Life In 19x19

hyperpape wrote:What I mean is, I don't want to judge the appropriateness of this list without knowing what Ed thought he was saying.

If I had to guess, I would say that the point was to make a big list of people that (mostly) didn't achieve their goals. Then hope for a discussion which leads to questioning, "Why didn't these people meet their goals?" Then after enough time has passed, step in and say, "Because they didn't have a pro teacher! If you want to achieve your goals, get a pro teacher!"

Of course, I'm not Ed, so this is just speculation. But I still find it inappropriate to make such a list in the first place, so I feel a little less hesitant about sharing my speculations without restraint... Well, who am I kidding? I always share my speculations without restraint

I hereby announce that my new goal is to get on the list.

Kirby wrote:

hyperpape wrote:What I mean is, I don't want to judge the appropriateness of this list without knowing what Ed thought he was saying.

If I had to guess, I would say that the point was to make a big list of people that (mostly) didn't achieve their goals. Then hope for a discussion which leads to questioning, "Why didn't these people meet their goals?" Then after enough time has passed, step in and say, "Because they didn't have a pro teacher! If you want to achieve your goals, get a pro teacher!"

Of course, I'm not Ed, so this is just speculation. But I still find it inappropriate to make such a list in the first place, so I feel a little less hesitant about sharing my speculations without restraint... Well, who am I kidding? I always share my speculations without restraint

If indeed it was Ed's idea to show a list of people who didn't meet their goals, then I'm still on track and not sure why I'm on the list:

otenki. Dec 19, 2012. From KGS 9k to 2k in 1 year (Dec 19, 2013).

I'm now 5 kyu and still have half a year to go. A few of the upcomming months i will spend only studying go in china so I think I have a chance of getting where I set out to be

Fun thread, I'm really curious what Ed intended!

I personly think he did not intend anything, he is just waiting for funny responses... It's like a probe

Cheers,
Otenki

otenki wrote:If indeed it was Ed's idea to show a list of people who didn't meet their goals, then I'm still on track and not sure why I'm on the list:

If I don't misread, OtakuViking is also on track.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:I hereby announce that my new goal is to get on the list.

Yes, I thought about this too. I even have an idea that would be... well, living up to my username.

If only I weren't so darned lazy...

I have a (perhaps tangential) question:

Around what rank is the distribution of go players normally distributed? Also, how many ranks is the standard deviation?

cyndane wrote:I have a (perhaps tangential) question:

Around what rank is the distribution of go players normally distributed? Also, how many ranks is the standard deviation?

I've heard 3-4 kyu as being the center of the distribution. The trouble is that for any way to get a number of ranked people, there are many people who are just casual players and have no rank. I suspect that they tend to be weaker rather than stronger, but really, who knows?

For KGS, there is this:
http://senseis.xmp.net/?KGSRankHistogram

On the EGD (EGF rankings database), the overall average numbers are:

Declared Rank:

Total: 11k
Active: 7k

GoR Rank:
Active: 8k

Total includes everyone who has ever played in a tournament in Europe who is from a European country. It's not hugely useful as a number because it includes all the people who played in two tournaments, got to 15k and then quit the tournament scene. Active players are players who meet certain activity criteria, e.g. less than 2 years since last tournament for dan players, 12 months for sdk players, 6 months for ddk players.


Make of that what you will.

cyndane wrote:I have a (perhaps tangential) question:

Around what rank is the distribution of go players normally distributed? Also, how many ranks is the standard deviation?

Who says it's normally distributed? Why would it be?

deja wrote:

hyperpape wrote:I want to hear what Ed thinks.

Perhaps, but the topic itself (ambiguity and all) has generated a lively discussion. I sort of want to see where it goes without Ed clearing things up for us.

I think where this thread goes is pretty obvious because it seems to already have gone there. Regardless of Ed's intention, which at this moment I cannot imagine.

It polarizes people into two categories:
1. Those who think setting unrealistic goals and then failing is ok, we should give support or at least shut up, and
2. Those who think its ok to finger point and ridicule such goals and maybe even such people
Oh... and also those who do not care, this would be the third 'pole'.

Personally, I am somewhere between #1 and 'don't care', leaning towards #1. I think most of us at some point dreamed of becoming a pro... many of us still do... the only difference being we did not have the guts to actually state this so very publicly. Deep down we knew that such goal was unrealistic and even ridiculous, but it did not stop us, and maybe gave us motivation to improve our skill as we did. I also think that proper attitude towards such 'ridiculous' goals is to support such people so they themselves can get to the point of realization and then decide what to do next.

Pointing fingers and ridicule is just bad taste, as somebody else already said. What that causes, other than a short-term self-gratification on the part of the joker on account of somebody else, is that people will get more reluctant to post study journals and announce their goals. In short - the community will become less friendly and people will become more guarded, feeling public ridicule rather then expecting support.

Having said the above, I would also be very interested what were Ed's motives.

Bill Spight wrote:

cyndane wrote:I have a (perhaps tangential) question:

Around what rank is the distribution of go players normally distributed? Also, how many ranks is the standard deviation?

Who says it's normally distributed? Why would it be?

I assume he meant "normally" as in "typically" or "usually", not "gaussian".

emeraldemon wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

cyndane wrote:I have a (perhaps tangential) question:

Around what rank is the distribution of go players normally distributed? Also, how many ranks is the standard deviation?

Who says it's normally distributed? Why would it be?

I assume he meant "normally" as in "typically" or "usually", not "gaussian".

Doesn't that contradict the phrasing of the following sentence about the standard deviation?

I meant normally distributed. I suppose it was erroneous to assume the distribution should be normal, or even symmetric. I am not sure what to make of the KGS data though, as I havent thought about how their ranking algorithm will effect the shape of the curve.

skydyr wrote:

emeraldemon wrote:
I assume he meant "normally" as in "typically" or "usually", not "gaussian".

Doesn't that contradict the phrasing of the following sentence about the standard deviation?

Nope. Every probability distribution has a standard deviation. But my assumption was wrong anyway.

emeraldemon wrote:

skydyr wrote:

emeraldemon wrote:
I assume he meant "normally" as in "typically" or "usually", not "gaussian".

Doesn't that contradict the phrasing of the following sentence about the standard deviation?

Nope. Every probability distribution has a standard deviation. But my assumption was wrong anyway.

Its ok, my assumption was wrong too! But thanks for sticking up for me!