kirkmc wrote:I think talent is essential. Like any other subject where one becomes a professional (be it a sport, creative activity, etc.). Natural talent is the first prerequisite. Naturally, hard work is essential after that, but without talent, you're not going far.
Leaving aside the definition of talent and the fact that the original post referred specifically to 9-dan, the last part of this statement is not really true, and that is one of the more interesting things about go (and shogi).
There have been very many instances in pre-modern times of professional expertise being passed on to children as a craft. Sometimes the child is of the same blood, but often it is an adopted child (adopted even before learning go), so that genetics is clearly not an overriding factor. Nor is gender. Economics appears to have been the main consideration - a player builds up a school and passing this on to his children is the main way he can pass on an inheritance. It is fairly common in this scenario for the child to end up a little weaker than the parent, and this might best be explained by the assumption that the parent enjoyed go whereas the child is doing it only out of economic necessity (or inertia). However there are also cases where the child does exceedingly well.
Children in this scenario may not rise to the level of Meijin, but then very few do even with talent. And in case they can - witness Ito Sokan.
The modern scene is somewhat different because the economic model is different, but there are still many, many cases of professional level skill being passed on in families, or being shared amongst a brood of children. Even where a professional's children do not reach pro level, you very often find that they have reached very strong amateur level - examples of very strong players who decided not to be go professionals include the children of Kitani Minoru, Go Seigen, Rin Kaiho and so on. Examples of broods reaching pro level are the Honda sisters, the Mukai sisters, the Kobayashi children, the Sakai brothers, the Go/Wu brother, etc. For a more complex example look at the Fujisawa line of four generations, with many offshoots. Korea and China of course have some similar cases, though without the long history of Japan.
I think we are conditioned in the west to view certain activities such a music and maths as depending hugely on talent, perhaps because we focus too much on celebrities who do have talent. Chess seems to have long been in this category. But as the Polgar experiment, which was essentially about re-creating the Japanese experience, has shown, professional chess levels can be achieved by treating it as a teachable craft.
As far as I know, there are no cases of a professional level being reached without very hard work. Probably allied to that is the fact that it seems necessary also to start young.
A very interesting question, though a rather different one, is: how far can you go if you start late? I have a fairly well grounded impression that 6-dan amateur is a rare but possible limit but does require hard work, whereas 4-dan is very reachable by many people, even in some cases without excessive work. But it seems that the nature of the skill of such amateurs is not the same as for future professionals - perhaps in the way that a pop singer gifted with a pleasant and strong voice is quite different from a trained opera singer.
As to how far such "non-professional amateurs" are from the top in go, I'm sure it is at least four stones. I find it laughable to hear so many westerners claim they can match a top pro on four stones in serious games. One or two may be able to do so but even then I have doubts. I have been looking recently at a series in Kido from the 1960s when Rin Kaiho played a long series of amateur champions over a couple of years. These were serious, paid-for games with decent time limits (2 hours each) and no shaving off of handicap stones as in simultaneous displays. These games were billed as the Meijin versus top amateurs and so Rin had the status of the title to preserve. I didn't actually keep a list, but I think Rin won every game, never giving less than three stones but usually more, against people who were in every case players used to winning in amateur go contests. Some, though not all, were 6-dan, but 6-dan then was more like 7-dan now.
Even more telling, in my view, was a comparison with similar handicap games in the same issues where a top pro played a young amateur who, we now know, was destined to become a pro. First, in the latter case the pro world clearly has a way of (yes, I suppose) "talent" spotting, but youth and/or hard work are nearly always mentioned in the write-up, as is, very often, getting guidance from a pro. Second, the commentaries seem strongly to indicate that the mistakes of those who are mere or late-blooming amateurs (Rin's usual opponents) are rather different from those who are still weak only because they are still young. Third - this is just my impression but is based on a lot of examples - the young players who go on to be successful have a distinctive go style, which is based strongly on making safe groups and pre-empting attacks - invasions and overplays by them are relatively rare, whereas they are relatively common (normal, in fact) in the play of the late-blooming amateurs. Again speculation, but I wonder if this is because very young children are naturally cautious. If so, does this mean the cautious style of play they then naturally continue with is the one to be copied? Of course they may change style in later life, and indeed the pro guidance just mentioned often seems to be to try a new stye. Often, also, the pro commentary on a future pro will be along the lines of a more efficient way of doing something - in other words, you've got the basic idea OK but here's a way to refine it. The commentaries on the perpetual amateur games, however, much more often seem to along the lines of "That doesn't work - you need to try this instead." In other words, they still haven't mastered the basics.
Discuss. All essays must be in by 9 p.m.
