10 Rated Games and Continuous Membership

[FlameBlade]

I don't know, Phil. I am glad that policy can be changed freely. The AGA is one of the only go organizations in the USA, and there are a lot of people with different ideas on how it should be run.

I'd rather see a flexible and dynamic organization than one that is cemented in its ways, refusing to change.

I think the fact that a polocy has been changed due to the reaction of the people is nothing but a good thing.

I'm glad to see an organization that can change - it's when an organization refuses to change, despite the cries of its members that I get irked.

No, changing a policy due to the reaction of the people is not always necessarily a good idea. If a reaction of people told the board to jump off the bridge, should the board do so? Granted, it's a hyperbole, but what I have understood is that board caved instead of trying to figure out why the policy is in place the first place, and take some time to explain why such policy is in place.

By the way, congrats, you guys just made it easier to pros not to participate in any tournaments other than qualifiers for the international tournaments. Also, you guys made it easier for them to dominate representation of USA. Those are the reasons why those policies were in place the first place.

Yes, I'm intentionally incendiary, but there it is. Nobody even cared to research the history behind policies that used to exist.

That's a pretty scathing criticism of democratic politics... It also assumes that they needed to know why it was in place. Perhaps the negatives of the policy were enough. I certainly think that the negatives that I've stated earlier in this thread were enough.

And as far as pros not participating in tournaments...

There are other ways to address this, why is this the only solution?

Furthermore, in Japan, China, or Korea, Insei aren't even allowed to play in Amateur tournaments. Why do we need to force them to attend and play in little tournaments? I fail to see how it's anything but a waste of their time.

It is not about doing what people want. It is about doing the right things that may not be popular, but necessary for future development. We put people to the board, trusting them to do the right things for development of AGA. If AGA caved to every demands, we would not have any cohesive strategy for any long-term development. By the way, I don't think I remember any long-term strategies. What I am saying is that AGA needs to listen to people, but AGA shouldn't cave in to all demands. Throwing out 10-game rule is not the solution. Solutions need to be developed by the board, but trouble is, there are several /certain/ members who care only for what benefits them the most, especially with the 10-game rule.

tldr; I do not believe that AGA should change on whims of people...including, pro players, instead they need to seek out solutions that brings some kind of compromise.

[imabuddha]

Furthermore, in Japan, China, or Korea, Insei aren't even allowed to play in Amateur tournaments.

This isn't Japan, China, or Korea. We also don't currently have insei or a system that creates pros.

[Kirby]

...
It is not about doing what people want. It is about doing the right things that may not be popular, but necessary for future development. We put people to the board, trusting them to do the right things for development of AGA. If AGA caved to every demands, we would not have any cohesive strategy for any long-term development. By the way, I don't think I remember any long-term strategies. What I am saying is that AGA needs to listen to people, but AGA shouldn't cave in to all demands. Throwing out 10-game rule is not the solution. Solutions need to be developed by the board, but trouble is, there are several /certain/ members who care only for what benefits them the most, especially with the 10-game rule.

tldr; I do not believe that AGA should change on whims of people...including, pro players, instead they need to seek out solutions that brings some kind of compromise.

Of course, I agree that it is not good for the AGA to "not do the right thing".

But I think it's important to listen to people, and consider their reasoning.

There are different ways to run an organization. You can compare two tech companies, IBM and Google.

IBM is very hierarchical. If you have a new idea or want to do something new, it's somewhat difficult to do. If you aren't high up in the hierarchy, it's difficult for your voice to be heard. Even if you're completely logical and have really good ideas - you're just not heard until you've put in enough time to move up in the hierarchy.

Google, on the other hand (from what I've heard), has a rather flat hierarchy. There are a bunch of smart engineers, and then maybe a level of managers. If you have a good idea, or a better way of doing things at Google, it's much easier to get it implemented than at IBM.

The reason is that there's a lot less focus on bureaucracy, and a lot more focus on innovation.

Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. However, I believe that the innovation that can come about by taking into account all ideas, and making judgment based on reason is the best way for an organization to thrive.

When making decisions, it's important to make sure that reason is being followed, and that the "right decisions" are being made, as you said. But I think that listening to people and their reasoning is definitely the way to go.

Listening to people does not always mean following them blindly. But if they have good ideas, I think that there shouldn't be anything stopping them from being put into action - so I think that the fact that the AGA is listening to people is definitely a good thing. The only thing left to discuss is if the current decision was actually the correct decision.

[shapenaji]

Furthermore, in Japan, China, or Korea, Insei aren't even allowed to play in Amateur tournaments.

This isn't Japan, China, or Korea. We also don't currently have insei or a system that creates pros.

You're right, this isn't Japan, China, or Korea... they have more pros than we do, and so they are familiar enough with the level of pros that they don't subject them to a pointless series of 10 games each year outside of qualifiers/preliminary tournaments.

It makes sense for Pro's to play in qualifiers, the level is high, and they have a chance to stand up against strong players from the big 3 (not a good chance, but a chance). Unless those pros are feeling particularly generous with their time, it doesn't make sense for them to attend tournaments where all they're going to do is thrash the amateurs.

Pros coming to "friendly" tournaments is great... but this was a heavy-handed measure to encourage them to do so. And forcing them to come waste 5-10 hours on a foregone conclusion is likely less valuable than if they were encouraged to come review or comment on variations.

[shapenaji]

tldr; I do not believe that AGA should change on whims of people...including, pro players, instead they need to seek out solutions that brings some kind of compromise.

Erm... so what should they change on?
I'm not seeing a whole lot of alternatives to people. Maybe we should toss this problem over to the almighty random number generator...

Seriously though, I'm reading a lot about AGA ineptitude here, and seeing very little in the way of arguments for the 10-game rule.

I honestly think that's all that matters:
A) What is this rule trying to accomplish? And are these goals that we want?
B) Does this rule succeed in accomplishing its goals?

Whether or not the AGA is consistent should hardly matter if they are continually applying new information to solving these problems. If, on the other hand, they are not asking these questions, then that's easily solved via a ballot box.

If you feel the AGA board is waffling, make a thread on here and reveal the voting record of each AGA board member (based on the minutes), and display the trend.

However, THIS thread, is about a pair of regulations, and the above A) and B).

If you're going to hijack it, I recommend hijacking it with new arguments for/against.

[TMark]

Erm... so what should they change on?
I'm not seeing a whole lot of alternatives to people. Maybe we should toss this problem over to the almighty random number generator...

Probably not a "focus group", a popularity poll or the miscellaneous rantings of people on a newsgroup, who are far more likely to come up with impractical or unworkable solutions to something that may actually not be a problem. Every organisation has to have a procedure for changing old policies and instituting new ones; change things too fast and you create new problems.

Best wishes.

[daniel_the_smith]

Solutions need to be developed by the board, but trouble is, there are several /certain/ members who care only for what benefits them the most, especially with the 10-game rule.

Can you expand on what you mean by this? How do you know that these certain members (whoever they are) didn't vote for what they thought the best option was?

[tapir]

Unfortunately a lot of the issues with the AGA come from the fact that here is a national organization with an all volunteer staff and a total membership of only 2,000. Let's face it, geographically that's about as thin as you can get.

Is the AGA that small? Amazing. (Afaik Netherlands has about 750, Germany more than 2000 members. Both much smaller countries.)

[deja]

It is interesting how we all use "the membership" to bolster our arguments with little care as to who we're talking about, but when someone with whom we disagree uses "the membership" we become skeptics and ask for clarification. It reminds me of U.S. politicians' use of "the American people".

So there was a good reason for the 10 game rule. All the noise about it and the rescission will mean is that strong players, including pros, won't have to participate in the go life of the country except to play in the qualifying tournament. Since the board is so maleable I think we should lobby for the reinstatement of the 10 game rule. What the 10 game rule really means is that people only need to play in two or three tournaments per year, say the US Open and the qualifying tournament. Is that too much to ask?

Apparently yes, it is too much to ask. I'm reminded of this every time i venture down to Virginia(6hr drive) to play in a tournament, and mainly to see people i like to hang out with, that its $60-70 extra for gas. Then I remember all the people who come to our tournament that mostly live within 3 hours of us.

I'm sure that'll be the next thing the board decides to adopt - giving strong players a mileage allowance for their trips to tournaments. You're going about it the wrong way, vash3g. You have to show no interest in the AGA or in playing tournaments at all. Only then will the board and "the membership" show interest in you.

[Kirby]

Erm... so what should they change on?
I'm not seeing a whole lot of alternatives to people. Maybe we should toss this problem over to the almighty random number generator...

Probably not a "focus group", a popularity poll or the miscellaneous rantings of people on a newsgroup, who are far more likely to come up with impractical or unworkable solutions to something that may actually not be a problem. Every organisation has to have a procedure for changing old policies and instituting new ones; change things too fast and you create new problems.

Best wishes.

Again, the decision makers of the AGA do not have to blindly follow the advice of popularity polls or newsgroups, but such sources *can* provide insight from the people that make up the AGA. It's also possible that such "focus groups" can provide insight to the table that are new to the AGA decision makers.

The fact that the AGA has made action here is evidence that they are willing to be flexible and open to new ideas - which is great.

The point we should be discussing is not the speed in which a policy has been changed, but whether or not the policy change was a good idea. If the policy change was a good idea, then the fact that it was changed quickly is great.

[gowan]

Furthermore, in Japan, China, or Korea, Insei aren't even allowed to play in Amateur tournaments.

This isn't Japan, China, or Korea. We also don't currently have insei or a system that creates pros.

You're right, this isn't Japan, China, or Korea... they have more pros than we do, and so they are familiar enough with the level of pros that they don't subject them to a pointless series of 10 games each year outside of qualifiers/preliminary tournaments.

It makes sense for Pro's to play in qualifiers, the level is high, and they have a chance to stand up against strong players from the big 3 (not a good chance, but a chance). Unless those pros are feeling particularly generous with their time, it doesn't make sense for them to attend tournaments where all they're going to do is thrash the amateurs.

Pros coming to "friendly" tournaments is great... but this was a heavy-handed measure to encourage them to do so. And forcing them to come waste 5-10 hours on a foregone conclusion is likely less valuable than if they were encouraged to come review or comment on variations.

It isn't a walk in the park for pros to win the major US open tournaments. Right now there is only one pro-tournament-level pro resident and active in the USA, Myung-whan Kim. The rest have lost strength over the years so that they aren't competitive in Oriental all pro tournaments. Many times pros are defeated by amateurs in US open tournaments. Since the question under debate is related to sending people on free trips to the Orient to play in tournaments we should certainly give a lot of thought to what people have to do to win that prize. The members of the AGA pay for some of the expenses of these free trips so the members are entitled to get something back. One thing they get back is to have pros playing in tournaments that they themselves play in. In no way is a pro entitled to win the prize just by being a pro. In China I think pros have to be active outside of pro tournament play in order to retain pro status. Playing in tournaments with amateurs is, perhaps, a kind of teaching in some cases, though in fact most of the pros have trouble defeating the top amateurs. Ten rated games is not so many. I think pros are usually comped for the Us Go Congress so it doesn't cost them much to play in the US Open and the Ing Masters tournaments. Add in the Cotsen, which has attractive prize money, and you can hardly say that it is a waste of time for pros to participate in these tournaments. Right now in the USA there is no professional go organization and there are no professional-only tournaments. There are plenty of ''open'' tournaments. I think it is entirely reasonable to expect people who ''represent'' the USA to play in more than just a single qualification tournament. It is also reasonable to expect people who represent the USA to be at least permanent residents, if not citizens, and, in tournaments that are not invitational, to have actually resided in the USA for some time prior to the qualification tournament.

[vash3g]

I'm sure that'll be the next thing the board decides to adopt - giving strong players a mileage allowance for their trips to tournaments. You're going about it the wrong way, vash3g. You have to show no interest in the AGA or in playing tournaments at all. Only then will the board and "the membership" show interest in you.

My reply was not for being a strong player. It was for playing go. I gladly spend that money to be with friends a few times per year. I drag people from club to these tournaments as much as I can. I am a 5k AGA and I will never go overseas for a tournament.

This year at congress was the sixth anniversary of the death of a great go player. His presence is sorely missed in the north-east. He would lead us to tournaments, and encourage us to just play go as best we could. He was our mentor and friend. He played go to play go.

In this conversation there have been too many petty arguments about how pro's are so much better than "regular" strong players in this country. Its starting to make me sick. How have we all forgotten that go is a game to play with friends? To travel and meet new friends and play the game we all love? Did we all forget that professionals once played this game just to play?

You all can continue these petty squabbles on this. You can attempt to influence the board through this. I dont care anymore. If you do, please contact your board member and REALLY make your voice heard. I'm gonna go back to enjoying a game called go.

[deja]

I'm sure that'll be the next thing the board decides to adopt - giving strong players a mileage allowance for their trips to tournaments. You're going about it the wrong way, vash3g. You have to show no interest in the AGA or in playing tournaments at all. Only then will the board and "the membership" show interest in you.

My reply was not for being a strong player. It was for playing go. I gladly spend that money to be with friends a few times per year. I drag people from club to these tournaments as much as I can. I am a 5k AGA and I will never go overseas for a tournament.

This year at congress was the sixth anniversary of the death of a great go player. His presence is sorely missed in the north-east. He would lead us to tournaments, and encourage us to just play go as best we could. He was our mentor and friend. He played go to play go.

In this conversation there have been too many petty arguments about how pro's are so much better than "regular" strong players in this country. Its starting to make me sick. How have we all forgotten that go is a game to play with friends? To travel and meet new friends and play the game we all love? Did we all forget that professionals once played this game just to play?

You all can continue these petty squabbles on this. You can attempt to influence the board through this. I dont care anymore. If you do, please contact your board member and REALLY make your voice heard. I'm gonna go back to enjoying a game called go.

I hope I didn't offend you, vash3g. I was being sarcastic, which obviously fell flat. The fact that you and others will go to such lengths to meet and play with other Go players is precisely the sort of dedication to the game that should be acknowledged and held as an example. Bending over backwards for players who demonstrate none of that commitment is not something that the AGA should reward, regardless of how strong they are.

[shapenaji]

I hope I didn't offend you, vash3g. I was being sarcastic, which obviously fell flat. The fact that you and others will go to such lengths to meet and play with other Go players is precisely the sort of dedication to the game that should be acknowledged and held as an example. Bending over backwards for players who demonstrate none of that commitment is not something that the AGA should reward, regardless of how strong they are.

"Bending over backwards"?

We're not talking about the AGA going out of it's way here, the AGA would spend the exact same amount of time on these tournaments whether or not the players were there or not.

We're talking about allowing people to play. If you want to give rewards for good standing, I'm fine with that. But as it stands, these are NOT rewards for good standing, these are punishments for bad standing.

[shapenaji]

My reply was not for being a strong player. It was for playing go. I gladly spend that money to be with friends a few times per year. I drag people from club to these tournaments as much as I can. I am a 5k AGA and I will never go overseas for a tournament.

This year at congress was the sixth anniversary of the death of a great go player. His presence is sorely missed in the north-east. He would lead us to tournaments, and encourage us to just play go as best we could. He was our mentor and friend. He played go to play go.

In this conversation there have been too many petty arguments about how pro's are so much better than "regular" strong players in this country. Its starting to make me sick. How have we all forgotten that go is a game to play with friends? To travel and meet new friends and play the game we all love? Did we all forget that professionals once played this game just to play?

You all can continue these petty squabbles on this. You can attempt to influence the board through this. I dont care anymore. If you do, please contact your board member and REALLY make your voice heard. I'm gonna go back to enjoying a game called go.

I never said that pro's were "so much better". I said that having them thrash amateurs in the open division (like me!) is a waste of their time.

For pro's go is NOT just "a game to play with friends", that's WHY they're pros, this is their livelihood. Pros may have played this game "just to play", but once they started studying it full-time, it became something more, and you need to respect their commitment to excellence. Asking them to teach and review is polite. Offering them incentives to do so is also polite.

Holding hostage their capacity to compete in tournaments which offer them a high level of play so that they will play against "hobbyists" is rude and petty.

If the purpose of this rule was to encourage pro attendance (which I might add, xed_over said was NOT the case earlier in this thread), then it does a terrible job of it, and further, excludes non-pro strong players that are not familiar with the AGA community.

I hardly think the player of whom you speak would attempt to exclude anyone.