10 Rated Games and Continuous Membership

[hyperpape]

I think while there may be a reasonable intermediate position involving a grace period (and I'm not wedded to the idea), by the time you hold Topazg's position, you should just say there's no reason for the membership requirement, above any beyond the requirement to play 10 games. I'm not saying that's a terrible position to hold, mind you. I just don't see the point of having a membership requirement if people can fail to reregister for several months and be exempted.

P.S. Since we're now mentioning Feng Yun and her comments, are they publicly available? I couldn't find any discussions when I went looking for AGA chapters whateveryacallit.

[xed_over]

Yes, you can submit club games as rated games. I don't think it's done that often (I've never witnessed it at either club I've participated in), but it's doable. That won't help players who aren't near a club, or lack suitable opponents, but it could make the situation less burdensome for some players.

If you play only one game a month with a buddy, you'll easily meet (and pass) the minimum games requirements.

[Kirby]

Yes, you can submit club games as rated games. I don't think it's done that often (I've never witnessed it at either club I've participated in), but it's doable. That won't help players who aren't near a club, or lack suitable opponents, but it could make the situation less burdensome for some players.

If you play only one game a month with a buddy, you'll easily meet (and pass) the minimum games requirements.

It's not that hard to do, but I guess the question is more of, "should it be a requirement". I don't personally feel that it should.

If you're a great player, but don't participate much in the AGA, does that really matter? For really strong players, their devotion to go can be seen by their strength - a 9d on KGS isn't 9d because he/she's just goofing around.

If people could participate in more international tournaments without being a part of the AGA, then it wouldn't be a problem. But if the AGA is the only bridge to participating in these events, do you really have to feel indebted to the bridge? If requirements are so strict, I think that it might be time to try to start making a new bridge...

[Javaness]

It's not that hard to do, but I guess the question is more of, "should it be a requirement". I don't personally feel that it should.
.

It's a valid question. Normally you want to don international honours upon your active community members. Somebody who turns up only once a year, or hasn't played in 10 years - not the best choice. The usual measure if activity in tournaments, certainly an active teacher can feel slighted by that measure - but can you really measure teaching activity? It's a question of being fair and being seen to be fair.

[Kirby]

I guess I just wish that there were more access to international tournaments for strong players, even if they are not affiliated with the AGA.

It kind of reminds me of the time that Lee Sedol took a break from the pro scene.

You bring up a good point about teachers, by the way.

[Joaz Banbeck]

I can't see how a pro would have any problems meeting the 10 game limit regardless of location. They could be located in the badlands of Montana or frigid northern Alaska. All they have to do is announce their location and a willingness to play a rated game against any AGA rated dan player who drops by. They would be saturated.

[yoyoma]

I can't see how a pro would have any problems meeting the 10 game limit regardless of location. They could be located in the badlands of Montana or frigid northern Alaska. All they have to do is announce their location and a willingness to play a rated game against any AGA rated dan player who drops by. They would be saturated.

But playing games is the pro's source of income. Say the pro normally charges $50 per game, that's $500 of lost income.

My view is that the spirit of the rule is to encourage participation in the Go community in America. Teaching hundreds of kids the game meets my idea of the spirit of the rule. As far as arguments about how to measure this in a rule, my view is we shouldn't have these sorts of rules. Encouraging participation the Go community should be accomplished in other ways, not with rules that reduce participation even more.

[vash3g]

I am not a current AGA member, but am a current CGA member. I am also a volunteer of the AGA. I also know I will never play in a qualifier for overseas play. I am in favor of both parts of this rule. I believe the intention of it was to encourage playing members to come to tournaments and spend a weekend among friends and play some good go. If you're strong enough, encourage good play amongst the strongest, get the best games during qualifiers. Being on the east coast and mainly travelling to Maryland/Northern Virginia tournaments, i see players like Eric Lui, Daniel Chou and Yuan Zhou. I'm not sure why US professionals seem to have a hard time playing 10 games when amateurs can easily do it. Some may say that those in the less populated go regions may find it difficult but those who care will find a way to get those games in.

As for the chapters listing: http://mail.usgo.org/pipermail/agachapt ... hread.html
Find all info related to these postings and sign up to receive those emails.
The AGA is also working on a new membership database which will be better for things like: continuous membership, expiration reminders, other things people complain about.

[hyperpape]

not with rules that reduce participation even more.

I find this to be a very careless thought. The obvious goal of the ten rated games rule is to promote participation. I certainly find it more plausible that strong players will see the rule and seek out games than that it will continue to keep players out. You can argue otherwise, but I think that is a substantial burden of proof.

[Kirby]

not with rules that reduce participation even more.

I find this to be a very careless thought. The obvious goal of the ten rated games rule is to promote participation. I certainly find it more plausible that strong players will see the rule and seek out games than that it will continue to keep players out. You can argue otherwise, but I think that is a substantial burden of proof.

I would agree with this argument if we said that "AGA = GO" - or maybe even if the AGA was the same as "the go community in America". However, to me, the AGA seems much more about politics than about go.

If you have a high dan player that regularly teaches at his local go club, but doesn't care to be as involved with the AGA organization in general, I think it's a bad idea to punish him for this.

We are measuring go participation and how someone is helping the go community by how many games they play in an organization.

I agree strongly with yoyoma. The spirit of the rule can be seen by efforts to promote go, such as teaching. When we ban players that could very well be doing a lot to promote the go community, simply because they aren't super involved with the AGA, I think we are doing more harm than good.

[xed_over]

If you have a high dan player that regularly teaches at his local go club, but doesn't care to be as involved with the AGA organization in general, I think it's a bad idea to punish him for this.

Whoa, whoa, how are we punishing him?

If he doesn't want to be involved, then he doesn't have to be. He's not being punished.

International tournaments are organized by other major Go organizations, such as Japan, Korean, and China. They extend invitations to other countries to participate. But these invitations don't go out to every individual go player in those countries, it goes to the recognized national organizations, such as the AGA. The AGA then wants to send the best representative that it can, but at the same time, it wants to be fair to its membership, those who have paid their dues, so to speak, and spread the opportunities around. It would be unfair to send someone who doesn't otherwise want to be involved in the AGA when there are so many others who do.

However, to me, the AGA seems much more about politics than about go.

You will find this to be true of any organization, as often the people involved in those organizations let their own personal agendas get in the way. And even those with the purest of intentions gets bogged down trying to serve so many with differing opinions.

[hyperpape]

It's worth emphasizing one point--the invitations to international tournaments really are a courtesy, and designed to bring in players from Europe and the US, and therefore as a part of promoting go here. If the goal were to get the best players period, there would be no reason to provide these slots. That's not to say that Feng Yun couldn't qualify were she to live in China--especially for womens' tournaments, but that the current system is obviously not designed to just get the best players.

Of course, there are other reasons one might think that Feng Yun's teaching ought to give her a place--my post isn't really meant to respond to what Kirby just said.

[rubin427]

I oppose the 10 game rule because the level of burden it places on individuals is drastically different across the different regions of the US.

The ten game requirement may be trivial for those living in New York or San Fransisco, but it is a major burden for players in rural areas.

Also, I also feel the requirement is inappropriate for Go Professionals residing in the US.

[xed_over]

I oppose the 10 game rule because the level of burden it places on individuals is drastically different across the different regions of the US.

The ten game requirement may be trivial for those living in New York or San Fransisco, but it is a major burden for players in rural areas.

Also, I also feel the requirement is inappropriate for Go Professionals residing in the US.

But we're talking about really strong players here, not kyu players.

It doesn't matter if rural kyu players won't meet the qualifications, because even if they did, they still wouldn't be able to win the qualifiers to participate in the invitationals

So for rural high dan players, they're probably already traveling to the Go Congresses and other major events around the country and can easily meet the 10 game minimum.

I agree, pro players should be excluded from that particular requirement. (edit: actually, I may still have mixed feelings on this one, but can very easily see the argument for excluding pros)

[Kirby]

If you have a high dan player that regularly teaches at his local go club, but doesn't care to be as involved with the AGA organization in general, I think it's a bad idea to punish him for this.

Whoa, whoa, how are we punishing him?

If he doesn't want to be involved, then he doesn't have to be. He's not being punished.

Some people might be interested in the international tournaments, but not interested in the AGA in general. The punishment is not being able to be involved in tournaments. And the level to which such a person must "pay" to participate in international tournaments can be controlled by the regulations that are in place - the topic we are discussing.

So I think that having really strict rules on who can participate is, in a sense, a punishment to those that simply want to go to an international tournament. Why does there have to be such a hoopla to participate? I think that if you are strong enough, you should be able to participate. Go strength is the only thing that should matter, imo.

... The AGA then wants to send the best representative that it can, but at the same time, it wants to be fair to its membership, those who have paid their dues, so to speak, and spread the opportunities around. It would be unfair to send someone who doesn't otherwise want to be involved in the AGA when there are so many others who do.

Why would it be unfair? If person A is the strongest go player in America but hasn't played 10 AGA games in the year, and person B is the strongest one that's played 10 AGA games and had long enough membership, I think that person A should be selected to represent America.

The fact that somebody has helped out at the AGA is nice, but it shouldn't make them any "more fit for an international tournament" than somebody that's stronger than them.

---

The reason that countries don't invite individuals but organizations is probably because it is not feasible to give everybody a chance. It's not because the AGA itself has some sort of significance.

I would be more interested in sending a representative from America that performed the best out of some qualifying tournament than somebody that has paid $40 plus some AGA tournament fees.

You will find this to be true of any organization, as often the people involved in those organizations let their own personal agendas get in the way. And even those with the purest of intentions gets bogged down trying to serve so many with differing opinions.

I agree. That's why I think it's more important to use displayed go ability as a factor in selecting representatives than AGA loyalty. The AGA is just an organization.

It happens to be the only outlet people have for international tournaments. Let people use this outlet without so many restrictions. That's what I'd like to see.

If anybody could participate in international tournaments, the story would be different. But that's not the case.