Life In 19x19

HermanHiddema wrote:

Magicwand wrote:for the good of go community such tournament (geographically restrictede torunaments) should be stopped.

Many people enjoy themed tournaments. Local players enjoy national championships, women enjoy female championships, children enjoy youth championships. Why on earth is it good for the go community to stop having events that people enjoy?

women, children is pretty good theme.
but i am against geographical theme that is used to restrict stronger player.

Magicwand wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:

Magicwand wrote:for the good of go community such tournament (geographically restrictede torunaments) should be stopped.

Many people enjoy themed tournaments. Local players enjoy national championships, women enjoy female championships, children enjoy youth championships. Why on earth is it good for the go community to stop having events that people enjoy?

women, children is pretty good theme.
but i am against geographical theme that is used to restrict stronger player.

There you go flip-flopping again... Earlier in this thread you said:

yes...it is wrong to have youth or women tournament in my opinion. but who am i to say..

Make up your mind.

Talk about a railroaded thread

Magicwand wrote:but i am against geographical theme that is used to restrict stronger player.

Why? It is an event that people enjoy, why should we stop them from having it?

HermanHiddema wrote:

Magicwand wrote:but i am against geographical theme that is used to restrict stronger player.

Why? It is an event that people enjoy, why should we stop them from having it?

Out of interest, would you feel the same way about a "White people only" tournament, provided of course that the "White" people eligible were enjoying it?

Honestly not trying to troll here, but to open up the sorts of issues closed tournaments could create.

topazg wrote:
Out of interest, would you feel the same way about a "White people only" tournament, provided of course that the "White" people eligible were enjoying it?

That's certainly a valid question. In our societies, we have developed criteria that we accept (women, youths, etc.), and others that we don't (skin color, religion). These accepted categories change over time.

I'm sometimes irked that, being 50, I don't get the discounts here in France for those under 25, nor those for the over-60s. But that's just the way it is.

topazg wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:

Magicwand wrote:but i am against geographical theme that is used to restrict stronger player.

Why? It is an event that people enjoy, why should we stop them from having it?

Out of interest, would you feel the same way about a "White people only" tournament, provided of course that the "White" people eligible were enjoying it?

Honestly not trying to troll here, but to open up the sorts of issues closed tournaments could create.

Although I think "white people only" would be a rather stupid restriction, I don't see why not. As long as such restrictions are not institutionalized at an official level.

It's like freedom of speech, Voltaire's philosophy: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

HermanHiddema wrote:Although I think "white people only" would be a rather stupid restriction, I don't see why not. As long as such restrictions are not institutionalized at an official level.

Why is it any more stupid than for women? Is separation by gender really more or less stupid than separation by ethnic background? I think Athletics makes a good case for ethnic background effecting performance - there have been very few Caucasian champion 100m sprinters, and I don't believe that is only environmental background - this could equally be the case in either direction for mind sports.

One person's stupid is another person's common sense

HermanHiddema wrote:It's like freedom of speech, Voltaire's philosophy: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I personally agree whole-heartedly. I've had some fun debates along these lines, but generally freedom of speech is frowned on in Western society when people "express their opinions" on the inadequacy of other racial backgrounds.

Why do I bother saying this? Inconsistencies aside, I think magicwand could have a valid point in feeling that all artificial "closed" restrictions are in some way unhelpfully discriminatory and should be removed - I may not agree, but I can see an argument there that has some logical validity to it.

Okay, have we sorted out now that we are allowed to make a european championship? We could go back to the original topic then.

HermanHiddema wrote:

Magicwand wrote:but i am against geographical theme that is used to restrict stronger player.

Why? It is an event that people enjoy, why should we stop them from having it?

my whole point is to better use same prize money in a tournament that actually help go community.
make everything open. then the tournament will gain more respect because stronger players will win.

world championship inspire more people than small tournament restricted in one country.
"we will give weak European players a chance to win by limiting others who are strong" <---this is wrong!!!

topazg wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:Although I think "white people only" would be a rather stupid restriction, I don't see why not. As long as such restrictions are not institutionalized at an official level.

Why is it any more stupid than for women? Is separation by gender really more or less stupid than separation by ethnic background? I think Athletics makes a good case for ethnic background effecting performance - there have been very few Caucasian champion 100m sprinters, and I don't believe that is only environmental background - this could equally be the case in either direction for mind sports.

To be fair, separating women in sports, is because they have smaller bodies (in general) and lower physical strength. So there is a logic, and one that is not contested by women. As for sprinters, just last week, a 23-year old Frenchman was the first white person who went under 10 seconds in the 100m. So, yes, there clearly is something there.

topazg wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:Although I think "white people only" would be a rather stupid restriction, I don't see why not. As long as such restrictions are not institutionalized at an official level.

Why is it any more stupid than for women? Is separation by gender really more or less stupid than separation by ethnic background? I think Athletics makes a good case for ethnic background effecting performance - there have been very few Caucasian champion 100m sprinters, and I don't believe that is only environmental background - this could equally be the case in either direction for mind sports.

One person's stupid is another person's common sense

I think separation based on gender is also a stupid reason. But I think women only tournaments are an example of what they call "positive discrimination". There has been a long history of systematic discrimination against women in many societies and activities. The benefit of "women only" is, IMO, that it allows women who play go to connect and share experiences. From what I've heard from women participating in such events, it is the main reason they enjoy it. It is rare for them to meet many women at regular tournaments, and it is fun to gather them all at one place, to share experiences, and to strengthen the idea "See, I'm not weird for being a woman who plays go, there's plenty of other women who enjoy it". If and when the playing population is pretty much 50-50 men/women, I don't see any reason to continue holding such events.

HermanHiddema wrote:It's like freedom of speech, Voltaire's philosophy: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I personally agree whole-heartedly. I've had some fun debates along these lines, but generally freedom of speech is frowned on in Western society when people "express their opinions" on the inadequacy of other racial backgrounds.

Why do I bother saying this? Inconsistencies aside, I think magicwand could have a valid point in feeling that all artificial "closed" restrictions are in some way unhelpfully discriminatory and should be removed - I may not agree, but I can see an argument there that has some logical validity to it.

I think that institutionalized restrictions are harmful. If there was a general restriction against Asian players participating in European tournaments, that would be harmful. As such, I am no fan of the current prize money rules for the Pandanet tour.

But I don't think that single event restrictions are harmful. If someone wants to hold a "People born on a monday" tournament, go right ahead!

In fact, I think that an institutionalized "you may never restrict access to your event in any way" rule is also harmful.

It seems some people feel that too many non-europeans are attracted by the money so that too little is left for the european moneyseekers. I think the problem starts where the money comes in. The money should be optimally used to promote eurepean go in my opinion. Practical problems aside what about the idea to divide the money in another way. For example to give money to strong participators who gained points in previous tournaments in EGF-countries. Or give part of the price money as vouchers to be spent in later go-related-activities in any EGF-country.

Magicwand wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:

Magicwand wrote:but i am against geographical theme that is used to restrict stronger player.

Why? It is an event that people enjoy, why should we stop them from having it?

my whole point is to better use same prize money in a tournament that actually help go community.
make everything open. then the tournament will gain more respect because stronger players will win.

world championship inspire more people than small tournament restricted in one country.
"we will give weak European players a chance to win by limiting others who are strong" <---this is wrong!!!

I don't think limiting prize money to strong players is constructive. 90% of players will never be strong enough to win a tournament. It is good to have prize money for weaker players also, it motivates them to win their division, or do their best to score a significant result.

Recognition for good play is important also if you're not the strongest player in the world. I organize tournaments regularly, and we always have prizes for people with at least a 4/5 score. And it doesn't matter who these people are, whether they're a 10k that's been stuck there for years or a 1k that's improving rapidly, they are always happy and proud to be called to the front and receive their prize and applause.

HermanHiddema wrote:I don't think limiting prize money to strong players is constructive. 90% of players will never be strong enough to win a tournament. It is good to have prize money for weaker players also, it motivates them to win their division, or do their best to score a significant result.

Recognition for good play is important also if you're not the strongest player in the world. I organize tournaments regularly, and we always have prizes for people with at least a 4/5 score. And it doesn't matter who these people are, whether they're a 10k that's been stuck there for years or a 1k that's improving rapidly, they are always happy and proud to be called to the front and receive their prize and applause.

if that is what you are after..do not use geograhpical restriction to accomplish that.
just make a 2-3 dan, 4-5 dan, 5-6 dan, and open rank. i am only 4d in kgs but every big tournament i enter in A league. i lost all but 1 game and i am happy to play and learn.

if you are weak german 5dan then dont even try to win because you are probably 3 stone weaker than the strong players. just be happy that you had few games against the top ranked playes.

if you want your tournament to be successful you need some strong and famous player to participate. if you restrict them you are only hurting yourself and go community's growth.