About Go Seigen

[Vesa]

John Fairbairn suggested looking at winning percentages as White during the no komi days. Someone with GoGoD near to hand should check on Go.

Something like 165-117-20 in the latest GoGoD.

Cheers,
Vesa

[hyperpape]

So 54.5% in an era with very good competition.

[Numsgil]

I'd call 54.5% no komi white wins a good stone and a half stronger than anyone else.

[HermanHiddema]

I'd call 54.5% no komi white wins a good stone and a half stronger than anyone else.

That sounds like an overestimate.

Scoring 50% against someone while playing white without komi is, by definition, equivalent to being half a stone stronger.

With 54% against a variety of strong opponents, I'd guess he was probably about half a stone stronger than the best of them, and closer to one stone stronger than the worst of them.

[Numsgil]

I'd call 54.5% no komi white wins a good stone and a half stronger than anyone else.

That sounds like an overestimate.

Scoring 50% against someone while playing white without komi is, by definition, equivalent to being half a stone stronger.

With 54% against a variety of strong opponents, I'd guess he was probably about half a stone stronger than the best of them, and closer to one stone stronger than the worst of them.

I thought white without komi was a full stone handicap.

[speedchase]

No, In the opening black starts and is behind by komi. Then plays komi and is ahead by komi. The game fluctuates like this until a large mistake is made/fighting starts. without komi is half a stone, because it is half the value of the first move

[illluck]

Taking white in all games is still referred to as a one stone handicap usually. It's ok to describe it as 1/2 a stone, but it seems rather strange to "correct" the former.

[speedchase]

When attempting to calculate how much stronger go seigin is than everyone else, the difference is very important

[illluck]

Well, then "a full stone stronger" is what is used when someone takes white and wins half the time against someone else.

[hyperpape]

Well, then "a full stone stronger" is what is used when someone takes white and wins half the time against someone else.

When defining things, it's good if "one x" ends up being half of "two x's".

[illluck]

It is also helpful to have "x" be easily understandable and actually mean what the words mean. Having "one stone stronger" mean an approximately even game as white with no komi, "2 stones stronger" being actually 2 stones is (as far as I know) by far the most common interpretation (people can convert if they care). 0.5 stones stronger and 1.5 stones stronger are... technically correct as well, but at least I would interpret as winning more often in even games and taking white with no komi respectively. I personally would accept both interpretations, but again, to criticize the more common usage is a bit unnecessary.

[speedchase]

illuck, no one is criticizing anything

[illluck]

My bad, "correct" was what I wanted to use, but I didn't want to use the same wording as my previous post. I thought "criticize" was a close enough synonym, but it's not XD

[Numsgil]

Okay, so a 55% win rate implies about 1/3 to 1/2 stone (~60% - ~66% is a full stone). Add that to the 1/2 stone from the fact that it's white without komi. So then probably about a full stone stronger (maybe 75% of a stone).

[HermanHiddema]

Lets not forget that in Go Seigen's time, komi was just being introduced, and ranks were connected with handicap changes over longer matches. The concept of "one stone per rank" does not exist for professionals, so the concept of "one stone weaker" is not fully applicable. Rather, in those days, a pro ranks was worth about 1/3 of a stone, and handicaps were varied over longer matches to allow for fractions of stones. For one rank difference, for example, the weaker player would take black two out of every three games, for two ranks, he would take black all the time, etc. See: [sl=MatchHandicaps]Match Handicaps[/sl]

Being able to hold your own on white like that would effectively mean that he was between two and three professional ranks stronger, on average, than his contemporaries. Given a bit of variation in their playing strength, there were probably opponents who were only a rank weaker, while others may have been as much as four ranks weaker. Certainly, none of them could fully hold their own.