Initiatives for a Professional System in the West

[Javaness2]

I don't quite think they're going to listen. Someone always has to be right in the end. But I think you're right. Instead of bickering and looking for how it will fail, we should look for how it could succeed.

Well yes, lets not be too negative. A professional organisation needs to be able (in time) to have its own income stream. Can Go become popular enough to get media column inches in the USA(/Canada)? From what I can see they need to be at least as popular Chess to do this. Is that possible? Certainly don't see them reaching the current heights of poker.

[hailthorn011]

I don't quite think they're going to listen. Someone always has to be right in the end. But I think you're right. Instead of bickering and looking for how it will fail, we should look for how it could succeed.

Well yes, lets not be too negative. A professional organisation needs to be able (in time) to have its own income stream. Can Go become popular enough to get media column inches in the USA(/Canada)? From what I can see they need to be at least as popular Chess to do this. Is that possible? Certainly don't see them reaching the current heights of poker.

Poker is a gambling game. Of course Go won't reach that level of popularity. And yes, while I know Go is also a popular gambling game, it depends on where you are.

And yes, I think Go can surpass Chess in popularity given time and growth. But of course I'd say that.

[tetron]

Poker is a gambling game. Of course Go won't reach that level of popularity. And yes, while I know Go is also a popular gambling game, it depends on where you are.

And yes, I think Go can surpass Chess in popularity given time and growth. But of course I'd say that.

Go should succeed in becoming a successful flourishing game. it has lasted for 1000s of years and still has the complexity to last many 1000s more. (assuming the human race last that long). Although, people can bet on the game still isn't enough to make it a "gambling game".

Chess has been in decline since a computer beat the best human player in the world. Some of the decline is down to other factors such as the "end of the cold war" and changes in cultural attitudes.

Go has a great many things going for it terms of selling it to the non-playing public. The simplicity of the rules; the fact that humans still crush computers and it is easier to get a feel for who is winning. What is lacking are high profile televised events.

In the UK, poker was nowhere before there was a tv program called "late night poker". I knew several people who watched it regularly without even knowing the rules. Another, example of a huge success was Nigel Short vs Kasparov.

Go does have a problem in the length that a match takes to play and there maybe other newer games that work better with a Western Audience. The people who state that it has to start somewhere are correct. However, early sponsorship is no guarantee of long-term success. However, you want to start before the computer does to Go what it did to chess.

[Horibe]

When Horibe said "your short stint as Volunteer Coordinator" I thought "I'm not sure if that's meant to be snide, but it certainly will be heard that way." I'm willing to believe that wasn't your intent, Horibe, but I also wouldn't expect the person on the receiving end to think anything else.

Whether I was being snide, or sarcastic, it was not an ad hominem attack. "An attack to negate the truth of a claim by attacking the person, not making an argument"

I was not saying his argument about volunteers makes no sense because he is a bad cook. I was NOT suggesting he did a bad job as Volunteer coordinator - I simply was arguing that dealing with volunteers is not easy and they are not inexhaustible - and surely he knows that, and trying to make clear that he has the experience to know that, yet he seems to deny it to suit his argument.

I believe the statement was on point - and I apologized already if he took offense - but I made no personal attack, I never said he did a bad job, at worst, I said he did a short one. But again - this is not surprising - volunteers are problematic. Which, again, was my point.

[hailthorn011]

Poker is a gambling game. Of course Go won't reach that level of popularity. And yes, while I know Go is also a popular gambling game, it depends on where you are.

And yes, I think Go can surpass Chess in popularity given time and growth. But of course I'd say that.

Go should succeed in becoming a successful flourishing game. it has lasted for 1000s of years and still has the complexity to last many 1000s more. (assuming the human race last that long). Although, people can bet on the game still isn't enough to make it a "gambling game".

Chess has been in decline since a computer beat the best human player in the world. Some of the decline is down to other factors such as the "end of the cold war" and changes in cultural attitudes.

Go has a great many things going for it terms of selling it to the non-playing public. The simplicity of the rules; the fact that humans still crush computers and it is easier to get a feel for who is winning. What is lacking are high profile televised events.

In the UK, poker was nowhere before there was a tv program called "late night poker". I knew several people who watched it regularly without even knowing the rules. Another, example of a huge success was Nigel Short vs Kasparov.

Go does have a problem in the length that a match takes to play and there maybe other newer games that work better with a Western Audience. The people who state that it has to start somewhere are correct. However, early sponsorship is no guarantee of long-term success. However, you want to start before the computer does to Go what it did to chess.

Is it really that important for humans to be able to be stronger than bots?

[Javaness2]

Is it really that important for humans to be able to be stronger than bots?

It adds a certain mystique to the game. When I started playing Go, they boasted to me about how complex it was, and that computers couldn't play it...

[hailthorn011]

Is it really that important for humans to be able to be stronger than bots?

It adds a certain mystique to the game. When I started playing Go, they boasted to me about how complex it was, and that computers couldn't play it...

Yeah the same thing happened when I started playing the game. I'll admit, I thought it was awesome that bots weren't able to compete evenly with the best players.

But at the same time, I really don't see how that matters too much. While it's a cool "fun fact" whether I enjoy a game isn't really determined by whether bots can beat the strongest players.

I play video games a lot, and one of my all time favorites is Perfect Dark. And I think having Sims that can beat you is more beneficial than anything. By playing Bots on Perfect Dark, I was able to improve my reflexes, situational skills, ect. in the game.

But that doesn't seem to hold true for Go. I've heard bots can teach you all sorts of wacky stuff.

Anyway, this is a tad off topic, but I don't think the strength of bots influences the mindset of the common player that much.

[Mef]

A pro organization would be tasked with having games between their pros and broadcasting those in a way that would improve viewership for their sponsors. There's an incentive there that the AGA doesn't have.

This line appears to have fallen by the wayside, but it really cuts to the heart of the matter and could really help cut down on what (in my opinion) is irrelevant chatter. Yes we all know it would be great to grow the go community, and yes it would be amazing to suddenly have popular youth programs....no one is disputing that. The issue at hand is if a professional organization can provide something to the community that is currently not there, and I think it can.

At it's core the purpose of a professional system is the spectacle. It is not to create the best players and it is not to create raise the game to new levels (though these two things are often side effects of a professional organization), it is to take the game and package it in such a way that people find it entertaining. Now, often competitive activities are more entertaining if the players are at the pinnacle of their abilities but this is by no means a requirement. The whole idea is to take the activity from something people want to do themselves and transform it into something they would rather watch others do. The reason a professional organization is more likely to attract sponsors is this:

-The goal of the AGA is (more or less) to improve things for the go player and the go community.

-The goal of a professional organization is to create a product people want to watch, read about, hear commentary on, etc.

If you are a sponsor, you would be looking for a high profile outlet and the professional organization is more likely to provide that. This isn't to say the two organizations shouldn't work together, but their ultimate goals are fundamentally different.

Someone made (what I interpreted to be) a half joke about the professional disc golf association. Honestly though, I think that's a GREAT example to look at. The PDGA has almost 10,000 people who compete each year in various tour events (which has $1.7 million in prize money), they have significant sponsorship, they organize over a thousand events every year (aside from their tour), and this is all for a sport that is less than 50 years old. We should be so lucky to end up with an organization like that!

[tapir]

I don't believe time on go is wasted when one doesn't become professional (that is why we play as amateurs after all and the program will do some good for those players involved) and I don't even believe the initial strength of a professional system is decisive as long as it is close enough to allow for occasional wins of the new association professionals.

I am very skeptical, however, of all proposals that don't come along with a business plan. This skepticism - unfortunately, but unsurprisingly - proved right in case of the last European initiative. For the U.S. any "professional" system that can't even cover some travel expenses from east to west to south to middle (and occasionally to Korea when you are allowed to participate there) doesn't deserve the name - and I am not even talking about income but travel expenses. For an event that draws spectators (sponsors) you need more to see than your usual board on the server, also online play has no checks against cheating, which is a big disadvantage as soon as you talk about money and the willingness to put it on line as a sponsor. Also one main benefit of such a system would be more and better teaching across the country, if everyone has to stay at home (for lack of income to travel around), it will not occur. Imo Go is much more suited to newspaper coverage than television - but can we ever expect newspaper coverage when most associations virtualised even their own magazines?

Also, despite the name most PDGA (professional disc golf association) players aren't professionals, and even most of those classified as professionals need a day job. Please notice, that disc golf requires equipment (that doesn't last forever) so you have a number of equipment suppliers living from the community that are willing to give sth. back by sponsoring players. In Go you need a board, but the board may last for your lifetime. So there is naturally much less money / player in the system. Before taking lessons and buying some more books I spent a total of 30 Euro on board and stones + lend some books from other players and bought only 2 books for 40 Euros more. This was sufficient for quite some time and both books and board basically last forever. This spending habits only changed when I started taking lessons some years later. But before I spent way less than 50 Euro p.a. - if you calculate with such figures - many of us may spend more but as an average it may be an high estimate - the whole Go economy in the US / Europe, you instantly see why there is no professional system, and little prospect to establish one. It's the economy, stupid.

[Horibe]

A pro organization would be tasked with having games between their pros and broadcasting those in a way that would improve viewership for their sponsors. There's an incentive there that the AGA doesn't have.

This line appears to have fallen by the wayside, but it really cuts to the heart of the matter and could really help cut down on what (in my opinion) is irrelevant chatter. Yes we all know it would be great to grow the go community, and yes it would be amazing to suddenly have popular youth programs....no one is disputing that. The issue at hand is if a professional organization can provide something to the community that is currently not there, and I think it can.

At it's core the purpose of a professional system is the spectacle. It is not to create the best players and it is not to create raise the game to new levels (though these two things are often side effects of a professional organization), it is to take the game and package it in such a way that people find it entertaining. Now, often competitive activities are more entertaining if the players are at the pinnacle of their abilities but this is by no means a requirement. The whole idea is to take the activity from something people want to do themselves and transform it into something they would rather watch others do. The reason a professional organization is more likely to attract sponsors is this:

-The goal of the AGA is (more or less) to improve things for the go player and the go community.

-The goal of a professional organization is to create a product people want to watch, read about, hear commentary on, etc.

If you are a sponsor, you would be looking for a high profile outlet and the professional organization is more likely to provide that. This isn't to say the two organizations shouldn't work together, but their ultimate goals are fundamentally different.

Someone made (what I interpreted to be) a half joke about the professional disc golf association. Honestly though, I think that's a GREAT example to look at. The PDGA has almost 10,000 people who compete each year in various tour events (which has $1.7 million in prize money), they have significant sponsorship, they organize over a thousand events every year (aside from their tour), and this is all for a sport that is less than 50 years old. We should be so lucky to end up with an organization like that!

This post sets out the argument nicely, and certainly the disc golf example is better than any of the ones thrashed around before.

I think I agree that the AGA, or if you like, American Go in general, should be using its strongest players to, as Mef states, create a product that, to simplify, increases interest in the game and packages that interest for sponsor purposes.

I still think getting this going will be a substantial effort, and I am not sure the difference in cache of a pro as envisioned in this system, and a US Open Champion, is a large enough one to make the effort worthwhile. I just do not see how a few pros going to Korea and hopefully winning a game or two makes any difference, and I am not sure small pro only competitions here would make much either - compared to events like the Cotsen and the US Open which are not only big - but justify the effort by giving playing opportunities to all.

And perhaps the time for face to face events is simply past, and we need to direct sponsors to the larger online presence of American Go Players. I certainly believe that the effort and interest it takes to attend events is what sponsors are actually looking for, but if so, our numbers are too low.

DETOUR - to better explain my point about Americans being used to watching the best - the best Baseball, Basketball, Football and Hockey. Last weekend, 1.67 million American soccer fans watched a repeat telecast of a regular season game between Chelsea and Liverpool. That is almost twice as many as watched the MLS Final Championship game between LA and Houston live.

I am not saying we should not take advantage of this offer. I simply think we are naive to think that somehow - presto - we are going to instantly be on ESPN along with the spelling bee kids - after all I think the scrabble people and the crossword folks are ahead of us, while the larger chess community curses its own lack of tv appeal.

I encourage the planners to make this system support face to face events, whether through competition or teaching - this could be a real an immediate benefit.

[tchan001]

the larger chess community curses its own lack of tv appeal

Once upon a time, the American chess community had Bobby Fischer to excite the crowds.
Who knows when American go will produce a home grown hero likewise?

[Mef]

Imo Go is much more suited to newspaper coverage than television - but can we ever expect newspaper coverage when most associations virtualised even their own magazines?

Valid points regarding the difficult marketing go to audiences and sponsors. As unappealing as it might sound to the average go player...What I think (fear?) would be the easiest way to both build interest in the game and provide an entertaining TV experience with potential mass appeal would be a go-playing reality TV show, that perhaps had a group of potential pros, and eliminated people throughout the season...Then even people uninterested in the details of the game would have drama they could follow.

...PDGA...

Yes, I understand there's a bit of difference in the activities involved, I was merely using the example someone else mentioned. It is true that a sport heavy in consumables will have a much easier time getting sponsors. I think the amount spent by a casual go player and a casual disc golfer might be close over a lifetime (if you have 3 disc golf discs at a time, you replace them 3 times in your career, and they average $12 it comes out to near $100...compared to buying a decent set and 2-3 books...about the same...of course any hobby will enable you to spend as much as you are willing (= ). I also mentioned earlier in the thread I don't see any particular reason why one wouldn't expect them to also have a day job, even the semi-pro levels of mainstream sports are this way.

[Josh Hatch]

There's some information in the AGA's minutes from the last few months. It's not much but there's some information that I don't think was posted in here yet. Yertle posted links to the minutes from the last few months -> viewtopic.php?p=84465#p84465

[daniel_the_smith]

Imo Go is much more suited to newspaper coverage than television - but can we ever expect newspaper coverage when most associations virtualised even their own magazines?

Valid points regarding the difficult marketing go to audiences and sponsors. As unappealing as it might sound to the average go player...What I think (fear?) would be the easiest way to both build interest in the game and provide an entertaining TV experience with potential mass appeal would be a go-playing reality TV show, that perhaps had a group of potential pros, and eliminated people throughout the season...Then even people uninterested in the details of the game would have drama they could follow.

You know, actually-- that doesn't sound so far-fetched, given how odd some of the reality TV is. Hmmmm...

[Josh Hatch]

Imo Go is much more suited to newspaper coverage than television - but can we ever expect newspaper coverage when most associations virtualised even their own magazines?

Valid points regarding the difficult marketing go to audiences and sponsors. As unappealing as it might sound to the average go player...What I think (fear?) would be the easiest way to both build interest in the game and provide an entertaining TV experience with potential mass appeal would be a go-playing reality TV show, that perhaps had a group of potential pros, and eliminated people throughout the season...Then even people uninterested in the details of the game would have drama they could follow.

You know, actually-- that doesn't sound so far-fetched, given how odd some of the reality TV is. Hmmmm...

I think with all the various options on the internet the only real obstacles would production and promotion. It could make quite a compelling story for a reality show or a documentary (Hikaru no Go was good but it doesn't have mainstream appeal). There would be more at stake for the players than on a lot of reality shows and game shows. Of course actually establishing a pro system in the West has to come first.