Life In 19x19

Martin1974 wrote:Hi Darkpolarbear!

Even the great (and late ) Milton Bradley didn't manage to interest the members of the ever sooo smart Mensa Club for go:

http://users.eniinternet.com/bradleym/MBGoHist.html

(scroll down to the Mensa section on that page)

Maybe that's a bit of solace.

But it's perfectly normal that most people will never be interested in go... there is thousand of possible hobbies, and most people are interested only in a couple of them.

Are you interested in historical reconstitutions? In the death metal scene? In model building? In improvisationnal theater? In homemade cosmetics? If not, why should people be more interested in go than in these other hobbies?

It's good to makes other people aware of the existence of go, and the possible pleasure they could get if they were interested in it, but it's wrong to expect them to be interested in it. Some may, but most won't and that's perfectly normal

Martin1974 wrote:http://users.eniinternet.com/bradleym/MBGoHist.html

Thanks for the Milton Bradley info!

Tryss wrote:

Martin1974 wrote:Hi Darkpolarbear!

Even the great (and late ) Milton Bradley didn't manage to interest the members of the ever sooo smart Mensa Club for go:

http://users.eniinternet.com/bradleym/MBGoHist.html

(scroll down to the Mensa section on that page)

Maybe that's a bit of solace.

But it's perfectly normal that most people will never be interested in go... there is thousand of possible hobbies, and most people are interested only in a couple of them.

Are you interested in historical reconstitutions? In the death metal scene? In model building? In improvisationnal theater? In homemade cosmetics? If not, why should people be more interested in go than in these other hobbies?

It's good to makes other people aware of the existence of go, and the possible pleasure they could get if they were interested in it, but it's wrong to expect them to be interested in it. Some may, but most won't and that's perfectly normal

Hi Tryss. I do think it's pretty normal that a player who loves GO so much like me expects it becomes more and more popular among the people.

There are a lot of strategic games over the world, but GO is very unique. It has very simple rules; it results very complex variations. It requires calculation; it needs intuition. It presents discord; it emphasizes harmony. It concerns logic; it relates philosophy such as Yin and Yang theory. Maybe I can't say it is the king of all the game. But I do dare say nothing can compare with it. Then why can't I expect other people to know its beauty and love it?

EdLee wrote:

Martin1974 wrote:http://users.eniinternet.com/bradleym/MBGoHist.html

Thanks for the Milton Bradley info!

Who is this Milton Bradley???

darkpolarbear wrote:

EdLee wrote:

Martin1974 wrote:http://users.eniinternet.com/bradleym/MBGoHist.html

Thanks for the Milton Bradley info!

Who is this Milton Bradley???

This is him -

http://users.eniinternet.com/bradleym/

leichtloeslich wrote:

Bantari wrote:intellectual
go
books
opera
art museum

Seriously? I find your post a bit pretentious.

Not that it matters, but in my opinion go is about as "intellectual" as boxing.
Or a lot of computer games for that matter (starcraft and quake series come to mind).

Talking about "plot" and "graphics" of computer games imho betrays how little you know about them. Neither plot nor graphics really matter for competitively played games, though they matter in terms of generating a decent player base in the first place, I guess. Either way, looking down on another gaming community doesn't present you in the best light, again imho.

And I'm not going to go on a rant about what you said about television, I'll just leave it at that: if you're going to label yourself an "intellectual", at least demonstrate that you have the ability to distinguish between medium and content.

All fair comments, and I certainly respect your opinion. Let me just make a few remarks here:

1. I am not labeling myself as 'intellectual'. Nowhere within the post you refer to have I done so, or even talk about myself much.

2. Computer games *are* putting a lot of effort into graphics and special effect. I know, I did have some exposure to the development process. This might not what not makes them competitive in the sporting sense, but it is what attracts the masses and thus accounts for a big chunk of the revenue. Also - only a very small percentage of games are ever developed to be competitive in a sporting sense or become so. So this is not at all what I was talking about.

3. Yes, I do consider Go to be an intellectual pursuit, while boxing is not. Case in point: in the long run boxing damages your mental abilities, while Go actually improves them. In most cases, at least. Not sure about Starcraft/Quake and stuff, never played it at highest competitive levels. But most people do not play it like that, so again its not quite relevant to this topic, I think.

4. I am probably not sufficiently intelligent (not really intellectual, mind you) to understand what you mean about medium and content. Watching TV is an experience, and I was talking about that experience. I guess we have something else in mind. Watching shows on DVDs without the commercials is the pure content we should judge? Well, we can talk about that, but again - this is not really mainstream, imho.

Anyways, dude, sorry to have stepped on your toes like that. Really - did not wish to get you all rattled and irritated. Peace out, yes?

HermanHiddema wrote:Of course it makes commercial sense to make games accessible to everyone. But that does not mean you have to remove the option to think altogether. Anyone can play Starcraft, but not many can play it at a high level. Shooters often have team play, where the intellectual challenge is in the planning and execution of a well-coordinated group action.

True. There are games like that.
And I never said that the "option to think is removed altogether". What I am saying is that this option is... highly optional, and not really needed in vast majority of the cases. And in any case - games which are really played competitively like that are a great minority in terms of numbers (although possibly not in terms of players, maybe, no clue, wouldn't be surprised either way.) And even those games are played mostly non-competitively, for fun only, with the thinking option being at best a fringe consideration. Competitive gaming is sweet, but not really mainstream. Most people want to relax, have a beer, and maybe see some interactive explosions.

You can play go on auto-pilot, true, but this is not how most people play it. And this is not how it was *designed* to play. Unlike most video games.

And this is, probably, why video games will always be (and have always been, since the first pong arcade), not only more popular than Go but also a much bigger business. In the western world, at least.

Anyways - feel free to disagree. I certainly don't claim to have figured out the world and have the answer to everything. Just saying how it looks from my perspective, that's all.

hyperpape wrote:

Bantari wrote: So - how about getting this admission to Grumpy Old Men club? Have I earned it yet?

Yes, you do. And I'm afraid I don't think you know what you're talking about. There are a ton of bad reality TV shows out there, you're right about that.

But I'm talking about The Sopranos, Mad Men and so on. Even a show like Lost, which I thought turned out to be rather empty, had much more narrative complexity than the shows of the past, which were typically episodic. I don't know what TV was like where you grew up (I was amazed that the Decalogue was a television miniseries), but in the US, there's more good content out there, being watched by more people.

Very true. There are some good shows there. Lost, Fringe, I enjoyed them a lot. The Sopranos I found very weak, but it might be just my preference.

However - for each of this shows we have like 20 Kardashians, Desperate This Or That, Jackasses, and so on... And those shows have on average (and certainly cumulatively) a much bigger and wider audience than Lost or The Sopranos. This is why they cancel Fringes and give another show to Kardashians - this is what people watch, this is what generates ratings. And this is what sells commercials. And this is what its all about.

Here is something important I would like you all to know, you who argue with me on all that:

I never said that *all* of our TV is shallow, or that *all* of the video games are stupid. Or that *every* coworker is not interested in intellectual pursuits. There is no need to state that "there is a show that..." or "this game does..." or "I know a guy that..." - I know there are tons and tons of exceptions. Otherwise - this forum would have been empty. And besides - you *never* can find a viable social group where everybody and everything conforms to any kind of pattern. So what I am talking about is the mainstream, the trend.

Sure, there are good TV shows, and good video games, and people who play Go. Many of them might well be smarter or deeper than those in the past. They are just not in the majority, and they are getting less, not more, from what I see. That's all.

Bantari wrote:Here is something important I would like you all to know, you who argue with me on all that:

I never said that *all* of our TV is shallow, or that *all* of the video games are stupid. Or that *every* coworker is not interested in intellectual pursuits. There is no need to state that "there is a show that..." or "this game does..." or "I know a guy that..." - I know there are tons and tons of exceptions. Otherwise - this forum would have been empty. And besides - you *never* can find a viable social group where everybody and everything conforms to any kind of pattern. So what I am talking about is the mainstream, the trend.

Sure, there are good TV shows, and good video games, and people who play Go. Many of them might well be smarter or deeper than those in the past. They are just not in the majority, and they are getting less, not more, from what I see. That's all.

Yes, I understood that. I am just saying I'm of the opposite opinion. I get the impression that people are more interested in intellectual pursuits nowadays, not less.

HermanHiddema wrote:

Bantari wrote:Here is something important I would like you all to know, you who argue with me on all that:

I never said that *all* of our TV is shallow, or that *all* of the video games are stupid. Or that *every* coworker is not interested in intellectual pursuits. There is no need to state that "there is a show that..." or "this game does..." or "I know a guy that..." - I know there are tons and tons of exceptions. Otherwise - this forum would have been empty. And besides - you *never* can find a viable social group where everybody and everything conforms to any kind of pattern. So what I am talking about is the mainstream, the trend.

Sure, there are good TV shows, and good video games, and people who play Go. Many of them might well be smarter or deeper than those in the past. They are just not in the majority, and they are getting less, not more, from what I see. That's all.

Yes, I understood that. I am just saying I'm of the opposite opinion. I get the impression that people are more interested in intellectual pursuits nowadays, not less.

I guess you missed it, but the OP has said that he'd like us to stop this discussion and keep to the original topic, so please make a new thread if you want to continue.

Splatted wrote:I guess you missed it, but the OP has said that he'd like us to stop this discussion and keep to the original topic, so please make a new thread if you want to continue.

No one in his company wants to play go, and no one in his thread wants to discuss his problem,OP has a tough life!

But on a serious note, do you have a visible desk with extra space? Maybe you could set yourself up a "tsumego of the day" problem on a board. Then if some one walks by and asks about it, you can tell them it's go. If they seem interested in learning, then you can teach them the rules... this way you don't come off as pushing it on people, you let the ones who might be interested find you. There are a few people at my office who do this with chess boards ( some play semi-correspondence games this way).

Mef wrote:

Splatted wrote:I guess you missed it, but the OP has said that he'd like us to stop this discussion and keep to the original topic, so please make a new thread if you want to continue.

No one in his company wants to play go, and no one in his thread wants to discuss his problem,OP has a tough life!

But on a serious note, do you have a visible desk with extra space? Maybe you could set yourself up a "tsumego of the day" problem on a board. Then if some one walks by and asks about it, you can tell them it's go. If they seem interested in learning, then you can teach them the rules... this way you don't come off as pushing it on people, you let the ones who might be interested find you. There are a few people at my office who do this with chess boards ( some play semi-correspondence games this way).

I didn't do the problem of the day, but in grad school I had a board on my desk. Never got a game. And if you didn't read your philosophy in german or greek, you were a lightweight in that office!

Hi guys, I' m back to report my progress. I successfully attracted some attentions. And now I have several beginners, I'm organizing a 9 by 9 board tournament from next week in Starbucks downstairs to get more notice. I would upload some good photos if everything goes well!

darkpolarbear wrote:I would upload some good photos if everything goes well!

Congrats!