Strong player boards

[tapir]

In many amateur circles it is customary to let the strongest player play on the best board, at least in tournaments. Has anyone ever done this in reverse?

[Redbeard]

In many amateur circles it is customary to let the strongest player play on the best board, at least in tournaments. Has anyone ever done this in reverse?

It's been my experience that weaker players OWN the nicest boards, that there seems to be an inverse ratio to the quality of equipment purchased to the players actual skill. So, where players need to supply their own equipment for a tournament, a weaker player may indeed have better quality equipment. I know that this is the case when I bring my own clock to the SGC tournaments

[Joaz Banbeck]

...
It's been my experience that weaker players OWN the nicest boards, that there seems to be an inverse ratio to the quality of equipment purchased to the players actual skill....

This means, therefore, that the more you use - and abuse - your equipment, the stronger you will become.

[xed_over]

In many amateur circles it is customary to let the strongest player play on the best board, at least in tournaments. Has anyone ever done this in reverse?

at every tournament I've attended, as far as I recall, the best boards and stones are set out at the top tables.

is that a custom? should it be?

[shapenaji]

In many amateur circles it is customary to let the strongest player play on the best board, at least in tournaments. Has anyone ever done this in reverse?

at every tournament I've attended, as far as I recall, the best boards and stones are set out at the top tables.

is that a custom? should it be?

I don't know, I've seen various quality boards at the top, I mean, they're always made out of wood, but I've definitely seen that tradition broken.

I think there is sense in the tradition. The top players are going to be photographed, the upper boards decide the tournament champ. You might also say it gives players something to strive for. Like the strong players room at congress.

That being said, I think putting the cheap boards out for new players is just bad advertising...

My suggestion? put the worst boards in at the 5k range, they're strong enough to be addicted, but not so strong as to be a prime photography target.

[tchan001]

Guess I'd be the exceptional 5k with good go equipment

[tapir]

The initial post was triggered by the AGA minutes featuring the term "strong player boards". I wondered about that, because often when attracting new players is the topic, people mention that high-end equipment does help. On the other hand in tournaments it seems near universal that weaker players get the worse boards.

At least in Switzerland the tournament participation of weaker players collapsed over the last year, which likely has no relation whatsoever with the boards they play on, but the board question may be an unintended show of attitudes towards new and/or weak players.

If it is true that quite often weaker players have the better personal boards (well, I doubt that), it seems they would appreciate it in tournaments as well. If anyone conducts an experiment here, I would like to know what the reaction was.

[gowan]

There is a practical reason for using good equipment at any level. Bad equipment may actually make it harder to play well. For example if low quality stones are used they may vary in size, shape, and thickness, which might make it harder to see whether stones are connected and to see shapes. Same goes for poorly made boards if the lines are not evenly spaced, the color is bad, or the face of the board is damaged or dirty. However, good equipment does not have to be expensive. The Ing stones are quite uniform in size and shape and are fairly inexpensive, for example.

[xed_over]

The initial post was triggered by the AGA minutes featuring the term "strong player boards".

ah, from the August meeting minutes

yes, those were nice boards indeed (I probably have some pictures somewhere). And the congress director was initially upset when we (ejournal staff) swapped them out for cheaper quality boards at the player's request. The 2-inch thick boards were too high on the already tall folding tables and low chairs, the players were having trouble seeing the positions on the boards.

[gowan]

The initial post was triggered by the AGA minutes featuring the term "strong player boards".

ah, from the August meeting minutes

yes, those were nice boards indeed (I probably have some pictures somewhere). And the congress director was initially upset when we (ejournal staff) swapped them out for cheaper quality boards at the player's request. The 2-inch thick boards were too high on the already tall folding tables and low chairs, the players were having trouble seeing the positions on the boards.

In Japan, when the 2" thick table top boards are used the table top is only about 2 feet from the floor. In that situation the board face is easy to see when the players are seated in ordinary chairs. Just goes to show that what is good equipment varies according to the situation.

[judicata]

The 2-inch thick boards were too high on the already tall folding tables and low chairs, the players were having trouble seeing the positions on the boards.

This is often overlooked, and not just by tournament directors. My 2" table board is slightly too high for my table.

I hate to pour salt in my wound (and those of others), but the New York Go Center had custom-made tables with shorter legs to accomodate the nice table boards. I suppose they're still in the building, assuming it hasn't been sold. Of course, I wouldn't be at all bitter if the building that Iwamoto Kaoru donated for use as a go center--along with its excellent library of Japanese and English go books and magazines, custom-made tables, and well-loved equipment--has been doing nothing but gathering dust since we were kicked out last November. But that's another story.

Anyhow, I've never had a problem with the strong players getting the nicest boards. I was a beginner not too long ago (16 months?), and I doubt most beginners would be turned off by getting the cheaper boards, so long as they're usable. At large tournaments, the weaker tables are often populated by kids (though there are exceptions both directions), so it seems more responsible to have nicer boards at stronger tables (and the kids that are 5 dan are typically less likely to screw with the equipment).