Life In 19x19

kokomi wrote:At the end, computer games will rule.

They may be most popular, but they are all fatally flawed at the moment because they have arbitrary rules, and it may not be possible to fix that. (But go ahead and try!)

Chew Terr wrote:This thread reminds me: I've heard a fair bit about the history of go in Japan, but I'm ignorant of anything in the history of Korean go that was not mentioned in First Kyu. Can someone suggest a good place to read about Korean go history? For that matter, can someone point out the same for Chinese go history?

Here is a basic overview from the Korean Go Association:
http://www.baduk.or.kr/baduk/baduk_history.asp

I will work on translating it. I'll post it here in the meantime, though, in case anybody's interested.

Chew Terr wrote:This thread reminds me: I've heard a fair bit about the history of go in Japan, but I'm ignorant of anything in the history of Korean go that was not mentioned in First Kyu. Can someone suggest a good place to read about Korean go history? For that matter, can someone point out the same for Chinese go history?

I'm more interested in the Go history outside CJK, each individual country.

I did not know the history of Go in Thailand, but according to an interview I watched recently, one famous company will help university students with amateur Dan level to find a job in the company. Actually the video says it will ensure a job position. Sounds goooood

nagano wrote:I believe all these games are inferior to Baduk.

To get a better picture of what you are trying to say, define inferior.

nagano wrote:I originally wrote this on Starbaduk, but due to the lack of response and the nature of the topic, I decided to move it here:

Why is Baduk so much more popular in Korea? One interesting point to consider is that in China it has to compete with Xiangqi, in Japan it has to compete with Shogi, and in the rest of the world has to overcome a lack of knowledge and to some degree compete with Chess. I believe all these games are inferior to Baduk, but people have indicated to me that they are easier to relate to at first because they feel the basic goal is clearer. "Checkmate your opponent's King" is seen as an easier concept to understand than "make more territory than your opponent". In that sense Baduk maybe takes a little bit longer to get used to, and ends up losing more beginners in countries where these other games are prevalent. While Korea does have Jang-gi, that game is basically just an older, more flawed version of Xiangqi, and hence is much less popular, and I believe is not really a competitor for Baduk. (Correct me if I'm wrong on this.) The second element is obviously the worldwide fallout of traditional games' popularity, largely due to video games and other media. The third element and antidote to this is media portrayal, which is where Korea has an advantage. First, there is still the effect of Lee Changho's initial international success, which attracted many young Koreans to the game and even made it an element of national pride to some extent. This is tied to the game's perception because there are so many young pros, and Baduk TV often highlights them and tries to portray the game as cool. From what I've heard, China has no programing devoted exclusively to Baduk except some pay-per-view, and in Japan there is IgoShogi, but there again, it has to share time with Shogi, which gets more attention, especially among younger people. Actually I also think that the popularity of Shogi may also be a reason why Japan's Baduk performance has lagged behind in recent years. Their talent is divided between the two games, and even some Baduk pros in Japan spend some time playing Shogi as a hobby. There is no such distraction in Korea. So, the question now is: how can we take these things into account to help spread the game?

Let's take the USA as an example. I would be willing to bet money that everybody in the United States at least knows what chess is even if they don't know how to play. This is probably due to the fact that Bobby Fischer actually played in the match of the century in 1972. I'd say a lot of the enthusiasm about chess in the USA came from that and everyone knows about Bobby Fischer.

The USA has no well known professional Go players. Michael Redmond is American, but not well known. In fact, I had NEVER heard of any Go players professional or otherwise until I watched Hikaru No Go and started to become curious about the game and started researching it.

Why is Go not more popular in the USA? I think that there are a few reasons why.
1. Go is very much an Eastern Game. It takes a mental adjustment in order to play the game. What I mean by that is in Chess, one of the opening principles is Control the center. In Go, you want to control the corners and sides first. In Chess, one can be aggressive from the very first move, if it suits one's mood at the time. In Go, you have to be more patient. It's the Eastern vs. Western mindset.

2. Lack of professional system. Chess has a pretty big professional circuit in the USA. With Go, it is non-existent. If the USA had a professional Go circuit, it would be a lot more popular due to people trying to popularize the game in the schools, for example.

3. Lack of a World Champion. If Go had a World Champion, the game would be more popular since the World Champion could try to popularize the game in other countries, playing simuls, giving lectures, etc. Having a World Champion is not crucial or necessary, but it helps when there is someone who is considered "Best in the World" in a discipline.

nagano wrote:First, there is still the effect of Lee Changho's initial international success, which attracted many young Koreans to the game and even made it an element of national pride to some extent. This is tied to the game's perception because there are so many young pros, and Baduk TV often highlights them and tries to portray the game as cool.

This doesn't surprise me due to the fact that the USA had a chess boom when Bobby Fischer was playing for the World Championship and even after.

How to make Go more popular with competing games? I'm not sure. Japan may be lagging behind right now, but they'll be back. So will China. In fact, I'm willing to bet that all three countries will have their turn at the top. Why look at Chess, Shogi, Xiangqi, and Jang-gi as competitors to Go? They're all abstract strategy games, and they're all fairly deep. The skills that you gain in one are, roughly speaking, transferable to the others. Of course, there is going to be some sort of learning curve to learn each game and the specifics may change from game to game, but in all of them the general use of tactics and strategy is incredibly important. What makes Go better than Chess? Or Shogi, for that matter?

The use of television to broadcast Go to popularize the game is ingenious. Korea definitely deserves praise for this. That won't work for all countries, though.

nagano wrote:They may be most popular, but they are all fatally flawed at the moment because they have arbitrary rules, and it may not be possible to fix that. (But go ahead and try!)

You're assuming arbitrary rules is a fatal flaw. You first have to prove that.

Suji wrote:1. Go is very much an Eastern Game. It takes a mental adjustment in order to play the game. What I mean by that is in Chess, one of the opening principles is Control the center. In Go, you want to control the corners and sides first. In Chess, one can be aggressive from the very first move, if it suits one's mood at the time. In Go, you have to be more patient. It's the Eastern vs. Western mindset.

I do not think there is anything inherently Eastern about Go. I don't see how corners and sides vs center has anything to do with cultural differences, not that culture in the East or West is in any way homogenous in the first place.

I agree that Go's difference from Chess is a part of the reason. But that has nothing to do with any kind cultural difference.

It is true that go's goal is abstract and we Americans lack patience... I think that has more to do with it than corner, sides, center.

because it is 2010, people have the internet games, movies, blah blah, they do facebook, myspace, poke people on facebook, and then go to college, more facebook, and more more money earning networking, all for the job, and stable income. Go doesn't really fit into their quest for knowledge. The quest for the knowledge that will comfortably make decent income.

But that is just my opinion though.

Also, the fact that Go is "marketed" as an intellectual profound game will keep people away. Who want to "lose" intellectually? While I think losing is what makes you learn, the question is more important than the answer, other people might not like it.

Suji wrote:

nagano wrote:I believe all these games are inferior to Baduk.

To get a better picture of what you are trying to say, define inferior.

By inferior I mean they all have severe rules flaws and do not quite match up to the quality of Go.

nagano wrote:I originally wrote this on Starbaduk, but due to the lack of response and the nature of the topic, I decided to move it here:

Why is Baduk so much more popular in Korea? One interesting point to consider is that in China it has to compete with Xiangqi, in Japan it has to compete with Shogi, and in the rest of the world has to overcome a lack of knowledge and to some degree compete with Chess. I believe all these games are inferior to Baduk, but people have indicated to me that they are easier to relate to at first because they feel the basic goal is clearer. "Checkmate your opponent's King" is seen as an easier concept to understand than "make more territory than your opponent". In that sense Baduk maybe takes a little bit longer to get used to, and ends up losing more beginners in countries where these other games are prevalent. While Korea does have Jang-gi, that game is basically just an older, more flawed version of Xiangqi, and hence is much less popular, and I believe is not really a competitor for Baduk. (Correct me if I'm wrong on this.) The second element is obviously the worldwide fallout of traditional games' popularity, largely due to video games and other media. The third element and antidote to this is media portrayal, which is where Korea has an advantage. First, there is still the effect of Lee Changho's initial international success, which attracted many young Koreans to the game and even made it an element of national pride to some extent. This is tied to the game's perception because there are so many young pros, and Baduk TV often highlights them and tries to portray the game as cool. From what I've heard, China has no programing devoted exclusively to Baduk except some pay-per-view, and in Japan there is IgoShogi, but there again, it has to share time with Shogi, which gets more attention, especially among younger people. Actually I also think that the popularity of Shogi may also be a reason why Japan's Baduk performance has lagged behind in recent years. Their talent is divided between the two games, and even some Baduk pros in Japan spend some time playing Shogi as a hobby. There is no such distraction in Korea. So, the question now is: how can we take these things into account to help spread the game?

Let's take the USA as an example. I would be willing to bet money that everybody in the United States at least knows what chess is even if they don't know how to play. This is probably due to the fact that Bobby Fischer actually played in the match of the century in 1972. I'd say a lot of the enthusiasm about chess in the USA came from that and everyone knows about Bobby Fischer.

The USA has no well known professional Go players. Michael Redmond is American, but not well known. In fact, I had NEVER heard of any Go players professional or otherwise until I watched Hikaru No Go and started to become curious about the game and started researching it.

Why is Go not more popular in the USA? I think that there are a few reasons why.
1. Go is very much an Eastern Game. It takes a mental adjustment in order to play the game. What I mean by that is in Chess, one of the opening principles is Control the center. In Go, you want to control the corners and sides first. In Chess, one can be aggressive from the very first move, if it suits one's mood at the time. In Go, you have to be more patient. It's the Eastern vs. Western mindset.

2. Lack of professional system. Chess has a pretty big professional circuit in the USA. With Go, it is non-existent. If the USA had a professional Go circuit, it would be a lot more popular due to people trying to popularize the game in the schools, for example.

3. Lack of a World Champion. If Go had a World Champion, the game would be more popular since the World Champion could try to popularize the game in other countries, playing simuls, giving lectures, etc. Having a World Champion is not crucial or necessary, but it helps when there is someone who is considered "Best in the World" in a discipline.

nagano wrote:First, there is still the effect of Lee Changho's initial international success, which attracted many young Koreans to the game and even made it an element of national pride to some extent. This is tied to the game's perception because there are so many young pros, and Baduk TV often highlights them and tries to portray the game as cool.

This doesn't surprise me due to the fact that the USA had a chess boom when Bobby Fischer was playing for the World Championship and even after.

How to make Go more popular with competing games? I'm not sure. Japan may be lagging behind right now, but they'll be back. So will China. In fact, I'm willing to bet that all three countries will have their turn at the top. Why look at Chess, Shogi, Xiangqi, and Jang-gi as competitors to Go? They're all abstract strategy games, and they're all fairly deep. The skills that you gain in one are, roughly speaking, transferable to the others. Of course, there is going to be some sort of learning curve to learn each game and the specifics may change from game to game, but in all of them the general use of tactics and strategy is incredibly important. What makes Go better than Chess? Or Shogi, for that matter?

The use of television to broadcast Go to popularize the game is ingenious. Korea definitely deserves praise for this. That won't work for all countries, though.

All of this is good analysis, but what I was looking for in general was an answer to my ending question: How can we take these things into account to spread the game? I will however comment on two points:

I would be willing to bet money that everybody in the United States at least knows what chess is even if they don't know how to play.

I doubt that. A lot of people don't even know who the Vice President is, and what about those people that still live up in the mountains without electricity?

Why look at Chess, Shogi, Xiangqi, and Jang-gi as competitors to Go? They're all abstract strategy games, and they're all fairly deep. The skills that you gain in one are, roughly speaking, transferable to the others.

Because these games all compete for peoples time. In regard to the skill transference, that is only really true among Chess games. Garry Kasparov was estimated to be about 3 dan in Shogi after playing his first game. Compare that to a beginning player at my local club who had recently become a FIDE master and yet I could still give him 9 stones.

nagano wrote:If you mean boring to beginners, then I would agree. Actually I think Go is much more dynamic than Chess. It's just not as easy to see initially. Then again, maybe you are right. I started playing Go because the rules were the only ones in existence that met my "perfection" standards.

Something like that. Go appeals to me personally because it's so beautiful (not just the rules, but the gameplay), not because it's entertaining. I don't even like board games.

Although, similar views have been expressed about Chess. (Some nice thoughts at http://www.chessvibes.com/beauty/beauty-in-chess/ )

palapiku wrote:

nagano wrote:If you mean boring to beginners, then I would agree. Actually I think Go is much more dynamic than Chess. It's just not as easy to see initially. Then again, maybe you are right. I started playing Go because the rules were the only ones in existence that met my "perfection" standards.

Something like that. Go appeals to me personally because it's so beautiful (not just the rules, but the gameplay), not because it's entertaining. I don't even like board games.

Although, similar views have been expressed about Chess. (Some nice thoughts at http://www.chessvibes.com/beauty/beauty-in-chess/ )

I think it's exciting, I watch professional games like some people watch football (but without the shouting and other physical gyrations).

nagano wrote:I think it's exciting, I watch professional games like some people watch football (but without the shouting and other physical gyrations).

Maybe I'll be able to do that when I'm 1d Right now, I just don't understand them at all, so there's little to get excited about.

(That's another problem with Go - here I am, been playing for several years, and still completely unable to follow a professional game...)

The fact that in the West Go is most popular with programmers and mathematicians (well, there's HnG fans, too) is related - we are the only people boring enough to tolerate such a dull game.


And some others: I'm a philosophy professor, and I've been interested in go for more than ten years now, since college. Perhaps if I were a mathematician, though, I'd be better by now!

nagano wrote:By inferior I mean they all have severe rules flaws and do not quite match up to the quality of Go.

I'm interested in what flaws they have. Go has several rule sets. Chinese, Japanese, New Zealand, AGA, and so forth. In Chess, ALL countries agree on the rules. Wouldn't disagreeing on the rule sets reduce the quality?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to know.

nagano wrote:Because these games all compete for peoples time. In regard to the skill transference, that is only really true among Chess games. Garry Kasparov was estimated to be about 3 dan in Shogi after playing his first game. Compare that to a beginning player at my local club who had recently become a FIDE master and yet I could still give him 9 stones.

Point taken. Though reading ability tends to transfer. You're probably right, though the FIDE master would improve rapidly.

Monadology wrote:

Suji wrote:1. Go is very much an Eastern Game. It takes a mental adjustment in order to play the game. What I mean by that is in Chess, one of the opening principles is Control the center. In Go, you want to control the corners and sides first. In Chess, one can be aggressive from the very first move, if it suits one's mood at the time. In Go, you have to be more patient. It's the Eastern vs. Western mindset.

I do not think there is anything inherently Eastern about Go. I don't see how corners and sides vs center has anything to do with cultural differences, not that culture in the East or West is in any way homogenous in the first place.

I agree that Go's difference from Chess is a part of the reason. But that has nothing to do with any kind cultural difference.

I think that patience is a key factor here. The Oriental people who play go tend to be more patient than the Americans who play chess. I'd still say that Oriental people who play chess are more patient than Americans who play Go. They tend to have a completely different mindset than we Westerners do. Hence more of them play Go, and more of us play chess.

LokBuddha wrote:Also, the fact that Go is "marketed" as an intellectual profound game will keep people away. Who want to "lose" intellectually? While I think losing is what makes you learn, the question is more important than the answer, other people might not like it.

This stabs at the heart of, I believe, nagano's question. Go IS an intellectual game, and how do we attract people to the game despite this? Chess is the same way. It's the same question all over again.

Suji wrote:
I think that patience is a key factor here. The Oriental people who play go tend to be more patient than the Americans who play chess. I'd still say that Oriental people who play chess are more patient than Americans who play Go. They tend to have a completely different mindset than we Westerners do.
.

One question. How many games have you played on wbaduk? Because playing on the korea one server might change your mind a bit.