounts will have no problem escaping, making a new one, escaping, making a new one, etc.

Thirdly, i'd like to point out that ranks have consequences. It sucks when you've improved, your rank hasn't changed, and you get nothing but easy games at tournaments. It's just as bad when it's the other way 'round. Let's not forget the point of ranks, which is especially useful for us duffers -- so that we can play games that are challenging for both players.

Lastly, i'd also like to point out that i'm really trying *not* to get into a discussion about *what* should be done or *why* it's being done the way it is -- the board did that. I'm trying to get into a discussion of *how* it's going to get done, ask *who* is going to do it, and figure out *when* it's going to happen. Hope that helps. We could open another thread to debate it further, but in the meantime, i hope this might satisfy your immediate points.


Pwaldron-
I think your criticism is quite fair. I would ask a favor of you, though, to stop referring to it as "the AGA", and instead refer to the individual people involved. It's tougher to write sentences calling out individuals, but i ask you please to think of *who* it is who is doing all these things. We both know that there is no shortage of people willing to talk about the problems (e.g., the Board, or this forum ) but when it comes to *who* -- there's your problem. For instance, the board votes to put into place rank certificates. Who's going to actually connect all the dots? You got it 90% of the way there, and there it sits. Who did you expect to pick it up? Allan himself? Terry B, Chris K, Ken K? Which person from the AGA did you honestly see or expect to get it finished? Now i'm telling you i intend to pick it up and get it done and i hear this "the AGA can't identify a concrete goal and bring people together"... downright disheartening would be the beginning!

If that "they" refers to me, well, then i refer you again to the point of this thread, which is to a) get community input before setting a series of concrete goals and b) soliciting volunteers to help meet those goals. I don't know which "they" you are referring to, but i have identified a series of concrete goals, i'm trying to bring together the necessary talent (i'd say we have a hell of a good start!), and by god i intend to see it through

[rubin427]

...the replacement person [who] stopped working without quitting the position, [then] finally did quit...

Can I get this quote as a custom forum title, please? Thanks.

if the AGA were to implement a separate, online-only rating system...

I *really* enjoyed the YNOT last year. I think if that tournament repeats annually, it goes a long, long way towards establishing the AGA's online presence. Even though questions about what to do with results (they did not impact AGA ratings at all) are still out there, at least we were all there, playing online.