Life In 19x19

The below is just my opinions, so your mileage might vary.
I seriously do not wish to offend anybody or to burst any pretty little bubbles.

HermanHiddema wrote:Actually, I think it is quite the opposite. I think the view of "go, books, opera, art" as intellectual is far too narrow.

Huh? You don't consider the above as 'intellectual'? Remember - I just gave examples, never claimed it to be an exhaustive list.

HermanHiddema wrote:Ask them how often they play computer games. Many of those games can be quite intellectually challenging. Whether it is strategy games, shooters, fighting games or puzzle games, they generally require quick and flexible thinking.

Most of the games these days are not very challenging intellectually. Most shooters rely on fast fast pace and reflexes, and profit not from complex plots but from over-the-board graphics and special effects. This is not to say there is no 'thinking' required, but most games are laid out so that even the dumbest of them all can play and enjoy, no need to be intellectually agile. Otherwise it would limit the potential market too much, and this would not be commercially advisable.

This is why in most dorms computer games and beer go well together. And, by contrast, Go and beer usually does not. (Disclaimer: whatever you heard about me - I will deny everything, it never happened, and you cannot prove it! Heh...)

True, there are games out there with more of an intellectual component, but they are often either niche games or short-lived trends. At least - this is my opinion. Most computer games I ever played could be played by drunk grade-school kids while watching a movie at the same time or whatever. I know, I tried. And what's more - they are specifically designed to be like that.

HermanHiddema wrote:The computer provides options that we simply did not have available 50 years ago. There are boardgames that I prefer to play on the computer because the computer does all the tedious bookkeeping for me. No more endless counters and tokens or pen and paper, I can actually spend my time focussing on strategy.

I agree on that.

HermanHiddema wrote:In the current day and age, I think kids are more and more likely to choose the mental challenge of computer games over the physical challenge of sports, which may be contributing to a growing obesity problem.

If you mean they rather play basketball on their XBox using their thumbs than actually go out and play the game physically - I agree with that as well. But in what way is that an improvement?

hyperpape wrote:Don't forget that we're living in the golden age of complex TV: longer narrative arcs, more complicated plots, etc. It's not really what I spend my time on, but it's no longer "dumb stuff".

We must be watching a different TV, dude... seriously. These days - you can hardly find a scene which takes longer than a few seconds before the camera pans to something else. Even for scenes which require longer continuity, all kinds of tricks are used, like jumping from face to face, and stuff like that. Granted - this is not only to keep the interest of the viewer, but it does terrible things to your attention span in the long run.

Why do you think all the... ahemm... "reality" shows are so popular these days? Easy, no depth required, and big payoff.

Look at children programs - there are almost no scenes longer than about 2 seconds or so, before the scene changes. Even in cartoons - and this *is* done specifically to keep kids interested. Anything for higher ratings, and we can't afford to risk losing a kid's interest when he gets bored by looking at the same scene for longer than 2 sec.

Even the news, instead of concentrating on what is really important and can have influence on your life and how you make decisions - just shows you recent murders, car chasers, fires, accidental deaths, kidnapping, and an occasional spelling bee winner. Just too keep you glued to the TV at any cost, and the dumber you are the easier it will be, so there is absolutely no interest in the media to educate you or show you deeper content so you actually develop intellectually.

And don't even get me started on the commercials! How can anybody get into any content in any depth if every 3 minutes he is assaulted by trivia about plumbing services or new developments in female hygiene, sometimes within the same ad? And all playing at twice the regular volume - so you don't, god forbid, miss a single word of that drivel even if you happen to go to the bathroom or something. Even when the plot of the actual show does happen to be deep - you can hardly ever experience it with you mind being so forcefully ripped away and shredded by blatant commercialism ever few minutes. If you really need a proof of low intellectual value of present-day TV, just think about that.

I mean - I have no clue what kind of TV people were fed on in the US in the past, but it could hardly be worse than it is now. If it was, you all have my condolences, my apologies, and I will not complain or try to reason with you people anymore, since there is simply no point. Your brains are fried, period.

For myself - I know that the TV I was watching in my youth was not quite like that.

In the movies - same thing - I am not so sure about deeper plots neither. There were always shallow movies, and there were always deep movies. Today is no exception. However, when you look at the box office hits from years past, you will find movies like Quo Vadis, Ben Hur, Doctor Zhivago, and so on... look at more modern box office charts... Transformers, Iron Man, Twilight Saga, Fast and Furious, and so on... Or compare old hits and newer remakes... in most cases the remakes make things worse rather than better, imho.

And while not all of todays movies are shallow, just like not all past movies were deep, I can see a steady decline. An odd outlier here and there notwithstanding.

Anyways - as said in my previous post, I don't want to upset anybody here. I am probably wrong about all that, and all the kids gorging on blood and gore and body parts flying around on their TV screens, punctuated by commercial breaks every few minutes enticing them to eat more burgers and drink more beer - they are all on the way to becoming modern-day geniuses... it's all good for them... what do I know, after all. Just venting...

PS>
So - how about getting this admission to Grumpy Old Men club? Have I earned it yet?

SmoothOper wrote:That is pretty typical, if you are a supervisor you might get a superficial conversation, but in business most people are doing the best they can to show up on time and seem halfway competent, they generally don't have time or energy to make nice conversation with their coworkers.

Thanx, though I don't think it is my case. I'm working for a French company. I'm sure my colleagues spend a lot of time in entertainment.

Bantari wrote:So - how about getting this admission to Grumpy Old Men club? Have I earned it yet?

I agree with you. At least in the U.S. we are very anti-intellectual. It reminds me of the book: Nerds: Who They Are and Why We Need More of Them.

When I was a beginner and was first going to a Go club I ran into a guy at the office I was working who went to the same club. He said, "wait a minute, weren't you at the go club?"

It was a really bizarre coincidence. But we never played go at work. We worked at work. It was kind of like Fight Club or something...

Anyway, you can get players, but maybe what you are trying is too overt. It has to be more like, "what are you up to Tuesday nights?" type of thing...

snorri wrote:

Bantari wrote:So - how about getting this admission to Grumpy Old Men club? Have I earned it yet?

I agree with you. At least in the U.S. we are very anti-intellectual. It reminds me of the book: Nerds: Who They Are and Why We Need More of Them.

Even among card-carrying nerds, Go is very niche. When I told a close friend that I was getting into go two years ago, he thought I was talking about the programming language.

Bantari wrote:

Phoenix wrote:Why do people resist the idea of having fun in a new way so much? That's the mystery.

No mystery at all.

In today's world, people on average move away from intellectualism of any kind. Its not just Go... try asking them what books they read - you'll get black stares most likely. Try asking them what is their favorite opera. Or what caught their eye last time they have been to an art museum.

Personally I blame three things, among others:
1. the school system which does not stress the importance of intellectual pursuits,
2. parents, who being a product of the same system, don't add anything positive, and just dump it all on schools (with sad results), and
3. the mass media (including internet), in which children programs/games do anything they can to prevent kids from having any smarts or attention span longer than a few sec.

Now - we can ask why is the above, and who is responsible and what is the motivation behind making it so.
Which, I think, is a much more interesting question, although not really that hard.
To question why, given the above, we are the way we are - its trivial. We have little choice, once we accepted the direction we are being led.

In a nutshell - our society stresses different values than intellectual and/or cultural growth, that's all. Try asking people at work to try a new kind of "beer pong", check out a new "jackass" movie, or watch a new kind of "desperate" reality show - and I bet the reaction will be much more positive than to Go. Share with them some new celebrity gossip - and you'll have friends forever.

People *are* very open to new kinds of fun, I think they are even starved for it. Its just that what they have been taught until now is that fun is the pre-chewed and pre-packaged pulp they are being fed, nothing else. And, most importantly, fun is something that involves, for most part, no effort whatsoever, just being entertained - and paying for it, of course... somebody's got to make money, after all, no? Its the american way, baby!

There is no money in Go, sadly.

And yes, its a bleak world I see when I look out my window. And it doesn't get any better as days go by. I am an old cynic. So sue me.

Well, I can't say that I fully understood your opinions, but I don't agree with you to impute the less intellectual pursuit to the fault of education system. I'm a good example. I have been immersed in China national education system for 16 years. It might be the best system to kill the willing of creation and innovation. But it can't keep me away from attempts to new experience. It's a proof that China has a great immigrant population.

In addition, half of my colleagues are Chinese, one third are French and one sixth has other nationality. They were grown under different education system, but no interest in GO is the same.

So I don't think the reason is so simple.

Phoenix wrote:Darkpolarbear, you forgot to add something after or before you quoted me in your post.

I understand the two simple concepts of life at work here. One is that people have their own fun, their own sphere of activity. Another is that change is scary and often unpleasant (apparently, though not for me, I find). The first is a by-product of the way we generate our own consciousness and interact with 'reality', and the other is part that, part evolution.

But the main comment I get when trying to find out what state people are usually in is 'bored'. People are bored, things are slow, they don't know what to do with themselves, etc. This is what happens when you have one modality of entertainment: it gets repetitive and you run out. And then what?

Nevertheless people don't want to try "A fun game that's easy to learn". I usually don't get into 'oldest game in the world', 'deep and complex strategy' or any of those angles (they kill the buzz faster than simply catering to the idea of a fun board game). But the idea of learning 3-4 rules and playing a game seems completely beyond most.

On the other hand, they'll pick up Magic: the Gathering or some sort of war board game with cards, dice, math, and a zillion rules without a second thought. Why?

Well first it's not foreign, or at least it was made in the Western world. I find that's a factor a lot of the time. Second, people already play the other games. It doesn't matter that there are millions of players in China, Korea and Japan. They don't see people play it here. They're not exposed to it. And in the back of their minds no doubt is the idea that even if they learn it, they won't be able to play it with their friends.

Makes it hard to spread the word, y'know?

I'm sorry to quote your words coincidently without any comments. I am very new to tapatalk. I didn't recognize I had made a mistake till I waked up. Now, I edit the thread

And about your points of view, I agree most of them. Especially you think we make GO too complex for the beginners. I often start my introduction of GO by the philosophic concepts inside. In my opinion it is charming because playing GO is more than having fun. I never image reversely that the cultural aspects make people try to get away.

Maybe just we should let go and it can be easier for beginner to find joy which is the essential part of a game.

msgreg wrote:If you go to lunch with any of them, take a printed 5x5 board and some stones.

Say "let's play" while waiting for food, or between bites.

Teach on a 5x5 and play first capture go. It will take 5 minutes for 2-3 games.

When a game ends in no captures, count territory.

Once black always wins, go to 7x7.

Then when no captures happen, count territory, and play future games dropping first capture. Now you're playing "real go".

Do you think that will work?

Thanks！I will try it today and tell you the result by a thread

Good luck!

Oh, and you can download a 5x5 and 7x7 board here:
http://www.cmgo.org/go-kit

Scroll down to
Simple-rules Starter Kit (Stone Counting)
and click "Free Download"

Prints double sided on 8.5x11 sheet of paper. It might fit on an A4, but don't shrink to fit or anything like that. It's made for regular size stones.

Let me know how it goes!

Bantari wrote:intellectual
go
books
opera
art museum

Seriously? I find your post a bit pretentious.

Not that it matters, but in my opinion go is about as "intellectual" as boxing.
Or a lot of computer games for that matter (starcraft and quake series come to mind).

Talking about "plot" and "graphics" of computer games imho betrays how little you know about them. Neither plot nor graphics really matter for competitively played games, though they matter in terms of generating a decent player base in the first place, I guess. Either way, looking down on another gaming community doesn't present you in the best light, again imho.

And I'm not going to go on a rant about what you said about television, I'll just leave it at that: if you're going to label yourself an "intellectual", at least demonstrate that you have the ability to distinguish between medium and content.

Bantari wrote:Huh? You don't consider the above as 'intellectual'? Remember - I just gave examples, never claimed it to be an exhaustive list.

I'm not implying that you are, I was just commenting on the general theme. All of the examples you gave are typical traditional intellectual pursuits. I'm saying people nowadays tend to choose more modern intellectual pursuits.

Most of the games these days are not very challenging intellectually. Most shooters rely on fast fast pace and reflexes, and profit not from complex plots but from over-the-board graphics and special effects. This is not to say there is no 'thinking' required, but most games are laid out so that even the dumbest of them all can play and enjoy, no need to be intellectually agile. Otherwise it would limit the potential market too much, and this would not be commercially advisable.

This is why in most dorms computer games and beer go well together. And, by contrast, Go and beer usually does not. (Disclaimer: whatever you heard about me - I will deny everything, it never happened, and you cannot prove it! Heh...)

True, there are games out there with more of an intellectual component, but they are often either niche games or short-lived trends. At least - this is my opinion. Most computer games I ever played could be played by drunk grade-school kids while watching a movie at the same time or whatever. I know, I tried. And what's more - they are specifically designed to be like that.

Of course it makes commercial sense to make games accessible to everyone. But that does not mean you have to remove the option to think altogether. Anyone can play Starcraft, but not many can play it at a high level. Shooters often have team play, where the intellectual challenge is in the planning and execution of a well-coordinated group action.

The same is true with go. Anyone can play go, but few can play it truly well. You can play go while drinking a beer and watching a movie, no problem. You can have fun playing go at the DDK level forever, or you can study it day and night and find a continuous challenge in it.

If you mean they rather play basketball on their XBox using their thumbs than actually go out and play the game physically - I agree with that as well. But in what way is that an improvement?

I'm not saying it is an improvement.

Bantari wrote: So - how about getting this admission to Grumpy Old Men club? Have I earned it yet?

Yes, you do. And I'm afraid I don't think you know what you're talking about. There are a ton of bad reality TV shows out there, you're right about that.

But I'm talking about The Sopranos, Mad Men and so on. Even a show like Lost, which I thought turned out to be rather empty, had much more narrative complexity than the shows of the past, which were typically episodic. I don't know what TV was like where you grew up (I was amazed that the Decalogue was a television miniseries), but in the US, there's more good content out there, being watched by more people.

Bantari wrote:So - how about getting this admission to Grumpy Old Men club? Have I earned it yet?

Yes. It seems that your perception of intellectualism is based on looking back 100 years through rose colored glasses.

And what's so intellectual about an opera anyway? It's a dumb show with a bunch of bad actors playing out a trite love story. The whole thing is so boring that to keep the audience awake they are all singing. Would you like modern TV shows more if there was more singing in them?

I don't see why you guys seem so eager to die in the last ditch over the contention that video games and tee-vee are just as intellectual as go and art museums.

One feature of "intellectual" activities is a need for focus. The typical pop song on the radio is about two minutes, with a catchy refrain repeated several times so that you don't get lost. A symphony might be broken up into several movements of ten to thirty minutes. Opera acts tend to be even longer. There are very stupid people who love opera and very intelligent people who hate opera, but I don't think there is any great mystery why people tend to think of opera as an intellectual pursuit, or why intellectually insecure people who hate opera sometimes hesitate to admit it.

There are plenty of other stereotyped features of intellectual activities, which don't always line up with each other, but which I don't think it's hard to understand why these features are stereotyped this way. How easy is it to focus on a subject? How much background or context do you need to appreciate it? How much does depth do you find with prolonged exposure? How strongly compatible is it with other intellectual activities, and how incompatible is it with anti-intellectual activities? How little does it depend on physical gifts or discipline?

So I don't think it's a huge surprise that go is segregated as an intellectual activity. You can play it quickly once you get the knack, but you have to focus on a large number of decisions over several hundred turns, and without a clock new players can easily spend more than an hour on a game. You don't get to murder aliens, save up play-money, or in any other way use a fantasy life to focus your attention. The more you learn about the tactics and history of the game, the more room there is to appreciate it, almost without limit. There's not huge overlap with other intellectual activities, at least in the West, but reading shares many features with mental puzzles and puzzle-games; go shares concepts (like initiative and double-threats) with other abstract games; many aspects of go make more sense to people who are comfortable with math. And go is just about the least physical game in existence.

So I don't think it's unreasonable to think of go as an intellectual activity, or to think that HBO, kite-surfing, competitive Starcraft, and lots of other lovely, absorbing interests are less intellectual than go.