Life In 19x19

Li Kao wrote:@Kirk
I think you need to ignore the 2011 number. It probably just doesn't compensate for the fact that it only counts the first few months of 2011. If you multiply it by 12/3 you're around 1600, which seems normal. The 2009 drop isn't that big.

I'd guess the graph contains the number of distinct players who took part in a tournament. But while I found the graph on the aga db website, I found no explanation of how they define an active player.

I thought the 2011 number was based on dues-paying members or something. So, to be fair, they're irresponsible in publishing a number like that; or at least it has little or no value until the end of the year.

HermanHiddema wrote:
In fact, given that internet go was pretty much in its infancy in the 90s, I think it is safe to say that there is an additional rise in player numbers in the last decade, which is not recorded in this graph.

Yes, as many other threads here have pointed out, a lot of people are giving up on the official organizations and just playing on go servers.

On KGS, lately most of high dan(7 or higher) are on KGS for teaching not for playing. And most of high dan playing these days are fast game and by very few frequent users. This kind of activity cannot attract players. On Oro or Tygem, there are abundance of high quality game shown always.

Just my 2 cents.

"It'd be cool if there were a go resource that..."

allowed English speaking/reading players to learn the newest josekis instead of ones which are 5-10 years out of date.

kirkmc wrote:I thought the 2011 number was based on dues-paying members or something. So, to be fair, they're irresponsible in publishing a number like that; or at least it has little or no value until the end of the year.

Kirk, do you have any information about the source of that graph? All I know is that Herman posted it here--it could have been generated on the fly by a website, or presented somewhere with all necessary clarifications. If you don't, it's a bit much to be calling this irresponsible.

hyperpape wrote:

kirkmc wrote:I thought the 2011 number was based on dues-paying members or something. So, to be fair, they're irresponsible in publishing a number like that; or at least it has little or no value until the end of the year.

Kirk, do you have any information about the source of that graph? All I know is that Herman posted it here--it could have been generated on the fly by a website, or presented somewhere with all necessary clarifications. If you don't, it's a bit much to be calling this irresponsible.

It seems to come from the AGA web site, and it's probably generated on the fly from a database.

Yes, it's irresponsible to present a figure for a year that's incomplete. Basic principles of statistics, unless you're comparing, say, quarters...

Yes, this graph is auto-generated by the AGAGD, as well as the EGD (on which it is based).

It would be better if it did a sort of "running average", taking into account, for each day/week the previous 365 days or 52 weeks, to generate a smooth graph. The current format is perhaps not optimal, though I think that calling it "irresponsible" is an overstatement.

Anyway, for comparison, here's some graphs for the most active European countries (those with more than 1000 players total in the EGD).

As with the US graph, ignore the 2011 data point.

Germany


France


Russia


Romania


United Kingdom


Poland


Netherlands


Czechia

oso wrote:Hehe, they are actually just a dictionary of corner variations. I'm not strong enough to ensure optimum play for each move, but I am strong enough to have each variation result in being about equal for each side, so I say so in my opening remarks :p

With all due respect, any 9k capable of that level of accomplishment would not be 9k. I doubt even the 4 and 5d's here would say such a thing.

A cool to have resource for me would be a collection of pro game commentaries directed to audience of different strength.

There are more than enough pro game commentaries around but most of them are too abstract for SDK players.

Such a collection could for example result from training sessions where strong players try to comment pro games while answering kyu players questions.

entropi wrote:A cool to have resource for me would be a collection of pro game commentaries directed to audience of different strength.

There are more than enough pro game commentaries around but most of them are too abstract for SDK players.

Such a collection could for example result from training sessions where strong players try to comment pro games while answering kyu players questions.

I'm torn between liking this idea (since I could use it!) and feeling sorry for all the dumb questions I have to ask of someone who wonders why this isn't obvious.

Tsuyoku wrote:

entropi wrote:A cool to have resource for me would be a collection of pro game commentaries directed to audience of different strength.

There are more than enough pro game commentaries around but most of them are too abstract for SDK players.

Such a collection could for example result from training sessions where strong players try to comment pro games while answering kyu players questions.

I'm torn between liking this idea (since I could use it!) and feeling sorry for all the dumb questions I have to ask of someone who wonders why this isn't obvious.

I also have a solution for that. The commentaries (and added variations) within the sgf could have layers. A hypothetical sgf reader could first ask the user his level (e.g. high dan, low dan, sdk, ddk) and then display only those comments directed to the users strength.

I know it sounds like too much to ask for commenting many games, but the initial question of this thread was "what would be cool".

It's a good suggestion--some of Yuan Zhou's (highly praised) books are based on a similar idea. See http://senseis.xmp.net/?MasterPlayTheStyleOfLeeChangho.