Life In 19x19

John Fairbairn wrote:... Would two congresses - one in the east and one int he west - instead of one attract a bigger attendance, on the principle of lower travelling costs? If held at the same time there could be some sort of electronic tie-up.

As one of the people who did initial scouting for locations here in southern California, I really like this idea. We currently have a large enough group that many places are not fit. However, if we were looking for a place half the usual size, we would probably have 5 or 10 times the venues to choose from.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

John Fairbairn wrote:... Would two congresses - one in the east and one int he west - instead of one attract a bigger attendance, on the principle of lower travelling costs? If held at the same time there could be some sort of electronic tie-up.

As one of the people who did initial scouting for locations here in southern California, I really like this idea. We currently have a large enough group that many places are not fit. However, if we were looking for a place half the usual size, we would probably have 5 or 10 times the venues to choose from.

Although, I can understand the allure of this idea, I'm not too sure if having them at the SAME time is a good idea. I think alternating coasts is still workable, more so than two major events such as go congress in one year. Just going by how much of an effort even one congress is per year. I also believe that separating the community, and forcing people to go to one event over another is a bad idea. It's not really what Go congress is about is it?

Redbeard wrote:Please understand, I am not talking about merging KGS ratings with the AGA. I'm talking about holding specific ratings tournaments with AGA rules, hosted on-line.

I am surprised that this even needed to be said. KGS is totally independent of the AGA and the vast majority of players there are not AGA members (and most probably are not even in the USA). It would take a monumental task to determine which games on KGS were between two AGA members and also met other criteria for rating.

I am with Keith on this one. There is nothing wrong with AGA having a separate rating of online AGA-sanctioned games, but it should not be merged with face-to-face ratings. It should be very easy to set up a separate ratings database of online games once the criteria for inclusion are settled.

wfrontiers wrote:* Chapter Services
I think the AGA system is a bit disconnected. I feel that many of the Board Members have lost touch with their constituency and that many do not look for feedback from those in their local vicinity. I'm sure many do a fine job, but it's rather intimidating that the entire AGA policy is being handled by seven individuals total? Well, if you add in the appointed four officer positions, it's eleven - but the populace as a whole can only elect the board members. That is, assuming you have the money to pay for the votes.

I dropped out of the AGA 18 months ago after being a member for over 30 years. I had stopped attending tournaments a long time ago and their was no longer a monthly journal to look forward to, but one of the big reasons I did so was because I felt that there was a huge disconnect between the members and the management. Twenty or more years ago Roger White was the chapter coordinator and he used to travel the country in his RV visiting as many clubs as he could. He stayed with me a couple of times and we were able to talk about how things were going. How many of the current board members get out to meet the chapters? I think that one of the essential requirements of anyone standing for election for the board is that they get out and meet their constituent chapters.

Currently, online qualifiers are rated, right? Are people unhappy with tha situation?

I don't really see the need for or benefit of a separate online rating, unless the AGA starts letting you play online rated games any time you want to, which I don't see happening any time soon. Sure, some people might play a bit stronger or weaker online, but what you had for lunch and how much sleep you got make that much difference, too.

A blitz rating makes sense, as the AGA currently rates only slow games. But would it be worth the administrative overhead? Maybe, if it got people to join the AGA to play in official blitz tournaments...

daniel_the_smith wrote:Currently, online qualifiers are rated, right? Are people unhappy with tha situation?

No, they are not rated currently.

oren wrote: No, they are not rated currently.

Oh, interesting. Man, if I spent a couple hours playing an AGA game I would want credit for it!!

I also like the two Congresses idea but not because travel would necessarily be cheaper. Distance is not always the primary factor in airline ticket prices. I can fly from Boston to LA cheaper than from Boston to Denver and so on. It's all about the hubs. Having Congresses in major hub cities would likely be more helpful with travel costs than anything else - this assumes that most people would fly rather than drive and it doesn't take overseas travel into account.

vash3g wrote:What would everyone like to see the AGA do over the next three to five years?

I gave my own comments earlier - but my wife, who is neither a member of the AGA or a Go player also has one suggestion.

My wife would like to see a future Go Congress take place on a Cruise Ship so that she has reason to take the whole family.

There would be a *lot* of challenges associated with an idea like this - probably it's completely impractical. But... if it worked out somehow, the idea is really attractive. I'll at least mention the idea.

(I've told her to keep her fingers crossed for easy beach access for the 2011 so.cal congress as an alternative.)

My wife would like to see a future Go Congress take place on a Cruise Ship so that she has reason to take the whole family.

There would be a *lot* of challenges associated with an idea like this - probably it's completely impractical. But... if it worked out somehow, the idea is really attractive. I'll at least mention the idea.

The Japanese have done this for years. Pros are invited and tutition and sightseeing are combined. I don't know if serious tournaments are also held - maybe the Mai Tais are an impediment but, hic, who cares?

At first blush it may seem impractical for a western clientele, but parties of go players have gone on guided tours of China from Europe, so it doesn't have to be ruled out. I suppose one problem with all cruises is that, apart from the cost of the cruise, you have to get to the port as well, but there are certainly some cheap cruises in Europe.

I can't speak for the US congresses, but the European congresses are actually already pretty family oriented and often take place in sites where non-players can have lots of fun - capital cities, forests, mountains and beaches have all featured. Maybe that's why they seem to attract much bigger attendances then the US????

Bump? I don't get it. Why is this thread left to die? Can we get some of these things looked at or talked about? I thought discussions was what we wanted. Is there anyway an AGA member involved in some of these decisions possibly comment on ANY of the suggestions? As far as I've seen, we suggested, then just got nothing. I thought the whole point was so we could have some feedback back and forth. At the very least, are any of these suggestions being looked into/ brought up between the AGA representatives?

ketchup wrote:Bump? I don't get it. Why is this thread left to die? Can we get some of these things looked at or talked about? I thought discussions was what we wanted. Is there anyway an AGA member involved in some of these decisions possibly comment on ANY of the suggestions? As far as I've seen, we suggested, then just got nothing. I thought the whole point was so we could have some feedback back and forth. At the very least, are any of these suggestions being looked into/ brought up between the AGA representatives?

I'm not really sure what you mean. Phil Waldron, Keith Arnold, and myself all responded to various items. Talk is cheap, making any of these things happen is another story all together. I also didn't see any clear consensus on ideas, just diverse opinions, and the AGA has plenty of those I can assure you ^_^ On the congress in a fixed location idea, the problem is finding anyone who is willing to do it more than once every ten years. A year or two back we tried to get people interested in the idea of having a semi permanent congress staff that would go to each location and run key aspects of the congress. Despite much discussion, only two people were willing to make a commitment to doing it every year - myself in the youth room, and Chris Garlock for the E-Journal. I personally think splitting up the congress to two separate locations would not only be a nightmare logistically, but would be a huge detriment to both locations. We are a tiny group of players nationwide, we don't have the resources, the members, or quite frankly the interest, to sustain two separate locations.

I agree with two of your points, Shimari. Talk is cheap and a single fixed location is highly problematic.
But fixing it to four locations seems plausible. Each director would run it once every four years and thus be able lock in certain basics of the Congress that wouldn't have to pursued year after year (venue, catering, transportation). When a problem arose with one of these items over the course of four years, there would be plenty of time to replace it with something comparable. Once such basics become a known quantity, you could move the registrar to single nationwide position (with tech support obviously). Once that position is standardized, the hardest job (in my opinion) in the Congress begins to look more manageable.
As it is, the Congress staff reinvents the wheel every year. Even if the city has done it ten years earlier, everything they learned is mostly irrelevant and most of their former resources are no longer options.
I can see many issues with this system as well, but it is hard to see the Congress growing (in terms of new offerings as well as attendance) without some new model. The resources of individual clubs simply don't grow as fast as the apparent demand for a robust Congress.

uglyboxer wrote:...
But fixing it to four locations seems plausible. Each director would run it once every four years and thus be able lock in certain basics of the Congress that wouldn't have to pursued year after year (venue, catering, transportation). When a problem arose with one of these items over the course of four years, there would be plenty of time to replace it with something comparable. Once such basics become a known quantity, you could move the registrar to single nationwide position (with tech support obviously). Once that position is standardized, the hardest job (in my opinion) in the Congress begins to look more manageable.
As it is, the Congress staff reinvents the wheel every year. Even if the city has done it ten years earlier, everything they learned is mostly irrelevant and most of their former resources are no longer options.
I can see many issues with this system as well, but it is hard to see the Congress growing (in terms of new offerings as well as attendance) without some new model. The resources of individual clubs simply don't grow as fast as the apparent demand for a robust Congress.

I like the idea of approximately 4 fixed locations.

In my line of business ( books ) the American Bookseller's Association's annual trade show usually rotates between LA, Chicago and NY. Those are major air hubs, and have lots of hotels and convention rooms. Occasionally it stays in NY for a few years in a row because they have been able to negotiate good rates by doing that.

We have lots of people in NY, LA, and Seattle. Fourth might be Chicago? Atlanta? Houston?

Once every four years would be cool if we could find folks willing to do it, this too may be quite hard. You are absolutely right that the congress staff has to reinvent the wheel every year, and it is maddening. This will be my 4th year on staff, and every year I see congress directors going nuts with the stress. I still favor a core group that could manage critical congress tasks each year, but as I said we couldn't get enough people interested in volunteering for it. I wonder if four alternating teams could be a possibility? Worth asking about it, or bringing it up at the AGA Chapters meeting at congress to see if there was any interest.

One huge benefit of doing it somewhere else every year is that people always get to go to new destinations, which makes the appeal of a vacation much more enticing.

The E-Journal has a core team of people who know their jobs. The few things that change for us are the game recorders. This year we are doing prep work before the congress for our recorders so we can be more prepared on site. We also seem to retain a number of people to do the same job every year.