Life In 19x19

HermanHiddema wrote:The Olympics use qualification criteria, which a participant has to meet.

The point is: Most countries were not even given a chance to qualify to the SportAccord World Mind Games.

So all in all, the event is very much like the Olympics in that respect.

No. For the Olympics, they have a chance to qualify.

This contributes to making them an international but not a world-wide event. So calling it SportAccord International Mind Games would be ok but SportAccord World Mind Games is not.

That is the most laughable assertion I have seen in a long time. :lol: :clap:

It is very sad that you consider it a joke.

EDIT: Oops, confused IMSA and GAISF,

oren wrote:http://www.sportaccord.com/en/multi-sports-games/index.php?idIndex=35&idContent=658

Hm, they write "all formats will be free from luck elements". Does this imply komi bidding? SCNR.

RobertJasiek wrote:Do you even consider what the purpose of SportsAccord, former IMSA is?

Former GAISF, not IMSA.

And this event is very much in accordance with the mission of SportAccord.

The SportsAccord statutes say:

"
Article 2. Objectives

2.1 The objectives of SportAccord are

1. to promote sport at all levels, as a means to contribute to the positive development of
society;

2. to assist its Members in strengthening their position as world leaders in their respective
sports;

3. to develop specific services for its Members, and provide them with assistance, training
and support;

4. to increase the level of recognition of SportAccord and its Members by the Olympic
Movement stakeholders as well as by other entities involved in sport;

5. to actively support the organisation of multi-disciplinary games by its Members;

6. to be a modern, flexible, transparent and accountable organisation;

7. to organise, at least once a year, a gathering of all of its Members, and of other
stakeholders of the sport movement, preferably on the occasion of its General Assembly;

8. to recognise unconditionally the autonomy of its Members and their authority within their
respective sports;

9. to promote closer links among its Members, and between its Members and any other
sport organisation;

10. to coordinate and protect the common interests of its Members;

11. to collaborate with organisations having as their objective the promotion of sport on a
world-wide basis;

12. to collect, collate and circulate information to and among its Members.


2.2 Other objectives may be defined by the General Assembly.




Article 3. Non-discrimination, representation of women

3.1 SportAccord and its Members reject all forms and means of discrimination against individuals,
groups of people, organisations or countries on grounds of ethnic origin, gender, language,
religion or politics.

3.2 SportAccord supports a fair representation of women in sporting activities and in the management
of sport.
"




******************************************************************

Article 2.1.1 affirms the event from SportsAccords's own perspective. Article 3.1 can cast doubts only with respect to grounds of politics, which would be SportsAccords's own politics in this case...

tapir wrote:

Hsiang wrote:This was denied on the technical difficulty of requiring one flag and one anthem for each team. If you have any clever ideas to get around that, I sure would like to know.

Really? They decide an issue like this on mere technicalities? Make a flag up, choose a song. (Side note: EU has a flag and an anthem, but neither Russia, Ukraine or Israel are members, but all those federations are EGF members and did compete. And the team could have ended w/ a majority of non-EU players just as well.)

That's a really interesting point. If the are coordinating through the IGF, it would seem that any IGF member country should be able to send a "team." The IGF doesn't have continent members, right?

snorri wrote:If the are coordinating through the IGF, it would seem that any IGF member country should be able to send a "team."

But there is a limit of 30 players, so this limits the number of teams to about 6. IOW, presuming a country-wise representation of players, any IGF member country should be able to QUALIFY for sending a team.

John Fairbairn wrote:...if it was really like that, what the Obama birth issue is all about, why California needed Chavez, and why some Americans worry about having a name that ends in a vowel).

Unfortunately, it all comes down to this explanation.

snorri wrote:

tapir wrote:

Hsiang wrote:This was denied on the technical difficulty of requiring one flag and one anthem for each team. If you have any clever ideas to get around that, I sure would like to know.

Really? They decide an issue like this on mere technicalities? Make a flag up, choose a song. (Side note: EU has a flag and an anthem, but neither Russia, Ukraine or Israel are members, but all those federations are EGF members and did compete. And the team could have ended w/ a majority of non-EU players just as well.)

That's a really interesting point. If the are coordinating through the IGF, it would seem that any IGF member country should be able to send a "team." The IGF doesn't have continent members, right?

SportAccord allowed the go event (within the larger mind games event) a total of 6 countries. This is simply the result of how much space and how much money is available.

Given those constraints, and given the relative strengths of different countries, I think it is obvious that China, Korea, Japan and Taiwan should get a spot. Those four countries are, quite simply, way ahead of the competition.

That leaves two countries. Again, given relative strengths and player populations, the US is an obvious candidate, as it can field several professional level players. There are several other countries that could likewise field a team of professional and near professional level. Russia and Romania are obvious candidates.

I think the current solution with the EU as a "country", and with the option of "guest" players is about as open and fair as you're going to get within those constraints.

HermanHiddema wrote:SportAccord allowed the go event (within the larger mind games event) a total of 6 countries. This is simply the result of how much space and how much money is available.

Given those constraints, and given the relative strengths of different countries, I think it is obvious that China, Korea, Japan and Taiwan should get a spot. Those four countries are, quite simply, way ahead of the competition.

That leaves two countries. Again, given relative strengths and player populations, the US is an obvious candidate, as it can field several professional level players. There are several other countries that could likewise field a team of professional and near professional level. Russia and Romania are obvious candidates.

I think the current solution with the EU as a "country", and with the option of "guest" players is about as open and fair as you're going to get within those constraints.

It's not such a convincing argument. For me, if there 5 countries, and 1 continent, then something is wrong. Added to which, the EGF doesn't represent the EU, it has no right to create an EU team. I'd prefer the winner of the European Team tournament to go, even though that would make the performance of the team slightly poorer, it would certainly save 1000 euro on the creation of an extra event. Lastly, of course, how do we expect the rest of the world to feel at being left out? So all in all, I stand by the restrained "slightly distasteful" remark, but good luck to the team.

HermanHiddema wrote:I think the current solution with the EU as a "country", and with the option of "guest" players is about as open and fair as you're going to get within those constraints.

Yeah. I guess the only other option is to say, effectively, CJKT and "everybody else" and call everybody else "World" or something. Then there would have to be some kind of qualifying process or tournament for the World team.

Wow this thread was a long read, thanks to Hsiang for sharing the info about the games!

snorri wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:I think the current solution with the EU as a "country", and with the option of "guest" players is about as open and fair as you're going to get within those constraints.

Yeah. I guess the only other option is to say, effectively, CJKT and "everybody else" and call everybody else "World" or something. Then there would have to be some kind of qualifying process or tournament for the World team.

There are six teams so this needs slight modification. You have CJKT, an open tournament among the other countries to determine the spots for the 5th team, and clearly as we have learned, the only acceptable possibility for the sixth team is go-playing racoons (=

Javaness2 wrote:It's not such a convincing argument. For me, if there 5 countries, and 1 continent, then something is wrong.
...
Lastly, of course, how do we expect the rest of the world to feel at being left out?

Keep in mind that this is the first one. If this one is a success (however that may be measured), then perhaps we can better advocate for changes for the next one(s). Otherwise, all this discussion is merely moot.

Remember, the first World Amateur Go Championship only had 15 players -- I'd bet that one or more countries was inadvertently left out of that event too.

shapenaji wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:You realize that every US state has its own flag, and that many of them have anthems, or at least the concept of a "state song"?

Yes, but those flags and anthems are not connected with distinct cultures at least 1000 years old...

This claim can be construed in various ways, but it's always worth remembering that some American states have been in nearly-continuous operation for 400 years, whereas many European nations were 19th-century innovations.

tapir wrote:I just want to state, that I am glad that IGF advocated for regional teams. America's, Europe, Asia-Oceania (maybe this can be opened to African players as well somehow). It is unfortunate though that they did not succeed. As a member of a federation which is itself associated to IGF I approve of this policy and I believe this should be continued, hopefully with more success next time. I am particularly glad that EGF did achieve sth. tangible in this respect.

snorri wrote:Yeah. I guess the only other option is to say, effectively, CJKT and "everybody else" and call everybody else "World" or something. Then there would have to be some kind of qualifying process or tournament for the World team.

I understand the impulse here, but I think it would be sad to admit that, out of all the games in the world, Go is the one game that doesn't attract enough interest to merit national teams. Far better to have six national teams and work towards more in the future than to embrace continental teams or world teams as a matter of course.

(I'll add that I don't really understand why they want teams for Go, rather than individual representatives. Are chess, checkers and xiangqi also going to be team competitions?)

HermanHiddema wrote:given the relative strengths of different countries, I think it is obvious that China, Korea, Japan and Taiwan should get a spot. Those four countries are, quite simply, way ahead of the competition. [...] I think the current solution [...] is about as open and fair as you're going to get within those constraints.

The current solution is not as open and fair as possible but politics replaces open and fair qualification. Politics presumes assumptions about relative strengths of different countries. Selection of countries by means of politics is the opposite of competition to see which countries (or regions or continents) can qualify.

snorri wrote:I guess the only other option is to say, effectively, CJKT and "everybody else" and call everybody else "World" or something. Then there would have to be some kind of qualifying process or tournament for the World team.

The real solution is to let ALL countries / regions / continents qualify. If it were not the first edition of the event, then the top placed countries could be seeded automatically. (Have you even noticed that North Korea is missing in your CJKT list, too?)