Life In 19x19

shapenaji wrote: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.

Their 'incentive' is that they get to represent North America in overseas tournaments. They get expenses paid travel, accommodations and game fees for losing to a world class pro.

I find it insulting that we somehow have offer them incentives though. I'm a professional scientist, and when I deployed those professional skills to rebuild the AGA's rating system I did it for free. Should I have billed for my time spent on the project because I was using professional scientific skills? Perhaps we should be paying computer professionals when they do work on the AGA's web system as well?

Go in North America is in its infancy, and everyone, pros included should expect to put in some time for free. Pros certainly benefit from everyone's work--they get more potential paying students as the go community expands--and there's no reason they shouldn't be expected to put in a few hours of service.

FlameBlade wrote:It is about doing the right things that may not be popular, but necessary for future development.

If you wait to define "the right thing to do" you will never do anything. It is better to make a decision based on what you know now, learn from that and adapt. I see the 10 game rule as one of these learning experiences. The board learned a lot about the desires of the membership that they would have not otherwise uncovered. We need more of these "failed" experiments so we can progress the organization.

Unless you give up the idea of one right way, you will always be upset and suffer.

pwaldron wrote:Go in North America is in its infancy, and everyone, pros included should expect to put in some time for free. Pros certainly benefit from everyone's work--they get more potential paying students as the go community expands--and there's no reason they shouldn't be expected to put in a few hours of service.

I agree-- but why must those few hours of service be spent trouncing a few poor souls at a tournament? I think there are plenty of different ways for them to assist AGA members which would be more profitable for everyone involved. For example, they could visit a tournament as the games are wrapping up and provide game reviews.

10 rated games was just plain a bad metric for the behavior we desire (helping out the AGA in return), I hope it is replaced with something more sensible if it is replaced at all.

If I were going to replace the rule (which I don't think I would, but if I did) I would make it multiple choice, as in, choose something from this list:

* 30 rated games (that's dedication!!)
* Game review sessions at three or more tournaments
* Give simuls or lectures at three (or more) different chapters
* Give at least five online group lessons/lectures for AGA members
* Provide game reviews via email for AGA members (say, one a month or something)-- the eJournal could publish them
* Something of equivalent benefit to the AGA, its members, or American Go.

I would also make it a condition of winning, not a qualification requirement-- meaning the people who actually win trips must do something from that list the year after they win (or else, if you want to be mean, they must repay the AGA for their trip). If they didn't want to do that, they can still represent the country as long as they pay for their own tickets.

I think that would be MUCH better than the 10 rated game rule.

daniel_the_smith wrote:I agree-- but why must those few hours of service be spent trouncing a few poor souls at a tournament? I think there are plenty of different ways for them to assist AGA members which would be more profitable for everyone involved. For example, they could visit a tournament as the games are wrapping up and provide game reviews.

All of your suggestions are reasonable; game count is an easy metric to implement, but it's certainly not the only way one might give back to the AGA.

But I wouldn't characterize attending a tournament as 'trouncing a few poor souls.' You make it sound like sending lambs to the slaughter, but the number one complaint/request from strong players is that there aren't enough chances for serious competition with strong(er) players. A game with a strong pro (or amateur) is a worthwhile opportunity, and rarely (if ever) regarded with distaste.

pwaldron wrote:the number one complaint/request from strong players is that there aren't enough chances for serious competition with strong(er) players. A game with a strong pro (or amateur) is a worthwhile opportunity, and rarely (if ever) regarded with distaste.

Goal: Get the medium-strong players more chances to play with even stronger players.

I think a good way to do this would be through the qualifier themselves. We could try expanding the number of players allowed into them. It could be a tiered system where the strongest players get seeded into later rounds. So maybe in the first round only 4d play (or whatever boundary we want), then phase in 5d, 6d, 7d+/pros into the later rounds. Lucky/strong 4dans can win their way later and get a chance to play the pros. But for the most part 4d players will play a few games, maybe get the chance to try their luck against some 6ds, and then get knocked out.

Unrated players must start at the beginning rounds. If they're super strong, they "pay" for not having been AGA rated yet by beating a 4d, 5d, 6d along the way to the "real" games for them.

I think this works similar to the 10 game rule, except it's all one event. So it satisfies Nick's idea that a strong non AGA player can walk in and play. The way I'm imagining it though these would be internet only events, so that would not satisfy face-to-face proponents. Although now I just realized that at minimum players would need to get rated once if they wanted to avoid having to start at the beginning rounds.

Kinda like the L19 tournament. I think it's a good idea.

pwaldron wrote:But I wouldn't characterize attending a tournament as 'trouncing a few poor souls.' You make it sound like sending lambs to the slaughter, but the number one complaint/request from strong players is that there aren't enough chances for serious competition with strong(er) players. A game with a strong pro (or amateur) is a worthwhile opportunity, and rarely (if ever) regarded with distaste.

In a qualifier, it's true that someone might be able to give the pro some competition, But in order to get 10 games a year prior to the qualifiers, they would need to play in smaller local tournaments, where the dan sections are usually not that large. Given an unlucky pairing, you might end up with the pro having to give 6 stones or more.

It's nice to get an opportunity to play them, but that's the sort of thing I expect at big tournaments/qualifiers.

pwaldron wrote:Their 'incentive' is that they get to represent North America in overseas tournaments. They get expenses paid travel, accommodations and game fees for losing to a world class pro.

I find it insulting that we somehow have offer them incentives though. I'm a professional scientist, and when I deployed those professional skills to rebuild the AGA's rating system I did it for free. Should I have billed for my time spent on the project because I was using professional scientific skills? Perhaps we should be paying computer professionals when they do work on the AGA's web system as well?

Go in North America is in its infancy, and everyone, pros included should expect to put in some time for free. Pros certainly benefit from everyone's work--they get more potential paying students as the go community expands--and there's no reason they shouldn't be expected to put in a few hours of service.

Alright, folks should volunteer. I agree with that.

But if you had been told that you could not play in qualifiers unless you volunteered and rebuilt the AGA's rating system. Would you feel that this was fair?

I think the idea of a multiple tiered online qualifier would be a great idea. If we keep the strong players busy online every weekend, the people who hold face to face tournaments will understand when no one comes. With the seven dans playing online, many will stay home and watch. The namt qualifier allowed players down to four dan, but since want to encourage people, maybe should just tier in all dan players into the ongoing qualifier. One and two kyus will probably not go to tournaments because they want to play dan players(apparently the only go players who do not want to be challenged by strong opponents are the seven dans)

I am sure some exciting open section tilts between four and five kyus will keep local organizers happy.

Horibe wrote:I think the idea of a multiple tiered online qualifier would be a great idea. If we keep the strong players busy online every weekend, the people who hold face to face tournaments will understand when no one comes. With the seven dans playing online, many will stay home and watch. The namt qualifier allowed players down to four dan, but since want to encourage people, maybe should just tier in all dan players into the ongoing qualifier. One and two kyus will probably not go to tournaments because they want to play dan players(apparently the only go players who do not want to be challenged by strong opponents are the seven dans)

I am sure some exciting open section tilts between four and five kyus will keep local organizers happy.

Sarcasm ftw!

Because the 3 additional games involved in an initial filtering step cannot possibly be played in less than 6 months.

shapenaji wrote:But if you had been told that you could not play in qualifiers unless you volunteered and rebuilt the AGA's rating system. Would you feel that this was fair?

The two aren't comparable. I would think it was perfectly fair if rebuilding the ratings involved a timescale on the order of ten tournament games (about 20 hours). In reality it took an order of magnitude more work--closer to two hundred hours.

shapenaji wrote:
Sarcasm ftw!

Because the 3 additional games involved in an initial filtering step cannot possibly be played in less than 6 months.

Sarcasm yes, 6 months, no.

However.

Online organizers will tell you that you cannot schedule more than two games a day - so this will take a whole weekend. And how many events do we get invited to that we have to hold qualifiers? A truly inclusive field as suggested might require one weekend for the pre qualifier, and two weekends for the qualifier. Again, that is per event. Plus the AGA already supports the multi weekend Strong Players Online Tournament.

It adds up.

shapenaji wrote:In a qualifier, it's true that someone might be able to give the pro some competition, But in order to get 10 games a year prior to the qualifiers, they would need to play in smaller local tournaments, where the dan sections are usually not that large. Given an unlucky pairing, you might end up with the pro having to give 6 stones or more.

Well, one would have to do a complete listing of pros to make my point hold generally, but take Feng Yun as one example. She lives in New Jersey, and thus has her pick of the New Jersey, Hoboken and Maryland Open within close distance.

The last Maryland Open featured: Jie Lie, Eric Lui, Yuan Zhou, Daniel Chou, Gus Price and Ricky Zhao. The past two editions of the New Jersey tournaments have featured Andy Liu and Zhaonian Chen, among others. If she shouldn't play those players, she shouldn't play in the US period, and ipso facto should not represent the US.* She'd be more likely to play a mismatched game at the NAMT under the old system.

That's even excluding the point that the NAIMT and US Open are potential sources of games.

*To be crystal clear, I have not heard Feng Yun say that these tournaments lacked competition, nor am I aware of anyone who has said these players would be unworthy opponents. I'm just pointing out a consequence of the opposing position.

pwaldron wrote:
The two aren't comparable. I would think it was perfectly fair if rebuilding the ratings involved a timescale on the order of ten tournament games (about 20 hours). In reality it took an order of magnitude more work--closer to two hundred hours.

Well, for one, ten tournament games is not merely the sum of the time controls of those games. It's either 2 2-day tournaments, or 3-4 1-day tournaments (assuming people play some as half of a two-day). Include transit and somewhere on the order of about 40 hours. Still, much less than you put into your work, but sizable. 2-day tournaments also often require you to stay in the city. They're also non-negotiable hours. Whereas the 200 you put in could be built on your schedule.

But I think my point has very little to do with the magnitude of time spent.

How would you feel if you were forced to take on volunteering duties in the AGA based on your unique qualifications? If you had had a right to play in a tournament for a long time, and then that right was held subject to what you would do for the AGA, I suspect you'd feel frustrated.

Again, I don't feel that this structure offered incentives to players in good standing. It took away traditional privileges from players who were considered (from the number of games they played) to be in bad standing (Though they may have offered other services to the AGA, which is at the heart of Daniel's suggestion).

What's so terrible about what I suggested earlier? Change the tournament entry-fee structure to encourage good standing. Don't exclude players or force them to come to tournaments that they don't want to/can't go to.

Furthermore:
Many people go to 1-2 tournaments a year. From what I've heard, Oregon, for example, holds 2 tournaments a year. Some places in the midwest hold fewer than that, if at all. If I miss one of those 2 tournaments, owing to my job, my girlfriend, etc... I cannot play in a qualifier. There need to be other ways to get good standing. (Daniel's suggestion is good for this)

And even then, excluding people based on standing is not exactly pragmatic. Qualifiers are the hardest tournaments, it makes sense that they'd attract more players than the smaller tournaments during the rest of the year. Why is this so offensive? Why not take advantage of the larger # of players to do outreach, sell memberships, and sell merchandise? Qualifiers are an excellent marketing tool, and a great way to bring money and interest to the AGA and its partner organizations.

shapenaji wrote:
How would you feel if you were forced to take on volunteering duties in the AGA based on your unique qualifications?

Do you mean someone forced anyone to represent the American? Well, if someone forced him to take on volunteering duties, he can just say he doesn't want to be volunteer anymore. Same here in this case, If they feel forced, which is actually not, they could just say 'Don't care to represent American'. Apparently the one who represented did not feel being forced.