Life In 19x19

People often say that beginning Go players are 30 kyu. (Let's treat this statement as referring to an average, since obviously different people will start out with dramatically different playing strengths.) This raises some questions:

History

• Where did this estimate of average new player strength come from?
• Is there a traditional justification for it?
• Do we know who started it, or when?
• What about the classic Korean estimate, 18 gup?

Accuracy

• What evidence exists regarding typical ranks of people playing one of their very first games?
• Has anyone done a study (formal or otherwise)?

Thanks to anyone who can answer any of these questions.

Note: If your reaction to the above questions is, "It doesn't matter, beginners should ignore ranks and just play a bunch of games", that's a different topic; please feel free to go start your own thread. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the history and demonstrated accuracy of estimates of average new player strength.

I'd think the best way to figure this out would be to have a bunch of begginers play 9-stone games against 21-kyu's. In order to know who was 21-kyu you would have to first have a bunch of not quite begginers play handicap games against other ddk's. It would be difficult to test because people would keep improving. I don't think that it is likely that beginners actually start at 30-kyu, it is more likely that they start arond 25kyu imo

I always thought beginners start around 20k. Even if they start around 25k or so, that's mostly 'spot the atari' area for improvement.

My copy of Kano's Graded Go Problems for Beginners Vol. 1 starts at 30k. Since it's one of the most famous introductory books translated in to English, maybe many Westerners get the idea from there. Whether the notion is older I can't say.

The original kyu/Dan system was devised for a system where it was assumed all Dan players were licensed go professionals and kyu players were students in a particular go school, no? Obviously the weakest person who attends a go school is stronger than many dedicated amateurs. Even after the kyu/Dan system was transferred to amateurs, the weakest amateurs in a country where go is as common as checkers or monopoly in the united states will be stronger than people who have literally never heard of the game before.

Long story short, ranks are relative. If there are beginners who spend some time at the 25k level before improving, it makes sense to think that there are brand new players who are even weaker.

I've seen huge variance in ability in the handful of beginners we've gotten at the club. Everything from guys who were 20k by the end of night one easily to people who were genuine 30ks starting off. I haven't seen enough beginners to talk about averages though.

Short answer: yes, there are 30 kyu players.

The AGA maintains records for players well into the double digit kyu ranks. There are actually players from 30-40kyu, and even a tiny handful of youth players between 40 and 50 kyu, though one has to wonder about what that means.

However, there is a noticable increase in density as you approach 30 kyu. I would say there are very few players below 35 kyu.

In my first tournament, I was a 20 kyu who gave several handicaps to other players, including a 9 stone one. I won that game.

I was a slow learner early on, and I reached 20 kyu after four months of playing regularly (plus a few years of playing a game or two every month). My first regular opponent insisted on starting every game with a cross-cut around the corner star point (he didn't think it was part of the rules, it was just his habit, learned from playing as a child against his grandfather). I made very slow progress while playing against him.

P.S. You can also go find players around 25-30 kyu on KGS. Not all of them are sandbaggers, though many are.

IMHO, it does more harm than good to think of beginners as having a rank.

Fortunately, I did not know how strong I was until I was 7 kyu.

Wow, 8 responses in 2 hours! Thanks people.

speedchase: I agree with your approach. As you say, testing can be difficult because people’s ranks keep changing. (Here I’m thinking not of the newbies themselves but of the 21k’s we’re comparing them to -- as we go through the process of testing the newbies, the 21k’s get better, which distorts the test.) But if we design a computer program to be 23k (and have it play against a bunch of humans in the 14-16k range to confirm/fine-tune its rank), then we can pit the 23k program against the newbies, and the program won’t get any better. (Unfortunately I don't have the time or resources to carry this out myself...)

snorri: The Kano Yoshinori book you’re referring to originally said “35 Kyu to 25 Kyu” in its title, but then was changed to say “30 Kyu to 25 Kyu”. I’ve always imagined that the purpose of the change was to sacrifice accuracy for an increase in marketability. (That is, if you say that new players start out weaker than 30k, you don’t get taken seriously.) So where you imagine Go culture taking a cue from KY, I imagine KY taking a cue from Go culture.

hyperpape: Be careful about assuming you know what a person’s real question is.

* * * * *

So what evidence can *I* provide? Well, my rank is somewhere around 19k AGA, and I’m confident that I could beat most first-time players with a 17-stone handicap, 3 games out of 3. So that suggests that the average new player is weaker than 36k. But my argument is weak, because I don't actually know that I'm 19k, and I haven't actually played a bunch of first-timers with 17-stone handicaps to see whether I win 3 games out of 3. (Also, the handicap system is generally considered to get less accurate after 9 stones.) It goes back to the general principle that using yourself as an example to prove a point is dangerous, because it’s hard to see yourself accurately and there's ego involved.

Stargoat wrote:
speedchase: I agree with your approach. As you say, testing can be difficult because people’s ranks keep changing. (Here I’m thinking not of the newbies themselves but of the 21k’s we’re comparing them to -- as we go through the process of testing the newbies, the 21k’s get better, which distorts the test.) But if we design a computer program to be 23k (and have it play against a bunch of humans in the 14-16k range to confirm/fine-tune its rank), then we can pit the 23k program against the newbies, and the program won’t get any better. (Unfortunately I don't have the time or resources to carry this out myself...).

in order for this method to be effective, the computer would have to play like a 21kyu, not just play at 21kyu strength. perhaps it would be better to have alot of beginners play, and link it too a known rating system

It's accurate to within +/- 15 stones.
Dan ranks are accurate to +/- 3 stones.

Seriously I think it's amazing that this rank system works as well as it does. I think people expect way way too much accuracy from it.

A different statement says that absolute beginners would be 60k. I have seen a few people indeed playing like 60k (not like 100k and not like 30k). So 60k seems to be the rough ordinary lower end for human beings.

AFAIK from my own informal observations, almost all players making it to a club become roughly 30k almost immediately, and most of those continuing seriously roughly 20k or stronger very quickly.

The average new player? It must depend on how uninfluenced they remain. Those playing for themselves without meeting experienced players have a much greater chance to stay weak than those receiving at least some external advice and input. Imagine: An experienced player visits total beginners' foreign homes and asks them: "Please play! I just want to study exactly how weak you remain while I watch and assess it. I do not give you any hints to possibly make you stronger."

The interactive way starts out with 50k and that sounds reasonable.

However I would add that ranks below 30k don't make much sense as you would improve several stones with your very first game. This first improvement could be from 40k to 30k or 60k to 40k. It is impossible to measure since you need to play several games to find out a stable number for your strength.

yoyoma wrote:It's accurate to within +/- 15 stones.
Dan ranks are accurate to +/- 3 stones.

Seriously I think it's amazing that this rank system works as well as it does. I think people expect way way too much accuracy from it.

What?

speedchase wrote:What?

I agree with yoyoma.