Life In 19x19

hyperpape wrote:It's worth emphasizing one point--the invitations to international tournaments really are a courtesy, and designed to bring in players from Europe and the US, and therefore as a part of promoting go here. If the goal were to get the best players period, there would be no reason to provide these slots. ...

I would like to see the strongest players from particular regions be chosen to represent their respective areas. I think that this, in itself, will promote go.

xed_over wrote:...

So for rural high dan players, they're probably already traveling to the Go Congresses and other major events around the country and can easily meet the 10 game minimum.

...

Are you trying to say that all high dan players in America are continuous AGA members, actively go to go congresses and other major AGA events?

Kirby wrote:

xed_over wrote:...

So for rural high dan players, they're probably already traveling to the Go Congresses and other major events around the country and can easily meet the 10 game minimum.

...

Are you trying to say that all high dan players in America are continuous AGA members, actively go to go congresses and other major AGA events?

no.

I'm saying for all high dan players that live in rural areas who want to participate in AGA sponsored invitational events, they will likely not find it too difficult to meet these minimum requirements.

xed_over wrote:...
no.

I'm saying for all high dan players that live in rural areas who want to participate in AGA sponsored invitational events, they will not find it too difficult to meet these minimum requirements.

Really? You just made a comparison between "rural kyu players" and "rural dan players".

This part suggests that rural kyu players may have a hard time with qualifications, but it doesn't matter because they aren't strong enough to win:

xed_over wrote:It doesn't matter if rural kyu players won't meet the qualifications, because even if they did, they still wouldn't be able to win the qualifiers to participate in the invitationals

In this part, you contrast the situation for high dan players, who have a chance at participating. You say that, "they're probably already traveling to the go congresses...":

xed_over wrote:So for rural high dan players, they're probably already traveling to the Go Congresses and other major events around the country and can easily meet the 10 game minimum.

The rationale that you use to justify this rule for high dan players is "they're probably already traveling to the Go Congresses and other major events around the country". Is this different than what I asked?

How do you conclude that "rural kyu players" may have a hard time (but it's OK since they won't win anyway), whereas "rural dan players" clearly WON'T have a hard time?

Kirby wrote:The reason that countries don't invite individuals but organizations is probably because it is not feasible to give everybody a chance. It's not because the AGA itself has some sort of significance.

I would be more interested in sending a representative from America that performed the best out of some qualifying tournament than somebody that has paid $40 plus some AGA tournament fees.

I think that you've forgotten that most, if not all, of the international representatives have to play through some sort of qualifying tournament.

Kirby wrote:How do you conclude that "rural kyu players" may have a hard time (but it's OK since they won't win anyway), whereas "rural dan players" clearly WON'T have a hard time?

I think what he's trying to say is that they'll have a hard time utilizing these rules is that there are approximately zero tournaments for kyu players to participate in which require the representation policy guidelines. The only low dan tournament I can think of would be one of the youth tournaments.

vash3g wrote:

Kirby wrote:The reason that countries don't invite individuals but organizations is probably because it is not feasible to give everybody a chance. It's not because the AGA itself has some sort of significance.

I would be more interested in sending a representative from America that performed the best out of some qualifying tournament than somebody that has paid $40 plus some AGA tournament fees.

I think that you've forgotten that most, if not all, of the international representatives have to play through some sort of qualifying tournament.

I don't think I forgot that part. I am saying that I want EVERYBODY to be able to participate in the qualifying tournament.

vash3g wrote:

Kirby wrote:How do you conclude that "rural kyu players" may have a hard time (but it's OK since they won't win anyway), whereas "rural dan players" clearly WON'T have a hard time?

I think what he's trying to say is that they'll have a hard time utilizing these rules is that there are approximately zero tournaments for kyu players to participate in which require the representation policy guidelines. The only low dan tournament I can think of would be one of the youth tournaments.

There are two possibilities:
1.) It is difficult for rural players (kyu or dan) to meet the requirements.
2.) It is NOT difficult for rural players (kyu or dan) to meet the requirements.

I get the point that it may not matter for kyu players. But xed_over said this:

xed_over wrote:So for rural high dan players, they're probably already traveling to the Go Congresses and other major events around the country and can easily meet the 10 game minimum.

The part in bold, above, uses the rationale that "they're probably already traveling to the Go Congresses and other major events around the country" to justify that they can "easily meet the 10 game minimum".

Kirby wrote:

vash3g wrote:

Kirby wrote:How do you conclude that "rural kyu players" may have a hard time (but it's OK since they won't win anyway), whereas "rural dan players" clearly WON'T have a hard time?

I think what he's trying to say is that they'll have a hard time utilizing these rules is that there are approximately zero tournaments for kyu players to participate in which require the representation policy guidelines. The only low dan tournament I can think of would be one of the youth tournaments.

There are two possibilities:
1.) It is difficult for rural players (kyu or dan) to meet the requirements.
2.) It is NOT difficult for rural players (kyu or dan) to meet the requirements.

I get the point that it may not matter for kyu players. But xed_over said this:

xed_over wrote:So for rural high dan players, they're probably already traveling to the Go Congresses and other major events around the country and can easily meet the 10 game minimum.

The part in bold, above, uses the rationale that "they're probably already traveling to the Go Congresses and other major events around the country" to justify that they can "easily meet the 10 game minimum".

Something worth noting is that if one attends the Congress and neither plays self-paired games nor participates in the Midnight Madness or any other "extra" tournaments, just playing in the U.S. Open and the Ing Masters would provide enough rated games to be considered as an international representative.

Kirby wrote:There are two possibilities:
1.) It is difficult for rural players (kyu or dan) to meet the requirements.
2.) It is NOT difficult for rural players (kyu or dan) to meet the requirements.

I think what xed_over was saying was that high-dan players more easily take pains to participate in tournaments that are farther away than kyu players do. At least here in Europe this applies to most high-dan players - they even go to tournaments in neighbouring countries and don't miss the go congresses. However not all really strong players do that. Some of them are seen very rarely at tournaments, e.g. if the prize money is high enough for their likings.

That's why I think it's more important to use displayed go ability as a factor in selecting representatives than AGA loyalty. The AGA is just an organization.

"Just". Another kick in the teeth for AGA volunteers.

The cult of the strong player is also dangerously close to the cult of the celeb. One logical extension is that the pro celeb doesn't even have to join the AGA to represent America. In any case, they are not really representing America - they are clearly meant to represent the organisation.

For that, just being strong is never enough. It's arguable that a pro whose main go activity is taking money off AGA members is trying mainly to help the AGA as opposed to their own bank balance.

As I've said before, historically in the Far East pro organisations have come about because pros themselves did all the hard work of finding sponsors, building up a fan base and organising events. Expecting amateur volunteers to do all this work for them seems to be a characteristic of a certain type of strong player in Europe, and now, I see, also in the USA.

I repeat. The FIRST priority for an amateur organisation is to build up respect for the volunteers. Once you've got that - which does mean telling quite a few strong players they have a serious attitude problem - then you can refine the rules and add a little tolerance. Impatient pros can, of course, go off and do the nitty gritty work for themselves.

karaklis wrote:

Kirby wrote:There are two possibilities:
1.) It is difficult for rural players (kyu or dan) to meet the requirements.
2.) It is NOT difficult for rural players (kyu or dan) to meet the requirements.

I think what xed_over was saying was that high-dan players more easily take pains to participate in tournaments that are farther away than kyu players do. At least here in Europe this applies to most high-dan players - they even go to tournaments in neighbouring countries and don't miss the go congresses. However not all really strong players do that. Some of them are seen very rarely at tournaments, e.g. if the prize money is high enough for their likings.

is the USA a third world country now? I really can't see it being that hard to travel to a tournament twice a year. The qualification tournaments themselves would be part of the rated games requirement.

John Fairbairn wrote:

That's why I think it's more important to use displayed go ability as a factor in selecting representatives than AGA loyalty. The AGA is just an organization.

"Just". Another kick in the teeth for AGA volunteers.
...

Ok, I might be acting a little dramatic. But even bringing up AGA volunteers, I would have a bit more sympathy if I actually felt that I could *be* a volunteer. I have actually volunteered to help out with computer related tasks (AGA database and website) at least 3 or 4 times now, but it's never turned into something where I was actually given the go to help out.

There was even discussion on this forum (or maybe it was GD) where people were arguing that volunteers were not "good enough" until they had proven themselves to be.

The result of this is that I have come to feel like the AGA is kind of like a club - if you're friends with the people in charge, then you can be one of the volunteers, having your name in all of the E-journals, and so on, but if you're just a run-of-the mill go player that has asked to help out, you'll be hard set to get access into the club of AGA leaders...

So I am kind of turned off to this. I think it's great that go is being popularized in America. I think it's great that the AGA was made to do this. But since the AGA is the *only* such organization that I'm aware of, and since it seems so hard to even volunteer to help out, I can't help but wish that things like international tournaments could be accessed outside of the AGA.

So the feelings I've expressed here are probably overly strong. But it's because I haven't come to feel that I can even do something as simple as volunteer for the AGA - which seems to be led by some club of friends - because I'm seen to be not *good* enough as a volunteer. Aside from volunteering, it seems to just add salt to the wound when I hear that I cannot ever participate in an international tournament without paying loyalties to this seemingly closed circle of friends.

I guess, if I try to express my thoughts more concisely, I wish that I felt that the AGA were more of an open organization. I wish that they would allow anybody to help out and volunteer, even if they don't have a track history with the organization. I wish that, as an AGA member, I felt that I was contributing to AGA actions or decisions.

But I don't really feel that way right now. I feel like there are a handful of people that are in control. I feel like they are very selective in getting volunteers to help out. And people have expressed in the past that volunteers are not typically shown good recognition (though I haven't experienced this, yet, because I haven't even been able to *be* a volunteer, yet, despite having asked several times).

Well you might not like the AGA, but unless you're a member of it I don't think you deserve to represent them.

I had another thought about these two rules. It seems to me they are both trying to do the same thing, make people participate in the AGA. Therefore, isn't there a better way to go about this? Instead of using one tournament for qualifying, use a points table to take scores during various events over the years?

Javaness wrote:Well you might not like the AGA, but unless you're a member of it I don't think you deserve to represent them.

...

Well, what I was arguing for doesn't exactly apply to me. I am a member, I have had continuous membership for awhile, and probably play more than 10 rated games a year, so I am not really affected by the rule.

But I feel sympathy for those that have had lapses in membership, for example, because the AGA is the only way to get to these international tournaments. Since I feel that power is centralized, I find it unfortunate that this is the case.

In an ideal world, any individual could participate in an international tournament after passing some qualification tournament - not representing the AGA, but maybe representing their country.