Life In 19x19

scotistic wrote:The fact that in the West Go is most popular with programmers and mathematicians (well, there's HnG fans, too) is related - we are the only people boring enough to tolerate such a dull game.


And some others: I'm a philosophy professor, and I've been interested in go for more than ten years now, since college. Perhaps if I were a mathematician, though, I'd be better by now!

I'm an english major, so I'm in the same boat

I'm with Monadology and Redundant.

Suggesting that 'westerners' lack some special go-enabling affectation of temperament that those 'orientals' get in spades with their mother's milk is a very bold, positive claim, that you probably shouldn't express just based on a gut feeling. Sorry if I'm a bit vehement, I see (not so often on this forum, I guess) a lot of unwarranted racism in many directions concerning various Chinese and western groups and it grinds my gears.

I'm also leery of claims like x game is objectively better than y game. Of course it comes down to your definition of better (or dare I say, your definition of objective).

scotistic wrote:The fact that in the West Go is most popular with programmers and mathematicians (well, there's HnG fans, too) is related - we are the only people boring enough to tolerate such a dull game.


And some others: I'm a philosophy professor, and I've been interested in go for more than ten years now, since college. Perhaps if I were a mathematician, though, I'd be better by now!

Philosophers are apparently a member of the programmer / mathematician subset in North American society.

For reference, I would like to add that there is a weiqi channel available in major Chinese cities available on what most people would consider to be basic cable.

Also, in Beijing and Shanghai (the two cities where I have lived) children typically learn to play go in kindergarten. Surprisingly, if not go, they might learn to play international chess.

Kirby wrote:7.) There is a historical basis for go. Historically, Korea has a background of Confucianism. Perhaps among the most elite in society were "Seonbi" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seonbi). Seonbi did not typically work. Their lives were a quest for knowledge. As such, they are regarded with a lot of respect, I think, even today, looking back.

Seonbi played go, did calligraphy, and studied. People in Korea today, therefore, might have a positive image of this spirit - this pursuit of knowledge.

According to Peter Shotwell (in Go! More Than a Game, page 133), "Confucius called Go something that was only slightly better than 'doing nothing with a full stomach.'" Shotwell goes on to say that the (early Chinese) Confucians rejected Go for a variety of reasons, including it's addictive gambling qualities. This probably doesn't contradict your point, because the Seonbi are a Korean phenomena, but nonetheless I find this Confucian attitude amusing.

daal wrote:According to Peter Shotwell (in Go! More Than a Game, page 133), "Confucius called Go something that was only slightly better than 'doing nothing with a full stomach.'" Shotwell goes on to say that the (early Chinese) Confucians rejected Go for a variety of reasons, including it's addictive gambling qualities. This probably doesn't contradict your point, because the Seonbi are a Korean phenomena, but nonetheless I find this Confucian attitude amusing.

I always assumed that this was because Confucianism is basically peaceful, and Go is basically warfare

Loons wrote:I'm with Monadology and Redundant.

Suggesting that 'westerners' lack some special go-enabling affectation of temperament that those 'orientals' get in spades with their mother's milk is a very bold, positive claim, that you probably shouldn't express just based on a gut feeling. Sorry if I'm a bit vehement, I see (not so often on this forum, I guess) a lot of unwarranted racism in many directions concerning various Chinese and western groups and it grinds my gears.

Do you really have to drag racism into this? I think it's only natural to wonder about the factors that influence go skill, and given the predominance of Asians in the sport, postulating that their culture, upbringing and even their genetic disposition might have something to do with it, does not constitute a hate crime. If my "gut feeling" is that there is something about being Asian that makes go easier for those not mathematically inclined, you may think me a fool, but it's equally foolish to make such a thought taboo.

In my humble opinion, all the arguments starting like

"Go is more popular in CJK countries because they have

1. television shows
2. professional circuit
3. several go-centered magazines."

are bogus. Because it works the other way round. You can not afford to make a television program centered on Go, because nearly nobody would watch it. You can not make a professional circuit without a player population large enough to attract sponsorship or to afford it by own contributions. You can not have several go-centered magazines because they would be broken too soon (lack of readers, lack of income, lack of sponsors). That it really is causality will unfortunately be seen soon with the experiment of the EuroGoProLeague.

The mathematician/programmer bias in the go player population however may just be reinforcing itself one way or another, at least there is nothing especially mathematic about the game itself. We even call the most basic skill reading and not calculating.

If Michael Redmond ever becomes the top go player in the world, and a brand like Nike starts sponsoring his go-playing sportswear, maybe go will become a more mainstream activity in the West.

nagano wrote:They may be most popular, but they are all fatally flawed at the moment because they have arbitrary rules, and it may not be possible to fix that. (But go ahead and try!)

Go has arbitrary rules too (e.g. the rule which disallows suicide).

Suji wrote:

nagano wrote:By inferior I mean they all have severe rules flaws and do not quite match up to the quality of Go.

I'm interested in what flaws they have. Go has several rule sets. Chinese, Japanese, New Zealand, AGA, and so forth. In Chess, ALL countries agree on the rules. Wouldn't disagreeing on the rule sets reduce the quality?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to know.

The answer to this question really is a part of the story of how I started playing go, which is unusual and potentially controversial enough that it could derail this topic. I will start another thread on that, and edit this post with a link to it once I have done so. Edit: and here it is! Warning! It is long, and scary, but also beautiful.

Though reading ability tends to transfer.

Reading ability transfers much more easily between Chess games than between Chess and Go, because the judgement used to evaluate a position, and the intuition required to filter out bad moves, are of a fundamentally different nature between the two games.

I think that patience is a key factor here. The Oriental people who play go tend to be more patient than the Americans who play chess. I'd still say that Oriental people who play chess are more patient than Americans who play Go. They tend to have a completely different mindset than we Westerners do. Hence more of them play Go, and more of us play chess.

I don't know if it's so much patience as it is a lack of a cultural stigma of all things intellectual. This is not so much of an issue in Europe, but I think it is a major one in the United States. Intellectual things are simply not "cool".

LokBuddha wrote:Also, the fact that Go is "marketed" as an intellectual profound game will keep people away. Who want to "lose" intellectually? While I think losing is what makes you learn, the question is more important than the answer, other people might not like it.

This stabs at the heart of, I believe, nagano's question. Go IS an intellectual game, and how do we attract people to the game despite this? Chess is the same way. It's the same question all over again.

Exactly. This is what I intended this thread to focus on.

Ben wrote:

nagano wrote:They may be most popular, but they are all fatally flawed at the moment because they have arbitrary rules, and it may not be possible to fix that. (But go ahead and try!)

Go has arbitrary rules too (e.g. the rule which disallows suicide).

I have argued quite forcefully elsewhere that disallowing suicide is irrational and not a rule of real Go. Real go has no arbitrary rules beyond the necessarily arbitrary basic concept of scoring. (Which is in fact, not entirely arbitrary.)

tchan001 wrote:If Michael Redmond ever becomes the top go player in the world, and a brand like Nike starts sponsoring his go-playing sportswear, maybe go will become a more mainstream activity in the West.

Go playing sportswear? Does this even exist? Or would he just show up to tournaments in a Nike windbreaker and cap

Suicide is arbitrary, 19x19 and the square grid topology are arbitrary, scoring is arbitrary (for example, Atari Go and Gonnect are two playable games with a completely different scoring), ko is arbitrary (it just happens to be pretty much necessary given the scoring we use), superko is arbitrary (and there's no consensus on whether it's needed), even taking dead chains off the board is arbitrary (if you don't take them off, you get Tochki, another possible game)

Go is hardly the unique perfect game of chains and liberties.

daal wrote:Do you really have to drag racism into this? I think it's only natural to wonder about the factors that influence go skill, and given the predominance of Asians in the sport, postulating that their culture, upbringing and even their genetic disposition might have something to do with it, does not constitute a hate crime. If my "gut feeling" is that there is something about being Asian that makes go easier for those not mathematically inclined, you may think me a fool, but it's equally foolish to make such a thought taboo.

I don't think that was his point. I think that his point was Westerners can play Go just as well Easterners, a claim that I'm not going to try and refute, because I think he's right.

Loons wrote:I'm with Monadology and Redundant.

Suggesting that 'westerners' lack some special go-enabling affectation of temperament that those 'orientals' get in spades with their mother's milk is a very bold, positive claim, that you probably shouldn't express just based on a gut feeling. Sorry if I'm a bit vehement, I see (not so often on this forum, I guess) a lot of unwarranted racism in many directions concerning various Chinese and western groups and it grinds my gears.

I understand. I'm not trying to be racist here. Our societies, Western and Eastern, are different. That does not make either better than the other just different, and I believe that I can learn a lot from Eastern culture. I'm not saying that Westerners lack anything essential for playing go at a very high level, and I'm not saying that the Chinese, Japanese, or Koreans have anything essential either. I believe that the lack of popularity of Go in the West has much to do with how many people play it at the very highest level.

Redundant wrote:One question. How many games have you played on wbaduk? Because playing on the korea one server might change your mind a bit.

I've played a few, and I'm 18K there. So, I think that I'm not going to play an accurate representation of aggressive or solid players since I've only played people around my level. I don't think I could tell the difference between aggressive or solid play when I'm in a game. Removed from the game, I might be able to tell.

nagano wrote:Reading ability transfers much more easily between Chess games than between Chess and Go, because the judgement used to evaluate a position, and the intuition required to filter out bad moves, are of a fundamentally different nature between the two games.

True. I'm finding that evaluating positions is a huge weakness of mine in evaluating Go positions. Of course, when you switch games from Chess to Go there's going to some sort of learning curve to learn the new games "rules" for evaluating a position. With practice this gets easier.

nagano wrote:I don't know if it's so much patience as it is a lack of a cultural stigma of all things intellectual. This is not so much of an issue in Europe, but I think it is a major one in the United States. Intellectual things are simply not "cool".

It's that too. It's also the fact that in American society has to be good at everything we try or we give it up. Go has a very steep learning curve, and most people don't have the time or patience to learn something hard.

nagano wrote:

Suji wrote:

nagano wrote:By inferior I mean they all have severe rules flaws and do not quite match up to the quality of Go.

I'm interested in what flaws they have. Go has several rule sets. Chinese, Japanese, New Zealand, AGA, and so forth. In Chess, ALL countries agree on the rules. Wouldn't disagreeing on the rule sets reduce the quality?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to know.

The answer to this question really is a part of the story of how I started playing go, which is unusual and potentially controversial enough that it could derail this topic. I will start another thread on that, and edit this post with a link to it once I have done so.

Okay. That works.

topazg wrote:

daal wrote:According to Peter Shotwell (in Go! More Than a Game, page 133), "Confucius called Go something that was only slightly better than 'doing nothing with a full stomach.'" Shotwell goes on to say that the (early Chinese) Confucians rejected Go for a variety of reasons, including it's addictive gambling qualities. This probably doesn't contradict your point, because the Seonbi are a Korean phenomena, but nonetheless I find this Confucian attitude amusing.

I always assumed that this was because Confucianism is basically peaceful, and Go is basically warfare

The Confucians initially opposed weiqi on a number of moral and other grounds. The most comprehensive and entertaining discussion that I've seen is by Paolo Zanon http://www.figg.org/areafile/opposiz.pdf .
Fortunately they changed their minds eventually

H.