Life In 19x19

seberle wrote:

Traditionally, rank differences were determined by handicap differences. In theory, one stone difference was equivalent to one rank difference. But handicap differences (at least for amateurs) gave an advantage to White, an advantage equivalent to komi (i.e., ½ stone). So a player two ranks stronger gave only a two stone handicap, with no komi, instead of giving three stones with Black giving komi or giving two stones with White giving komi.

Modern tournament ranks and online ranks are based upon even games, and do not necessarily tell us the proper handicap.

This is interesting. First of all, how were handicap differences handled "traditionally" (do you mean before komi?). If we don't change komi, then what is the difference between a one-stone handicap and simply letting black go first? Or was going first considered being one rank stronger traditionally?

Without komi, evenly matched players alternated between taking White and taking Black. Traditionally, an amateur player one rank weaker simply took Black, a player two ranks weaker took two stones, etc. This system favors the stronger player, given that one rank difference is roughly equivalent to one handicap stone difference. A player one rank weaker than his opponent should alternate between taking Black and taking two stones.

Long ago, pro ranks followed a similar system, with one rank difference roughly equivalent to a ½ handicap stone difference. So against a 9 dan pro an 8 dan took Black, a 7 dan alternated between Black and two stones, a 6 dan took two stones, etc. Over time, pro ranks got closer together, so they used a different handicapping system. These days, pros do not give handicaps to other pros, with perhaps rare exceptions.

Secondly, does either system work out precisely (without doing fine adjustments to komi)? I mean, if a two-stone handicap (any system) means a 7k can play an even game against a 5k and a 5k can play an even game against a 3k, does it necessarily mean that a four-stone handicap for the 7k will get an even game against the 3k? I suppose this question is even more important for the one-stone, two-stone question: if one stone means one rank, does two stones really mean two ranks? I know I saw a debate on Sensei's Library about this once, but I didn't understand it very well and I don't remember exactly where I saw it.

Go requires many different skills, so no ranking system will be precise. However, handicap stones are surprisingly additive. I once gave a 40 stone handicap and won by 10 pts. Surprisingly close.

At one go congress, I did a simul with a professional and the player next to me asked how many stones to place. His response was "9 stones if you want to win, 7 if you want to learn". It is arguably a feature, not a bug, that traditional handicap schemes favor the stronger player.

hyperpape wrote:At one go congress, I did a simul with a professional and the player next to me asked how many stones to place. His response was "9 stones if you want to win, 7 if you want to learn". It is arguably a feature, not a bug, that traditional handicap schemes favor the stronger player.

There's somewhat of a psychological factor as well. If you believe that the opponent is stronger, it's necessary to fight the urge to, e.g., play conservatively when the situation is unclear. It may not be true in the extreme, but to some effect, if you think your opponent can beat you at X-stones, (s)he has a decent chance of doing so.

John Fairbairn wrote: The use of komi (mainly in trying to determine what an even game means - and that's varied a lot in the last 100 years) is likewise mainly an Japanese amateur idea, from 1751. Pros tried it a few times from the early 19th century, starting at 5 points and gradually reducing over the decades until it even reached 2 points. It only started to rise after World War II.

I had no idea komi was such an old idea. Apparently Wikipedia doesn't know this either! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_Go#Komi)

Wikipedia wrote: Before the 20th century, there was no komi system.

I might be interesting to include a bit more historical information about komi in the Wikipedia article. Is there a reference for 18th and 19th century use of komi?

Furthermore, the Wikipedia article on the history of komidashi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komidashi#History) specifically says:

Wikipedia wrote: The compensation (komi) system was introduced into professional Go in Japan as a gradual process of innovation, beginning in the 1930s.

What reference could be used to add more correct details to these articles?

seberle wrote:Furthermore, the Wikipedia article on the history of komidashi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komidashi#History) specifically says:

Wikipedia wrote: The compensation (komi) system was introduced into professional Go in Japan as a gradual process of innovation, beginning in the 1930s.

What reference could be used to add more correct details to these articles?

The same article cites John Fairbairn as a source of komi history (but no specific citation). The only reference (at the bottom of the article) is the Sensei's Library page, which just says "there were some games played with compensation in the 19th century."

The same article cites John Fairbairn as a source of komi history (but no specific citation).

seberle: The original source was New In Go, a copy of which comes with the GoGoD database. I vastly expanded this into a longish chapter in The Go Companion, a book published by Slate & Shell. But S&S have ceased their own publication of paper books. I plan to re-issue an on-demand version, much updated, but that will have to wait until I finish my current mega-project.

Giving these references does not, of course, imply that I am happy to see my research migrate to Wikipedia or elsewhere

John Fairbairn wrote:

The same article cites John Fairbairn as a source of komi history (but no specific citation).

I vastly expanded this into a longish chapter in The Go Companion, a book published by Slate & Shell. But S&S have ceased their own publication of paper books. I plan to re-issue an on-demand version, much updated, but that will have to wait until I finish my current mega-project.

John Fairbairn: I'd been wanting to buy The Go Companion for a long time. I hope your "mega-project" is finished soon!