Life In 19x19

hyperpape wrote:Shapenaji: This was an official study in Korea. Without reading it, I would not assume that the questioners were oblivious to the phrasing issues you mention. You never know, but I don't think it's a reason to assume the results are inaccurate.

I'm sure that the questioners were careful about the phrasing of the questions, but I think that Shapenaji has a point.

Namely, when you make a classification (this person is tall, short, fat, skinny, bald, hairy, etc.), it is always relative to some basis that you have in mind.

If I say that you are a tall person, that's because I have an image of what a "standard" person is in my head, and I believe that you are taller than it.

Likewise, if I say that I am a go player, that's because I have an image of what a "standard" person is in my head, and I believe that I am a go player considering that standard.

To give an example, think of American football. If somebody asked me if I were a football (American football) player, I'd definitely say no. I mean, I've played the game - what male from an American high school hasn't? But, I'd say that probably 70% of the male population in the USA (girls sometimes play too, of course) has played the game more than I have. How, then, can I claim to be a(n American) football player?

But think of a country that doesn't play American football in high school. It may be the case that nearly nobody there played the game. If I went to that country, I could call myself an American football player, perhaps, because compared to most everybody else, I have played more.

This phenomenon actually occurred when I studied in Japan. I'm originally from Michigan, so it's not uncommon to go skiing in the winter. But so many people ski in Michigan, that I don't consider myself a "skier". But I went on a field trip with many from various countries that had never tried skiing before, and I was like a pro in comparison. People complimented me on my skill and "expertise". But I am no good at skiing. I just happen to have done it more than the others that I was being compared to.

I think the same is true for go: in a population where playing go is really common, you probably don't classify yourself as a "go player" unless you think that you play go an above-average amount. It's much easier to get to an "above-average amount" of playing go in a country where many people don't even know what the game is.

So I don't think the issue is with phrasing. It's simply what people think of themselves when compared to others in their environment.

---

As a side note, to your comment, this doesn't mean that the results are "inaccurate". They're just results from a different population sample.

The numerical results seem consistent with other information such as a decrease in the number of go schools for young people and increase in the popularity of video games.

I'd be interested in more information relating to popularity of go and country-wide social, economic or political conditions. I could be very much misinformed but it seems to me that go in Japan peaked around the 1970 to 1980 decade just when Japan was at its economic peak and there was increasing social freedom. Baduk in Korea may have peaked when the Korean economy also reached a high point. Go, Baduk, or Weichi basically depend on merit for advancement. You might be able to buy a rank diploma but it doesn't help you win tournaments. When there is social rigidity people may escape into the meritocratic activity of the game, where it doesn't matter what company you work for, where you went to school or whether you are a good party member. As social freedoms increase there is less need to escape the social rigidity. I know of a pro go player in Japan who graduated from a top university and was on the track for a cushy job in a big bank who abandoned that social and economic fast track for professional go.

gowan wrote:...I know of a pro go player in Japan who graduated from a top university and was on the track for a cushy job in a big bank who abandoned that social and economic fast track for professional go.

That's kind of interesting. Which pro go player was that?

Ishikura Noboru, he became a pro in 1980 and reached 9dan in 2000. There is an article about him in Go World number 49.

Best wishes.

TMark wrote:Ishikura Noboru, he became a pro in 1980 and reached 9dan in 2000. There is an article about him in Go World number 49.

Best wishes.

Thanks, TMark. Graduated from Tokyo University it seems, eh? Sounds like a smart guy.

Hushfield wrote:There is one for the xbox 360, I even bought it. It's called the path of go, and it's absolutely horrible. The authors created a flimsy storyline about a student and a teacher (didn't see that one coming), the strongest version of the bot can't manage to keep a single stone alive on the board and there's never ever anyone online to play with. I don't think things will be much different for wii or ps3. Besides, I'd rather play on KGS on my pc, so that when I'm teaching or reviewing I can quickly check sensei's library or my pro game database.

I know about that game. But one far better than that could be made. That's what I mean. And I say the Wii U because of these two things:

1. Internet access. Okay, you'll be able to access Sensei's Library if you need to.
2. HD Touch Screen built right into the controller. Cool thing about this? You can stream the game right to the controller and play it there. It'd be as simple as placing a finger on the point you want to play a stone.

But, this is probably just a pipe dream, that won't happen. So I guess I'm just rambling now lol.

Board games like Go and Chess just don't translate well to video games. Games like Star Craft provide far more sensual stimulation, and generally also feature an engaging single player campaign (or at least team-based multiplayer, where everybody can play a productive role) to introduce you to the game in an entertaining, non-stressful way.

What Go and Chess have to make up for it is the sensation of handling the physical sets, and the rich culture around the game. A video game cannot reproduce those, and what is left feels empty and dry. Attempts to put a video game compatible pretty frame around it (like Battle Chess, or the aforementioned Path of Go) almost always feel inadequate. Not taking the game seriously enough to convey its unique appeal, but at the same time not being nearly as sensually stimulating as a modern video game built for the purpose.

That is why I think that Hikaru no Go is so successful in exciting people about the game, as it does not try to replicate the game in a different media, but instead uses the media to tease you with the inherent appeal of the game, which makes you want to try it out in real life.

As I plan to give fulltime independent game development a try next year, I am very curious about using elements of go in game design, or to use games to playfully introduce concepts of go to players. But for now I will just keep such ideas at the back of my mind, as any half-hearted attempt at such is bound for failure.

danielm wrote:Games like Star Craft provide far more sensual stimulation, and generally also feature an engaging single player campaign

Here's go first campaign:

http://playgo.to/iwtg/en/

lorill wrote:

danielm wrote:Games like Star Craft provide far more sensual stimulation, and generally also feature an engaging single player campaign

Here's go first campaign:

http://playgo.to/iwtg/en/

But this is just a means to an end (learning the game), whereas in StarCraft the campaign _is_ the game. This way people get hooked on the game and then may or may not choose to compete against others. More importantly, it means that a lot of people like and understand the game enough to be interested in watching skilled players compete.

The go tutorial can't even compete with average casual browser games when viewed on its own. Though I do wonder if it's possible to do this better... It's interesting. But the bottom line is, that it has to be significantly entertaining on its own. And that is not a small challenge.

hailthorn011 wrote:

snorri wrote:

hailthorn011 wrote:It'd be interesting to see the worldwide shape of Go. My question is: Do y'all think Go is on the decline since it appears the main demographic is the older generation? I know Hikaru no Go was a major boon for the popularization of Go with a lot of the younger generation. Perhaps we need something like HnG again.

Well, I guess baduk players in Korea are older than golfers in the U.S....

Looking at the stats, increasing popularity among the youth would help, and everyone talks about how to do that.

However, increasing popularity with women would help much more, and few have solutions there...

The problem is: How do you convince the youth that a board game is more fun/exciting than video games? I'm an avid player of both, so I can see arguments to both sides. I suppose one could argue that you don't necessarily have to say one is more exciting than the other. But I think a child would pick a video game over a board game 9 times out of 10.

I'm not sure what to say about the female demographic, but the fact that it's low doesn't surprise me.

This is where the variant "Batoo" came in... but to my disappointment it shut down. COME BACK BATOO I MISS U! You and my short attention span are just made for each other.

Not to rain on your parade, John, but it might be that if the survey asked Koreans about 'baduk' rather than 'go', the numbers might have came out differently... Just trying to be helpful.

John Fairbairn wrote:Korea has a go population officially estimated at 7.7 million out of a population of 49 million. It can probably claim to be the most go-obsessed place on earth. But what sort of people are these go players? An official survey (sample size 1510) has recently shed some light on the adults.

The figures below show "People who can play go" on the left, as a percentage. Then follows the category. The percentage on the right is simply the matching figure of "people who do not know how to play go". Of course "can play go" is not the same as "does play go", but it does indicate a pool of go fans who probably take some interest in news reports or advertising involving go.

OVERALL
20.5 Total 79.5
BY SEX
36.4 Male 63.6
5.1 Female 94.9
BY AGE
12.7 20s 87.3
18.3 30s 81.7
25.7 40s 74.3
23.5 50s+ 76.5
BY EDUCATION
14.5 Middle school or less 85.5
23.1 High school or college 76.9
21.3 University+ 78.7
BY INCOME
18.3 Below 2 million/month 81.7
20.2 200 to 400 million won/month 79.8
24.7 Over 400 million won 75.3
BY LOCATION
20.9 Big cities 79.1
21.1 Smaller cities and towns 78.9
15.0 Countryside 85.0

In the age bracket, 845 were 40 or over, and the vast majority (920) were in the middle income bracket, so it looks safe to say that go in Korea is very similar to go in Japan: mostly an old man's game played in the cities by people of average education who are neither specially rich nor poor.

Unfortunately the survey did not ask for views on Mickey Mouse (or Mortimer Mouse for the real oldies).

Bantari wrote:Not to rain on your parade, John, but it might be that if the survey asked Koreans about 'baduk' rather than 'go', the numbers might have came out differently... Just trying to be helpful.

I'm sure you're joking, but just in case, the survey is almost definitely translated. John could have used the word "baduk", but then why would he use English words for the rest of the post? :-p

Kirby wrote:

Bantari wrote:Not to rain on your parade, John, but it might be that if the survey asked Koreans about 'baduk' rather than 'go', the numbers might have came out differently... Just trying to be helpful.

I'm sure you're joking, but just in case, the survey is almost definitely translated. John could have used the word "baduk", but then why would he use English words for the rest of the post? :-p

I am always serious!
lol

danielm wrote:

lorill wrote:

danielm wrote:Games like Star Craft provide far more sensual stimulation, and generally also feature an engaging single player campaign

Here's go first campaign:

http://playgo.to/iwtg/en/

But this is just a means to an end (learning the game), whereas in StarCraft the campaign _is_ the game. This way people get hooked on the game and then may or may not choose to compete against others. More importantly, it means that a lot of people like and understand the game enough to be interested in watching skilled players compete.

The go tutorial can't even compete with average casual browser games when viewed on its own. Though I do wonder if it's possible to do this better... It's interesting. But the bottom line is, that it has to be significantly entertaining on its own. And that is not a small challenge.

That's sort of what we're trying to do here:
http://gogameguru.com/learn-go-easy-way-go-game-3/

Still there's a long way to go in terms of making things more engaging for beginners.

David

gogameguru wrote:
The go tutorial can't even compete with average casual browser games when viewed on its own. Though I do wonder if it's possible to do this better... It's interesting. But the bottom line is, that it has to be significantly entertaining on its own. And that is not a small challenge.
That's sort of what we're trying to do here:
http://gogameguru.com/learn-go-easy-way-go-game-3/

That's really awesome. That gave me a story idea. Hm....