Initiatives for a Professional System in the West

[hailthorn011]

But suppose that happens, and in 10 years there are 10 new professionals from this program. Talented young players who have spent a year studying in Korea. Will they be able to seriously compete in international (or Korean) professional events? Will they be able to make a living from go in the US?

The west will need a serious boost in numbers, and a serious change in sponsor attitudes before there is enough money in the system to support an increasing number of professionals. You need to work it from the bottom up. Increase your player base, improve your youth programs, work on how go is perceived by parents, by sponsors, by society at large. And I do not think you can realistically skip those steps. Not if you want your pro system to be sustainable.

One thing I have yet to understand about those with a negative view on this program is there is a perceived dichotomy.

Why does creating a system to raise the top levels of play in the US stop anyone from building youth programs? How does a kid going to study in Korea for a year prevent sponsors from giving money to tournaments? Why would you think the creation of a for generating stronger players work against raising awareness of go with society at large?

Equally as strange - why must these professionals make a living wage only from go? The people who are targets for this program are those who are already dedicating a large amount of their time to the game with no financial return, you would now be supplementing it by providing some. To draw from other activities - my hometown got a minor league hockey team a couple years back. When it came to town, local interest in hockey greatly rose. They aren't playing NHL quality hockey, sure, and every player in the league has to have a day job (I think average salary for the players is ~$15,000). Nevertheless there's a decent turnout at their games, and there is significant interest for local sponsors.

If you take a stronger player who is playing at a 7D+ AGA level and already committing a large amount of time and energy to go, provide them with the resources to take their game to the next level, and allow them to earn some cash on the side with it, I think it sounds like it could be a positive program.

While I am a huge proponent of the USA having a professional go system, evidenced in my earlier post, I do believe a large amount of thought should go into this. There needs to be a structural foundation so things don't dissolve into chaos. There needs to be a formulated plan for getting kids from here to wherever it is they'll go to study. And these trips will undoubtedly cost a pretty penny.

You say the pro's don't need to make a living off a Go, and I can understand that this could be a form of supplemental income for many, but what about the organized body itself? Without some form of revenue, how can it properly operate from year to year?

Another debate is whether or not the community as a whole is large enough to support a professional system. This is debatable. But last year's Go Congress had around 400 or 500 people attend. The United States has an estimated population of around 312 million. So, roughly speaking, 500 members of the total population are familiar with Go on that basis. Before you jump on this, I know there are likely hundreds more Go players in the USA who did not attend, myself being one, but is that number really large enough?

And yet another thing to consider is: Exposure. Exposure is the basis of any system. Will there be pro games on television or will they simply be broadcasted on KGS? Tricky business here. And how to you get the mass majority of people who have no idea what Go is interested? Commercial advertizing? Online advertizing? Print advertizing?

All of these things ultimately need some source of revenue. All of these matters are intertwined in a complex web. To have exposure, you need money, to have money, you need players. And vice versa. Again, I'd love to see something like this, so I'm playing Devil's advocate here, but there are a lot of potential issues. And optimism for optimism's sake is useless.

[shapenaji]

I'm not hostile towards this idea, but I am trying to be realistic. Simply said, I think that it is a bad idea to call players "professionals" if they are weak players who cannot earn a living wage from go.

I applaud the Korean efforts in this respect, but I still don't see what the real difference is with what players like Redmond, Taranu and Dinerchtein have done. They were strong, they went to Asia to study, they received a professional title from one of the Asian pro associations. The only difference here, it seems, is that the Hanguk Kiwon will not award these players a professional title directly, but will recommend that the AGA award that title.

Well, for one, these are not weak players, Vincent Zhuang is one of the folks they're talking about, and he was one of only two players to beat one of the Insei in the friendship match. So, he is strong enough to set out on the insei road. Give him a year in Korea and we'll see if he's still weak.

The difference between this and Redmond/Taranu/Dinerchstein is that commitment to go should not require a commitment to be expatriated.

[shapenaji]

And optimism for optimism's sake is useless.

In the kingdom of no eyes, the man with one eye wins the semeai.

[daniel_the_smith]

And optimism for optimism's sake is useless.

In the kingdom of no eyes, the man with one eye wins the semeai.

And an eye for an eye turns the whole board into a giant capturing race. Wait, what were we talking about again?

[Horibe]

[The difference between this and Redmond/Taranu/Dinerchstein is that commitment to go should not require a commitment to be expatriated.

Nor should it require anything so onerous as playing 10 games a year...

[jts]

One thing I have yet to understand about those with a negative view on this program is there is a perceived dichotomy.

Why does creating a system to raise the top levels of play in the US stop anyone from building youth programs? How does a kid going to study in Korea for a year prevent sponsors from giving money to tournaments? Why would you think the creation of a for generating stronger players work against raising awareness of go with society at large?

In the past, I have the sense that "Europe needs a professional league" has been a position with a great deal of affinity for these positions: "Europe needs to cultivate its strongest players", "Europe needs to do more for the interests of its strongest players", "Europe needs to give out much more prize money to tournament winners". Perhaps this is a false impression, but if I'm right then perhaps Herman is just counselling caution based on past experience.

Several people here, who are surely better informed than I, seem to think that Korea wants to pay for everything, and nothing that Korea doesn't pay for will be changed. Free lunch, yummy! Who could be against it? It would be churlish to refuse the offer. But I won't be surprised if the time comes in the future when money has to be diverted from other projects to keep an American pro system limping along. And at that point, how could there not be a dilemma? Resources don't grow on trees.

[shapenaji]

In the past, I have the sense that "Europe needs a professional league" has been a position with a great deal of affinity for these positions: "Europe needs to cultivate its strongest players", "Europe needs to do more for the interests of its strongest players", "Europe needs to give out much more prize money to tournament winners". Perhaps this is a false impression, but if I'm right then perhaps Herman is just counselling caution based on past experience.

Several people here, who are surely better informed than I, seem to think that Korea wants to pay for everything, and nothing that Korea doesn't pay for will be changed. Free lunch, yummy! Who could be against it? It would be churlish to refuse the offer. But I won't be surprised if the time comes in the future when money has to be diverted from other projects to keep an American pro system limping along. And at that point, how could there not be a dilemma? Resources don't grow on trees.

It is harder to raise money and get sponsorship for something that doesn't exist.
If you don't have a business plan with an eye on expansion, there's no way anyone will invest in you.

However, Gordon Castanza told me that there is a sponsor interested already.

[shapenaji]

[The difference between this and Redmond/Taranu/Dinerchstein is that commitment to go should not require a commitment to be expatriated.

Nor should it require anything so onerous as playing 10 games a year...

I don't understand, are you bringing up the 10 games a year rule? I don't see how it's relevant.

[gogameguru]

I agree with jts. We all love Go. I doubt many of us would be seriously opposed to a pro system in new countries (wherever it is in the world) - just for the sake of opposing it.

It's really a question of where the money comes from and how it's used. If the Koreans are going to pay for everything, as some people are saying, that's awesome.

However, there is still the question of opportunity cost. I think that's what's fundamentally being discussed here. This question could also be applied to other activities that go on in the Western Go world...

This is a very interesting and worthwhile discussion and I'm quite enjoying hearing other people's views on this . I don't think we should assume that, just because someone questions how things are going to work, that they're opposed to a pro system.

[daniel_the_smith]

...
However, Gordon Castanza told me that there is a sponsor interested already.

90% of a secret is that there is a secret at all, which is why I haven't been saying anything in this thread. Please keep talking, though. I am listening.

[pwaldron]

Well, for one, these are not weak players, Vincent Zhuang is one of the folks they're talking about, and he was one of only two players to beat one of the Insei in the friendship match. So, he is strong enough to set out on the insei road. Give him a year in Korea and we'll see if he's still weak.

Here's the thing that bothers me: what's the exit strategy for Vincent after a year? If he makes it to pro, that's great. It's much more likely that he won't. What then?

If this system is set up so that a kid gets a year overseas, then it's a lot like a high school exchange program and any harm can be mitigated. But if the structure has no cutoff point, then we have a real possibility of someone staying longer than they should.

As a community we have a moral responsibility not to endorse a system that takes young kids and throws them away if they don't make it. We don't want a situation where a kid spends his high school years playing go, fails and then has no prospects for a livelihood. It's just as wrong as encouraging a someone to bet his future on making it to the NBA.

[oren]

A US program scouts for talent (Myung-Wan Kim looks to be at the head of this).
The talented are sent to Korea for a year to train.
They return and become American pros, they continue to study and make occasional trips abroad for preliminaries.

Under this system, can we have pros that choose not to go to Korea as well? Is this a mandatory trip or a benefit of being strong enough? I assume it's a benefit, but I wanted to be sure I understood what was going on.

[shapenaji]

A US program scouts for talent (Myung-Wan Kim looks to be at the head of this).
The talented are sent to Korea for a year to train.
They return and become American pros, they continue to study and make occasional trips abroad for preliminaries.

Under this system, can we have pros that choose not to go to Korea as well? Is this a mandatory trip or a benefit of being strong enough? I assume it's a benefit, but I wanted to be sure I understood what was going on.

It's mandatory, they won't allow that player to compete in their tournaments without it.

[shapenaji]

Here's the thing that bothers me: what's the exit strategy for Vincent after a year? If he makes it to pro, that's great. It's much more likely that he won't. What then?

If this system is set up so that a kid gets a year overseas, then it's a lot like a high school exchange program and any harm can be mitigated. But if the structure has no cutoff point, then we have a real possibility of someone staying longer than they should.

As a community we have a moral responsibility not to endorse a system that takes young kids and throws them away if they don't make it. We don't want a situation where a kid spends his high school years playing go, fails and then has no prospects for a livelihood. It's just as wrong as encouraging a someone to bet his future on making it to the NBA.

I agree, and I don't think they've formulated the exit strategy effectively yet.

When I was talking with Vincent, his father and Gordon (and actually heard the pitch).

My gut reaction was, "Really? Vincent is a smart kid, I don't think he needs to pin his future on go."

However, I feel that the system will start with "part-time pros"... because otherwise they'll never get a parent on-board. A few years down the road, when our pros are more competitive, it can become a full-time job.

[oren]

It's mandatory, they won't allow that player to compete in their tournaments without it.

That would immediately lose a lot of support in my book. They would not be American pros but be American players certified to play in Korean tournaments. I guess more correctly, I would consider them Korean professionals living in the US just as Redmond is a Japanese professional.

If we do set up an American pro system, it does have to stand up on its own and allow players to be professionals based on merit and not about spending a year overseas.