Popularity of Go

[Suji]

I thought about this topic a little more, and if I'm honest with myself, I didn't even like go when I first started playing it. I watched Hikaru no Go, became inspired, and forced myself to keep at it. That got the ball rolling, and I started to actually enjoy the game after that.

Considering the number of people I hear talk about Hikaru no Go when they are starting to play the game, I wonder if I'm not the only one like this…

This describes me exactly, I'm going to stick with Go because of Hikaru No Go.

[hyperpape]

I dunno, I'm fine with being perceived as the intellectual and mystical elite.

Although, everyone knows that's really just the dan players...

It's really important to have a lot of weak but carefree players running around.

I think it's fine to have the perception that really serious players are some kind of weird species (how did everyone think of the chess club in high school?), but you can't make that the basis for entering the game.

If you're a bad chess player, it's not so hard to find opponents near your level. I doubt I'm more than 20 kyu in chess, but four out of five times I play an aquaintance, I have the advantage. For Go, it's not so easy. It can be a really dispiriting realization that you'll have to take 9 stones from every single player at the club, and that this won't change for another 3 months of steady play. Playing people who can beat you is fine--playing with the feeling that you're out of your league is unsettling.

If Go gets to the point where everyone knows casual players, picking up the game becomes easy.

[Magicwand]

it is also a reflection on korean history.
korea is a reletively peaceful nation that really didnt invade others.
but they were attacked by chinese and japanese many many times during their history.
we had to have strong fighting spirit in order to survive.
for that reason korean baduk style is more aggresive than other country.
also we try much harder and become proficient at it for the most part.

Personally i think it is in our blood to be #1 in everything.
but that is just my opinion.

[Marcus]

I apologize for this completely off-topic note.

I think it's fine to have the perception that really serious players are some kind of weird species (how did everyone think of the chess club in high school?)

Funny thing ... in High School I was a part of the Chess Club and the Chess Team. The Chess Club was stereotypical, with a bunch of geeky/nerdy guys sitting around playing Chess. The Team, however, (4 boards plus 1 alternate) was made up of some of the most popular guys in school (and me, bringing the popularity level down a tad). Our Yearbook photo includes some good-looking girls hanging out with us, which was typical of our team meetings.

God, I miss High School sometimes. Not for the drama (though it was fun looking back, now that I'm older and supposedly wiser), but for the awesomeness that was my High School. Maybe I only saw the best parts (and I'm surely biased), but it seemed like there was no school where things could have been better for me.

As for the actual topic:

If Go gets to the point where everyone knows casual players, picking up the game becomes easy.

This is the exact situation my posts in this thread are aimed at ... getting more people to play casually. Unfortunately, all my ideas are rough and need more thought. Still thinking about this, though, and maybe I'll share a few more ideas soon.

[henric]

IAs for the actual topic:

If Go gets to the point where everyone knows casual players, picking up the game becomes easy.

This is the exact situation my posts in this thread are aimed at ... getting more people to play casually. Unfortunately, all my ideas are rough and need more thought. Still thinking about this, though, and maybe I'll share a few more ideas soon.

I agree that the lack of proper base in (very) casual players or even the lack of people who vaguely know anything at all about go is a main obstacle. I believe the fraction of such people among the general public in western countries is somewhere in the range around 1/10000. Certainly < 1/1000. Would anyone propose a much different estimate? The number is so low that it is even difficult to measure.

For a long time still, if we can find ways to increase the base, other things (number of tournament active players, number of potential teachers, interest from potential sponsors and authorities, number of top players, resources for western pros etc.) will grow in proportion. To change anything qualitatively the base will have to grow by at least two orders of magnitude. Historically we have seen growth rates around 5% per year, except for the most Hikaru intense years, when up to 30% per year was seen in a few countries. Realistically I think it will take another 50 years or so to get there...
But who knows, someone might come up with some really bright idea!

cheers,
Henric

[hyperpape]

I am AGA Member 13896, iirc and I joined in 2005. That means the total number of AGA members in history (most of whom should be still alive) are about 1/20000-1/25000 of Americans.

To my mind, that suggests more than 1/10000 of Americans have some experience with the game. Of course you can pick different criteria: do we want to consider people who have played in the past year? Played 50 games in their life?

[henric]

I am AGA Member 13896, iirc and I joined in 2005. That means the total number of AGA members in history (most of whom should be still alive) are about 1/20000-1/25000 of Americans.

To my mind, that suggests more than 1/10000 of Americans have some experience with the game. Of course you can pick different criteria: do we want to consider people who have played in the past year? Played 50 games in their life?

Well, AGA was founded in 1935, so you are talking about the number of members in the first 70 years, depending on the membership evolution time trace the fraction of living AGA members might be up to a factor two or so lower than your number. The actual number of AGA members is <2500 I think, right? Anyway you are right, 1/10000 may be a bit too low for "some experience". Another interesting number I think is what fraction has heard of go at all or have at least a clue. I wish we knew such numbers and how they are developing.

Still, at least a factor 100 is needed to get go up to the level where it belongs and where as you suggested everybody knows someone who is a bit acquainted with go.

cheers,
H.

[gromit]

If you're a bad chess player, it's not so hard to find opponents near your level. I doubt I'm more than 20 kyu in chess, but four out of five times I play an aquaintance, I have the advantage. For Go, it's not so easy. It can be a really dispiriting realization that you'll have to take 9 stones from every single player at the club, and that this won't change for another 3 months of steady play. Playing people who can beat you is fine--playing with the feeling that you're out of your league is unsettling.

Very true. I'm about 10 kyu, and rarely go to my local Go club because there is rarely anyone weaker than 5 kyu, and, while I know that playing stronger players is the best way to improve, it isn't much fun being constantly outplayed (even if you manage to win the game because of the enormous handicap). At chess I'm probably around 5 kyu; but, in a chess club, a "5 kyu" is probably in the stronger 50% of the members, and there are plenty of "10 kyus".

[Bantari]

At the end, computer games will rule.

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!)

Other than the game of 'Mathematics', each game has 'arbitrary' rules.
And, if you are deeply religious, an argument might be made than math is arbitrary as well, just not of our choosing.

[Bantari]

If you mean boring to beginners, then I would agree. Actually I think Go is much more dynamic than Chess. It's just not as easy to see initially. Then again, maybe you are right. I started playing Go because the rules were the only ones in existence that met my "perfection" standards.

Oh boy...

Being interesting to beginners and seemingly 'dynamic' to them as well is what matters. Once you invest a few years into learning something in-depth - everything is interesting, dynamic, and highly exciting - even such dull games like golf or cricket, bridge, etc. The issue is to entice beginners to invest this time. And, as you yourself admit, Go can be rather boring to beginners and lack the dynamic of other games, like chess.

About Go rules being more 'perfect' than chess rules - what is your criteria?
Even though I prefer Go to chess, I have to admit (especially after reading some of Jasiek's posts) that there are serious reasons to believe that Go rules are seriously flawed, and no perfect at all.

[hyperpape]

Well, AGA was founded in 1935, so you are talking about the number of members in the first 70 years, depending on the membership evolution time trace the fraction of living AGA members might be up to a factor two or so lower than your number. The actual number of AGA members is <2500 I think, right?

I think I spoke too soon. It seems pretty clear that the AGA Member #s were started just a few decades ago--I found a player with a single digit id who is now probably in his 50s, while Takao Matsuda was four-hundred something. In any case, I'm pretty sure that AGA memberships are weighted towards the present.

While the AGA membership is around 2500, I suspect the membership of players who have played in the past decade is at least double that--whenever I search in the ratings, whether I'm looking at strong players or kyu players, a majority of the results are players whose memberships have expired.

[Bantari]

3. Lack of a World Champion. If Go had a World Champion, the game would be more popular since the World Champion could try to popularize the game in other countries, playing simuls, giving lectures, etc. Having a World Champion is not crucial or necessary, but it helps when there is someone who is considered "Best in the World" in a discipline.

I agree with the rest of your post, but not nure about this point.
I can name many disciplines which do have a world champion, as far as I know, and yet are not popular in the US. Cricket... curling... etc.
The issues seem to be not the lack of world champion, but a lack of 'American' world champion. This might be a chicken-and-egg question, though.

I think much more interesting is to observe what happened to other games which achieved booming popularity in the US (and in the West in general) and notice how that happened. Examples:

1) Chess.
Was always popular in the west, but the boom in the US happened each time a serious world title contender emerged. Fisher being the most prominent of them all.

2) Poker.
Was always known in the US, and played a lot, but did not really boom until somebody decided to pour some serious money into it, get all these TV shows going, start servers, and generally convince people they can get right overnight by knowing very little but getting lucky.

3) Figure Skating.
Not a big fan, but boom can be traced to when US skaters started beating the rest of the world. Seems to subside now. Might be wrong on this one, though...

And so on...

The common thread seems to be the following things:
Exposure, money/status, world-class players - in any combination!

This thread can be traced to all the oriental countries in Go as well:

Korea - started a Go boom with Cho Hun-hyun (after he came back from Japan) and then took of with Lee Chang-ho when he started beating everybody around. Cho had to put a lot of work and effort into building the whole system and training first disciples (Lee, etc). Now they some TV programs and stuff.

China - at one point a government decision was made to catch up in Go with the Japanese (for the same political and propaganda and reasons the Russians were determined to dominate world chess) and so resources were poured into Weiqi producing such players as Nie Weiping and Ma Xiaohun to start the boom.

Japan - historically, the boom started with the strong support of the shogunate in terms of money and prestige (castle games, the Godokoro post, etc)

Additionally, in each of the above countries there is a strong business interest which translates into sponsorship. This in turns translates into money for the players, which makes persuing of Go/Baduk/Weiqi to be a viable career choice, followed by many and respected by all.

Now, what would it take in the US, I wonder... I don't think another HnG would cut it, as sweet as that mini-boom was... the only way I see is to do what was done with Poker - toss big bucks at it until it screems and begs for mercy, and then toss in some more cash... and Go will boom!

[hyperpape]

I recall reading that televised poker was largely a result of an "aha!" moment. Someone devised the idea of the pocket cam, which made a televised broadcast much more interesting. Wikipedia confirms that the timeline is at least mostly right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hole_cam.

[nagano]

At the end, computer games will rule.

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!)

Other than the game of 'Mathematics', each game has 'arbitrary' rules.
And, if you are deeply religious, an argument might be made than math is arbitrary as well, just not of our choosing.

If you mean boring to beginners, then I would agree. Actually I think Go is much more dynamic than Chess. It's just not as easy to see initially. Then again, maybe you are right. I started playing Go because the rules were the only ones in existence that met my "perfection" standards.

Oh boy...

Being interesting to beginners and seemingly 'dynamic' to them as well is what matters. Once you invest a few years into learning something in-depth - everything is interesting, dynamic, and highly exciting - even such dull games like golf or cricket, bridge, etc. The issue is to entice beginners to invest this time. And, as you yourself admit, Go can be rather boring to beginners and lack the dynamic of other games, like chess.

About Go rules being more 'perfect' than chess rules - what is your criteria?
Even though I prefer Go to chess, I have to admit (especially after reading some of Jasiek's posts) that there are serious reasons to believe that Go rules are seriously flawed, and no perfect at all.

Well, I can't say it was ever really boring for me, but I saw something in it that most do not, and that motivated me at first. I'm not sure about the solution to this one. I think the real key to popularization is exposure, and it is certainly possible to work on that front. A lot can be done on the internet without too much money. As far as your rules questions go, see here.

[Suji]

3. Lack of a World Champion. If Go had a World Champion, the game would be more popular since the World Champion could try to popularize the game in other countries, playing simuls, giving lectures, etc. Having a World Champion is not crucial or necessary, but it helps when there is someone who is considered "Best in the World" in a discipline.

I agree with the rest of your post, but not nure about this point.
I can name many disciplines which do have a world champion, as far as I know, and yet are not popular in the US. Cricket... curling... etc.
The issues seem to be not the lack of world champion, but a lack of 'American' world champion. This might be a chicken-and-egg question, though.

You bring up a good point, though soccer is getting more and more popular in the USA despite not having the US Team winning the World Cup. Real Salt Lake is becoming relevant to people in Utah, even if they don't play soccer. So, the exposure is there.

Soccer does have the advantage of having a professional circuit in the USA, some things don't.

As for Go not having an American Champion, that's only America's fault. (I live in Utah.) We need a professional circuit before we can crown a champion.

I think much more interesting is to observe what happened to other games which achieved booming popularity in the US (and in the West in general) and notice how that happened. Examples:

1) Chess.
Was always popular in the west, but the boom in the US happened each time a serious world title contender emerged. Fisher being the most prominent of them all.

Keep in mind that Fischer was the ONLY World Chess Champion from America. I haven't read anything that states that there was a chess boom in 1907 when Frank Marshall played for the World Title. Other than that, though, the only other World Championship caliber player is Gata Kamsky, and I do not remember a boom in the late nineties when he played for the FIDE title in 1996. However, due to the fact that the Chess world championship title was split from 1993 to 2006, I didn't expect a mini-boom in the late nineties.

2) Poker.
Was always known in the US, and played a lot, but did not really boom until somebody decided to pour some serious money into it, get all these TV shows going, start servers, and generally convince people they can get right overnight by knowing very little but getting lucky.

3) Figure Skating.
Not a big fan, but boom can be traced to when US skaters started beating the rest of the world. Seems to subside now. Might be wrong on this one, though...

And so on...

The common thread seems to be the following things:
Exposure, money/status, world-class players - in any combination!

With a professional circuit, you get all three. Go is a very divided game. No World Champion, different rule sets, etc. Before a well established international professional circuit can exist, you need to solve these problems.

This thread can be traced to all the oriental countries in Go as well:

Korea - started a Go boom with Cho Hun-hyun (after he came back from Japan) and then took of with Lee Chang-ho when he started beating everybody around. Cho had to put a lot of work and effort into building the whole system and training first disciples (Lee, etc). Now they some TV programs and stuff.

China - at one point a government decision was made to catch up in Go with the Japanese (for the same political and propaganda and reasons the Russians were determined to dominate world chess) and so resources were poured into Weiqi producing such players as Nie Weiping and Ma Xiaohun to start the boom.

Japan - historically, the boom started with the strong support of the shogunate in terms of money and prestige (castle games, the Godokoro post, etc)

Additionally, in each of the above countries there is a strong business interest which translates into sponsorship. This in turns translates into money for the players, which makes persuing of Go/Baduk/Weiqi to be a viable career choice, followed by many and respected by all.

Now, what would it take in the US, I wonder... I don't think another HnG would cut it, as sweet as that mini-boom was... the only way I see is to do what was done with Poker - toss big bucks at it until it screems and begs for mercy, and then toss in some more cash... and Go will boom!

Or, Michael Redmond takes all the titles in Japan and Internationally all at once and retires to go out on top.