Microsoft(China) sponsored a pro tournament
Yi Zhu
tournament. The interesting thing is if we can see any AGA people are
smart enough to get Microsoft
to sponsor a tournament in America.
Milton N. Bradley
As I've patiently explained on rgg many times in the past, Microsoft (and
other companies) don't give a damn about Go! All they care about is their
"bottom line" - i.e. profits. If and when there are 60 million avid Go
players in the US, they will come to us asking to sponsor tournaments.
Until then, all the smart people in the world entreating them will make
no difference!
Milt
--
"Better to light one small candle than to curse the darkness."
Visit my web page at http://newyork.villageworld.com/users/bradleym/
Alden.Charles
Good idea. Let's see if you're smart enough to do it.
Hope you're smart enough to convice the sponsors there are as many go fans
in the U.S. as there are in China.
Peter Kron
ago... not exactly a big money sport...
"Milton N. Bradley" <brad...@villagenet.com> wrote in message
news:3A7D6102...@villagenet.com...
Milton N. Bradley
Peter Kron wrote:
> Oh, come on... this was a bike race, not toddler training wheels. The
> membership in the USCF is probably on a par with the AGA.
My information is that USCF membership is on the 60,000 level, or 30 x that of
the AGA!!! Perhaps even more important, although only a small proportion of
Americans actually play chess regularly, almost everyone has tried it and
certainly everyone has heard of it! In addition, chess has a reputation in our
culture as the premiere strategic board game, while in sharp contrast 99.99% of
Americans have never even heard of Go! And chess has also long had rich and
influential patrons. So there is really no valid basis for comparison!
> If the bottom line
> is the deciding factor, then of course big money is the criterion of
> interest.
Yes, but not the "big money" to be won by the participants in the tournaments,
but rather the "big money" to potentially be made by the tournament sponsors!!
Everyone knows bicycles, but who knows Go?? Almost no one, so why would a
potential corporate sponsor be interested in investing his money in an event
that almost none of the potential customers he is trying to reach and influence
will watch?? Please be realistic!!
Milt
--
"Better to light one small candle than to curse the darkness."
Visit my web page at http://newyork.villageworld.com/users/bradleym/
>
> "Milton N. Bradley" <brad...@villagenet.com> wrote in message
> news:3A805DDF...@villagenet.com...
> > Peter Kron wrote:
> >
> > > I dunno, they sponsored several national bike races in Seattle a few
> years
> > > ago... not exactly a big money sport...
> >
> > Perhaps not a "big money sport", but "big money" isn't the criterion of
> > interest, number of participants is! How many Go players are there in the
> US??
> > Under 2000 in the AGA, so let's be generous and estimate 10x that many
> overall,
> > or 20,000. How many bicycle riders?? I don't know, of course, but I'd be
> > surprised if it was less than 20,000,000 (kids!), or at least 1,000 times
> as
> > many!
Greg Miller
> Sure it was a bike *race*, but how many people *watch* bike races (and
> willy-nilly see their sponsors' advertisements) ? If I may judge from the
Apparently not very many here in the U.S. Enough to survive in bad time
slots but not many more. I suspect it wouldn't even manage that if
television networks weren't willing to lose money on sports in exchange
for nebulous "prestige" benefits. I'm just glad Fox is willing to flush
money down the toilet in order to televise baseball games :)
> Now who watches go matches (or chess matches, for that matter) ? Only people
> who play those games well enough to enroll in a club (and not only play at
> home with Daddy or Sonny) -- and that is far too few (especially about Go)
> to wake up the interest of Microsoft (U.S.), Inc.
Indeed--unless someone at MS has an interest in Go. I suspect that may
be why they'd sponsor a bike race as well.
I think pushing for corporate sponsorships would be jumping the gun,
anyway. If we want to popularize Go in the U.S., the way to do it is to
make converts one at a time. Money events can wait.
--
http://www.classic-games.com/ http://www.indie-games.com/
"If you torture a ballot long enough, eventually it'll confess."
--Alan Simpson
Alden.Charles
<brad...@villagenet.com> wrote:
>My information is that USCF membership is on the 60,000 level, or 30 x that of
>the AGA!!! Perhaps even more important, although only a small proportion of
>Americans actually play chess regularly, almost everyone has tried it and
>certainly everyone has heard of it! In addition, chess has a reputation in our
>culture as the premiere strategic board game, while in sharp contrast 99.99% of
>Americans have never even heard of Go!
As always Milt is correct - both on the numbers of members in the
associations of "serious" game players, and in the public recognition of
the games. Chess is readily identified by most westerners, whether they
play the game or not, and chess imagery is used quite often in advertising
of all sorts of products ("Make the right move. . ."). By contrast, the
vast majority of the questions asked of players in our go club, which
meets weekly in a public restaurant, are:
1) "What is the name of that game?
2) "Is that Pente?"
3) "Is that Othello?"
And of the couple of thousand active AGA members, I would bet the majority
are of Asian ancestry and did not learn the game in the U.S. A few years
ago a scan of the rating list showed that of the top 100 players in the
AGA, less than 10 were caucasian Americans, while 14 were named Kim. :-)
Charles Alden
Peter Kron
the other end of your estimate to 2000 to get a factor 30, when you really
mean a factor of 3. So you've gone from a factor of 1000 to 3. Pretty
significant.
"Milton N. Bradley" <brad...@villagenet.com> wrote in message
news:3A814A87...@villagenet.com...
Milton N. Bradley
> Your original post put AGA at 20000 for a factor of 1000.
No way!! The AGA membership is (as of the last official statement I received)
less than 2000, and to my knowledge in the over 50 years I've been a member has
never been greater than at present, so there is no way that I could ever have
made such an erroneous statement.
- snip -
Peter Kron
> Peter Kron wrote:
>
> > Your original post put AGA at 20000 for a factor of 1000.
>
> No way!! The AGA membership is (as of the last official statement I
received)
> less than 2000, and to my knowledge in the over 50 years I've been a
member has
> never been greater than at present, so there is no way that I could ever
have
> made such an erroneous statement.
>
> - snip -
>
> Milt
> --
> "Better to light one small candle than to curse the darkness."
uh... your candle is out
"Milton N. Bradley" <brad...@villagenet.com> wrote in message
news:3A805DDF...@villagenet.com...
Bantari
(brad...@villagenet.com) said...
>
> Peter Kron wrote:
>
> > Oh, come on... this was a bike race, not toddler training wheels. The
> > membership in the USCF is probably on a par with the AGA.
>
> My information is that USCF membership is on the 60,000 level, or 30 x that of
> the AGA!!! Perhaps even more important, although only a small proportion of
> Americans actually play chess regularly, almost everyone has tried it and
> certainly everyone has heard of it! In addition, chess has a reputation in our
> culture as the premiere strategic board game, while in sharp contrast 99.99% of
> Americans have never even heard of Go! And chess has also long had rich and
> influential patrons. So there is really no valid basis for comparison!
I agree. What was a big forward push for chess in the US was the
figure of Bobby Fisher, as controversial as he might now be. What we
need in Go is some kind of personality which would give us a similar
boost.
Maybe we should try to capitalize more on the successes of the
american pros, like Redmond. I know that he is not Fisher, but beggars
can't be choosers. Any ideas?
Go needs to be put on the map in the US somehow, and then the
money should follow.
I remember back in Poland, when we had a tennis player ranked 7th
in the world and who played in Wimbledon, all of a sudden everybody was
playing tennis and buying tennis equipment. When we had a biker doing
well in Tour de France, everybody was buying racing bikes. And so on...
Same as with Fisher in the US. Usually, once the dominant personality
left the scene, the interest slowly declined, but the spark was lit...
>
> > If the bottom line
> > is the deciding factor, then of course big money is the criterion of
> > interest.
>
> Yes, but not the "big money" to be won by the participants in the tournaments,
> but rather the "big money" to potentially be made by the tournament sponsors!!
> Everyone knows bicycles, but who knows Go?? Almost no one, so why would a
> potential corporate sponsor be interested in investing his money in an event
> that almost none of the potential customers he is trying to reach and influence
> will watch?? Please be realistic!!
Right on the point again. The key here is not money, its the
audience! Once you get a large enough audience to follow Go events, the
sponsors will follow.
The whole money-arguments is presented a little backwards here, I
think. American football is not popular because its a big money business
- its a big money business because its popular.
Same in Go - the lack of popularity is not due to the lack of
money, but the lack of money is due to the lack of popularity. Or at
least - the relationship goes more this way. Some kind of audience has
to be found first, then money will follow, generating more audience and
in turn - more money. The trick is to start the ball rolling.
Any ideas?
--
________________________________________
-Bantari
e-mail: kapr...@yahoo666.com (remove the 666)
homepage: http://home.san.rr.com/rafgo
Milton N. Bradley
This 20,000 figure refers to the (very generously estimated) total # of Go
players in the US, but the contrast in question was between AGA membership at
under 2,000 and USCF membership at approximately 60,000 for a factor of about
30x in favor of the USCF. But if you wish to use the estimated total of Go
players in the US as your basis for comparison then you must make a similar
estimate of the total number of chess players, which (as a wild guess, and
probably on the low side!) I would put at at least 10,000,000. Then the ratio
in favor of chess isn't 30 - 1 but closer to 500 -1!!
So my light isn't out after all, but just perhaps yours has never been
kindled!!!
Milt
--
"Better to light one small candle than to curse the darkness."
Visit my web page at http://newyork.villageworld.com/users/bradleym/
Milton N. Bradley
-snip-
> Go needs to be put on the map in the US somehow, and then the
> money should follow.
Absolutely correct!
-snip-
> Right on the point again. The key here is not money, its the
> audience! Once you get a large enough audience to follow Go events, the
> sponsors will follow.
Manifestly correct again!
-snip-
> Some kind of audience has
> to be found first, then money will follow, generating more audience and
> in turn - more money. The trick is to start the ball rolling.
>
> Any ideas?
Bantari and all:
For what it's worth, I've spent the last 50+ years of my life in a (thus far) futile
search for the answer to this problem. As you can glean from my web page, I've taught
Go everywhere I've been and to anyone with whom I've come in contact, from co-workers
to school children. I've given library lectures, and appeared in a live Go demo in
the window of a famous Fifth avenue New York Department store. I've contacted the
editors of every major New York newspaper, and the cognizant executives of Microsoft,
Intel, and a number of well funded and famous foundations. And I've written 4
beginner's Go books - the latest and best of which, GO FOR KIDS, is still awaiting
publication (hopefully soon!) by Yutopian. And, let me not forget, I'm currently
completing a murder mystery novel with a unique Go theme, which I, of course, hope to
have published but foresee little prospect of achieving that desirable end.
The result?? Some of those that I've taught many years ago still play, and I've
discovered to my surprise and pleasure that even some of those who don't have
nevertheless helped "spread the good word" about Go to their own friends and
associates. But the bottom line to date has been my reluctant conclusion that,
barring some cataclysmic and unforeseen event like the rise of an American Go playing
equivalent of Bobby Fischer which can radically alter the public perception, Go is
forever destined to be a peripheral activity engaged in by a tiny cadre of devotees.
Bantari
(brad...@villagenet.com) said...
> For what it's worth, I've spent the last 50+ years of my life in a (thus far) futile
> search for the answer to this problem. As you can glean from my web page, I've taught
> Go everywhere I've been and to anyone with whom I've come in contact, from co-workers
> to school children. I've given library lectures, and appeared in a live Go demo in
> the window of a famous Fifth avenue New York Department store. I've contacted the
> editors of every major New York newspaper, and the cognizant executives of Microsoft,
> Intel, and a number of well funded and famous foundations. And I've written 4
> beginner's Go books - the latest and best of which, GO FOR KIDS, is still awaiting
> publication (hopefully soon!) by Yutopian. And, let me not forget, I'm currently
> completing a murder mystery novel with a unique Go theme, which I, of course, hope to
> have published but foresee little prospect of achieving that desirable end.
>
> The result?? Some of those that I've taught many years ago still play, and I've
> discovered to my surprise and pleasure that even some of those who don't have
> nevertheless helped "spread the good word" about Go to their own friends and
> associates. But the bottom line to date has been my reluctant conclusion that,
> barring some cataclysmic and unforeseen event like the rise of an American Go playing
> equivalent of Bobby Fischer which can radically alter the public perception, Go is
> forever destined to be a peripheral activity engaged in by a tiny cadre of devotees.
You did (and are still doing, I assume) a very good job. But
maybe, as we can learn from your example, individual effort no matter
how big, might not be sufficient here.
From my experience with americans, they like everything grandiose
and flashy, everything which is on the large scale. I am not sure if
this though will get us anywhere, but if there was a way to spice-up go
events somehow... publicity? Maybe this is the key...
I have a friend who paid an astronomical amount of money to travel
to a little irish village to take part in festivities there. Yet nobody
comes to a neighborhood go tourney. Why? Since nobody is interested in
watching a bunch of players spend hours on a move.
Maybe we should approach it from a different angle - instead of
trying to promote Go on its own merit, try to connect it somehow with an
activity that is already popular and attractive to people. I am not sure
what it is... gambling comes to mind, but I would hesitate before trying
to take this path. Hehe...
What else draws in the general population? Sports, booze,
bargains, food...
So how about connecting it with, for example, oriental cooking
exhibition? Seeing the popularity of the Iron Chef show, and all that...
Then maybe tourneys can be advertised as "Japanese Cook-off at the site
of Go tournament". This should draw people in, and while they are there,
and munching happily on their spring rolls, they might be more open to
learning about Go. Even if a stunt like this does not give us more
converts, then at least many people will stop asking "What is GO?" but
start asking instead "where is the next tourney?" :-)
Or connect Go with so kind of oriental art display/sell, and then
advertise it as such. Or martial arts?
I dunno... it is obvious to me that if we are serious about
popularizing the game, some drastic steps are necessary.
Sad as it is, but in US, Go, like chess, does not command much
respect when standing alone.
Or lets have a prominent Go player running in next presidential
elections? He might have some chance against Bush. At least Go players
are not afraid of counting, hehe...
Michael G. Dobbins
Bantari <ban...@mynet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.14ec4b3d1...@netnews.msn.com...
> From my experience with americans, they like everything grandiose
> and flashy, everything which is on the large scale. I am not sure if
> this though will get us anywhere, but if there was a way to spice-up go
> events somehow... publicity? Maybe this is the key...
> What else draws in the general population? Sports, booze,
> bargains, food...
Scantily clad women. But them I would lose 10 rating points in a
tournament. :-)
Milton N. Bradley
I hate to be critical of someone I consider a friend, but you seem to have missed the
subtle and unstated point I tried to make in posting my own Go publicity history! That was
to indicate that it is easy to sit in front of one's computer and come up with great
sounding ideas for making Go popular. The really difficult problem is in turning those fine
sounding ideas into positive results.
My recitation of what I had done was posted primarily to prove that I had at least tried to
implement the ideas I had. And my point here is that if your suggestions have merit, then
*you* should be the one to take the initiative in putting them to the real world "acid
test" of getting the projected favorable results. Otherwise you are in the position of the
mice in the nursery tale asking "who will bell the cat?"
Best.
Milt
Bantari wrote:
--
Joel Olson
<<
But the bottom line to date has been my reluctant conclusion that,
barring some cataclysmic and unforeseen event like the rise of an
American Go playing equivalent of Bobby Fischer which can radically
alter the public perception, Go is forever destined to be a peripheral
>>
<
From my experience with americans, they like everything grandiose and
... Yet nobody comes to a neighborhood go tourney. Why? Since nobody
is interested in watching a bunch of players spend hours on a move.
At least Go players are not afraid of counting, hehe...
>
One might look at the spread of Go in other cultures. Knowing a little
of Japan only, it seems to have been a top-down process. First the
nobility, then the monasteries.
Now an aspect of the Americans, that has been well documented, is their
propensity to imitate their "betters".
As an example that follows this pattern, consider the game of golf,
which after a long history of development in private, exclusive and
expensive clubs, has now spread out among the middle classes.
--------
Room service? Send up a larger room. - G. Marx
--------
Ming Y. Choy
"Milton N. Bradley" wrote:
> associates. But the bottom line to date has been my reluctant conclusion that,
> barring some cataclysmic and unforeseen event like the rise of an American Go playing
> equivalent of Bobby Fischer which can radically alter the public perception, Go is
> forever destined to be a peripheral activity engaged in by a tiny cadre of devotees.
>
The rules of GO game are too simple for many Americans' liking. Americans like games
with complicated rules, as illustrated by the popularity of the sports of baseball and
American rugby in USA, but the simple-rules sports of football never caught on. The
consequences? 1. The referees and umpires(in baseball) play a dominant role in the
process and the outcome of a game of American rugby or baseball, rather than the
players. 2. There are many stoppages during a game, no flow of the action, making it
too boring to watch, but good for commercials and advertisements by the corporate
sponsors. But many Americans seem to like it. It buffers me. Maybe I will write a
research paper on this...
-Ming Y. Choy
Greg Miller
> For what it's worth, I've spent the last 50+ years of my life in a (thus far) futile
> search for the answer to this problem. As you can glean from my web page, I've taught
> Go everywhere I've been and to anyone with whom I've come in contact, from co-workers
> to school children. I've given library lectures, and appeared in a live Go demo in
> the window of a famous Fifth avenue New York Department store. I've contacted the
> editors of every major New York newspaper, and the cognizant executives of Microsoft,
> Intel, and a number of well funded and famous foundations. And I've written 4
> beginner's Go books - the latest and best of which, GO FOR KIDS, is still awaiting
> publication (hopefully soon!) by Yutopian. And, let me not forget, I'm currently
> completing a murder mystery novel with a unique Go theme, which I, of course, hope to
> have published but foresee little prospect of achieving that desirable end.
>
> The result?? Some of those that I've taught many years ago still play, and I've
> discovered to my surprise and pleasure that even some of those who don't have
> nevertheless helped "spread the good word" about Go to their own friends and
> associates. But the bottom line to date has been my reluctant conclusion that,
> barring some cataclysmic and unforeseen event like the rise of an American Go playing
> equivalent of Bobby Fischer which can radically alter the public perception, Go is
> forever destined to be a peripheral activity engaged in by a tiny cadre of devotees.
You commented in another post that AGA membership is as high as it's
ever been. Take some comfort in the fact that we're making forward
progress even if it's slow.
One problem that I think needs addressing is that there don't seem to be
many cheap Go sets. I sincerely wish I could find some cheap
cardboard-and-plastic sets of the general style used for proprietary
board games, to give everyone for christmas. If it came from a major
manufacturer, it might even get on the shelves at major department stores.
Greg Miller
> Bantari <ban...@mynet.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.14ec4b3d1...@netnews.msn.com...
>
>> From my experience with americans, they like everything grandiose
>> and flashy, everything which is on the large scale. I am not sure if
>> this though will get us anywhere, but if there was a way to spice-up go
>> events somehow... publicity? Maybe this is the key...
Perhaps we could get NBC and the WWF to put together a pro league in the
style of the XFL and pro wrestling... Two minute shots of cheerleaders,
trash-talk from the players, etc.
Greg Miller
> The rules of GO game are too simple for many Americans' liking. Americans like games
> with complicated rules, as illustrated by the popularity of the sports of baseball and
> American rugby in USA, but the simple-rules sports of football never caught on. The
Simplicity of the rules isn't what kept soccer from catching on here.
Lack of fast action and physical feats keep it from eating away the
market share of the sports that are currently major here.
> consequences? 1. The referees and umpires(in baseball) play a dominant role in the
> process and the outcome of a game of American rugby or baseball, rather than the
> players. 2. There are many stoppages during a game, no flow of the action, making it
Players and managers are still the primary determinant of the outcome,
although umpires affect the game more in baseball than in many other sports.
Milton N. Bradley
-snip-
> You commented in another post that AGA membership is as high as it's
> ever been. Take some comfort in the fact that we're making forward
> progress even if it's slow.
As both another poster and I have already pointed out, this is only an illusion, and almost
completely unrepresentative of the kind of real membership growth we need if Go is ever to
become more than a peripheral activity in the US. Most of the strong players and an
alarmingly high proportion of the AGA's total membership are immigrant orientals who have
brought their Go with them to this country. And making this situation even worse is that
most of the thoroughly americanized children of many of these same strong immigrant
orientals do NOT play Go, so their presence will not result in future growth.
> One problem that I think needs addressing is that there don't seem to be
> many cheap Go sets. I sincerely wish I could find some cheap
> cardboard-and-plastic sets of the general style used for proprietary
> board games, to give everyone for christmas. If it came from a major
> manufacturer, it might even get on the shelves at major department stores.
The (almost) eponymous company sharing my name tried this some 40+ years ago, with no
positive impact on the number of either US Go players or AGA members. Perhaps things are
different now, but nothing that I've seen indicates that this is true. IMHO the real
problem lies in the intrinsic nature of Go itself - comprehensible only by that tiny
proportion of humanity whose brains are appropriately wired by heredity to be capable of
the combination of pattern recognition and strategic thinking needed to become at least
modestly competent. Since that situation is unlikely ever to change until some form of
genetic engineering increases that population proportion, IMHO no such simplistic "fix"
attempt can possibly be efficacious.
Michael G. Dobbins
Greg Miller <gmi...@classic-games.com> wrote in message
news:3A8313AF...@classic-games.com...
> One problem that I think needs addressing is that there don't seem to be
> many cheap Go sets. I sincerely wish I could find some cheap
> cardboard-and-plastic sets of the general style used for proprietary
> board games, to give everyone for christmas. If it came from a major
> manufacturer, it might even get on the shelves at major department stores.
yes, like the cheap plastic and cardboard chess sets that almost every kid
who shows any interest in gaming gets before the age of 12.
Now that my kids are college age I am running into more poor college kids
who want a cheap Go set to play on.
The least expensive set that I have seen is from Yutopian. They have
plastic stones w/ plasic bowls (ST001) approx $10 w/ shipping and a vinyl
rollup Go board (TA001) or a wood Go/Chinese Chess board (TT001) in the same
price range. So around $20 you can have a (full sized) beginners set.
Michael G. Dobbins
Michael G. Dobbins <Michael...@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:95v74s$3be$1...@mail.pl.unisys.com...
> The least expensive set that I have seen is from Yutopian. They have
> plastic stones w/ plasic bowls (ST001) approx $10 w/ shipping and a vinyl
> rollup Go board (TA001) or a wood Go/Chinese Chess board (TT001) in the
same
> price range. So around $20 you can have a (full sized) beginners set.
disclaimer: I have a set of the plastic stones and they are thin but approx
full size diameter. I haven't seen either of the boards above so I don't
know anthing other than what you can see on the yutopian go site. I did
however just order a couple of the wooden boards to see what they are and
donate to my son's college go activities. If anyone wants me to report back
when I receive them, let me know.
their website: http://www.yutopian.com/go/
The Nose Who Knows
> disclaimer: I have a set of the plastic stones and they are thin but approx
> full size diameter. I haven't seen either of the boards above so I don't
> know anthing other than what you can see on the yutopian go site. I did
> however just order a couple of the wooden boards to see what they are and
> donate to my son's college go activities. If anyone wants me to report back
> when I receive them, let me know.
Please do report to the newsgroup; also to the maintainer of the "Go
equipment "FAQ" (I don't know the real name for the document, it is
referenced in the newsgroup FAQ though) as there are many people trying
to put together cheap full-sized sets to get others interested in the
game.
The main thing stopping me from giving away handmade sets at a whim is
the price of the stones. Bowls can be anything with a lid; boards can
be made out of thick card; but right-sized cheap stones are very hard to
come by, it seems.
If the plastic stones are cheap but serviceable, I will not even have to
wait for a special occasion to give someone a working Go set as a gift.
--
\
`\
_o__) BIGNOSE
Greg Miller
> yes, like the cheap plastic and cardboard chess sets that almost every kid
> who shows any interest in gaming gets before the age of 12.
>
> Now that my kids are college age I am running into more poor college kids
> who want a cheap Go set to play on.
>
> The least expensive set that I have seen is from Yutopian. They have
> plastic stones w/ plasic bowls (ST001) approx $10 w/ shipping and a vinyl
> rollup Go board (TA001) or a wood Go/Chinese Chess board (TT001) in the same
> price range. So around $20 you can have a (full sized) beginners set.
Ah, I wasn't aware of that one. Thanks for pointing those items
out--I've often had people I've taught the game ask where they could get
a set.
Antoine Mechelynck
In the line of what you seem to be suggesting, recently there was a
fancy-fair at the Japanese school here in Brussels. Invitations were
extended to (among others) the Brussels go clubs (of which there were three
at the time, but one of them dissolved since then for lack of candidates to
the posts of president, secretary and treasurer). One room was dedicated to
go and shogi, elsewhere there were other traditional Japanese arts like
paper-folding and flower-arranging, songs, dances, a lottery, even IIRC some
Japanese cuisine, well just everything you can find at a fancy-fair, but it
was all Japanese of course. If that kind of event could be more open to
other people than just the families of the school's own pupils it would IMHO
be a great plus for cultural relations (which start by being aware of, and
then by knowing, other people's traditional activities).
Tony.
Bantari
games.com) said...
> Ming Y. Choy wrote:
>
> > The rules of GO game are too simple for many Americans' liking. Americans like games
> > with complicated rules, as illustrated by the popularity of the sports of baseball and
> > American rugby in USA, but the simple-rules sports of football never caught on. The
>
> Simplicity of the rules isn't what kept soccer from catching on here.
> Lack of fast action and physical feats keep it from eating away the
> market share of the sports that are currently major here.
I am not sure I can agree with that. Baseball, one of the
favorite american sports, is just ridiculous for its lack of action!
What kind of sport is it that 90% of the players either sit or idly stand
for 90% of the time? The same goes for some other favorites - like golf
and bowling.
I heard a story that soccer never really became popular in US for
two reasons - first it was a British game, and at some point in time the
Americans tried very hard to stay away from anything British. Second -
it was a game with well established structure in the world in terms of
organization, while americans were looking for "something new" which can
be developed domestically and in which the developers can become the big
honchos. I am not sure how much truth there is to that story, though.
Antoine Mechelynck
(...)
> problem lies in the intrinsic nature of Go itself - comprehensible only by
that tiny
> proportion of humanity whose brains are appropriately wired by heredity to
be capable of
> the combination of pattern recognition and strategic thinking needed to
become at least
Does the existence of "Baduk TV" (see elsewhere in this ng) mean than Korean
brains are (statistically) "wired" differently than ours ?
IMHO, it is not just heredity but also education that does that kind of
"wiring". However, and maybe this is the catch, understanding a bike race
requires a lot less "wiring" than understanding a go (, chess, draughts,
shogi, xiangqi, ...) match.
Tony.
Antoine Mechelynck
printed sheet of ferromagnetic material) of a size somewhere between 2/3 and
3/4 of a standard goban, two plastic boxes with screw-on lid and two sets of
plastic stones with a small magnet in each of them. And a plastic case with
handle (size: something like a transverse-flute case or maybe just a little
bigger) to hold it all.
I believe the "Schaak en Go winkel Het Paard" (Amsterdam) has them, but it's
been a long time since I've seen those people (they sometimes come to
Belgian tournaments, I seldom do; and I hardly ever go to Amsterdam).
Such a set ought to be much cheaper than a standard wood-and-glass set.
Also, if it's available here, it should be available elsewhere too.
Tony.
Bantari
(antoine.m...@belgacom.net) said...
> Milton N. Bradley wrote:
> (...)
> > problem lies in the intrinsic nature of Go itself - comprehensible only by
> that tiny
> > proportion of humanity whose brains are appropriately wired by heredity to
> be capable of
> > the combination of pattern recognition and strategic thinking needed to
> become at least
> (...)
First, let me say that I hate to cross swords with Milt again, but
I just have to say it - BALONEY! Hehe...
I bet that for centuries this is exactly what Japanese thought of
the Chinese and Koreans - that their brains were wired differently to
make them incapable of playing Go at highest level. And see what
happened.
>
> Does the existence of "Baduk TV" (see elsewhere in this ng) mean than Korean
> brains are (statistically) "wired" differently than ours ?
Well - this is, as far as I know, exactly what Milt is suggesting.
But I am still waiting to see any kind of reasonable explanation of why
this has to be so and why the disparity cannot be explained by other,
quite obvious, factors - like cultural differences, for example.
> IMHO, it is not just heredity but also education that does that kind of
> "wiring". However, and maybe this is the catch, understanding a bike race
> requires a lot less "wiring" than understanding a go (, chess, draughts,
> shogi, xiangqi, ...) match.
I am not sure that heredity has *anything* to do with the problem.
The pattern recognition in Go is not at any higher level than the pattern
recognition we have to apply in everyday life, for example to interpret
traffic signs or to play video games. And as for strategic thinking... I
do not think that its on a different level than, say, running a
successful business or playing office politics. Americans seem to be
doing really well in these areas.
Pattern recognition might be different in chess than in Go, but
strategic thinking is at least related. And yet Go fails to have the
popularity of chess in the US. The Fisher-boom proved that chess can be
learned and enjoyed by almost every american, and while not everybody can
become a GrandMaster, many can become very strong... and even more can
get strong enough to enjoy the game and get hooked for life.
I dunno... There seem to be so many indications that heredity and
genetics do not play any significant role in the un-popularity of Go in
the US that I seriously think that a controversial statements like this
of Milt should be made only if accompanied by solid scientific proof.
I won't bore you with more on this topic. We had a lengthy thread
about this some time ago where most of the arguments were already made.
No use repeating it all again. :-)
Greg Miller
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 16:00:58 -0600, Greg Miller (gmiller@classic-
> games.com) said...
>
>> Ming Y. Choy wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The rules of GO game are too simple for many Americans' liking. Americans like games
>>> with complicated rules, as illustrated by the popularity of the sports of baseball and
>>> American rugby in USA, but the simple-rules sports of football never caught on. The
>>
>> Simplicity of the rules isn't what kept soccer from catching on here.
>> Lack of fast action and physical feats keep it from eating away the
>> market share of the sports that are currently major here.
>
>
> I am not sure I can agree with that. Baseball, one of the
> favorite american sports, is just ridiculous for its lack of action!
It's not fast paced, but it has physical feats. The stolen base, the
homerun, etc. That seems to help with people who aren't interested in
the tactical and strategic elements of the game.
> What kind of sport is it that 90% of the players either sit or idly stand
> for 90% of the time? The same goes for some other favorites - like golf
> and bowling
Well, that makes sense... although Golf and Bowling aren't as major as
Baseball, Basketball, (American) Football, and Hockey. I run into less
televised bowling than MLS soccer, although that doesn't really prove
anything.
> I heard a story that soccer never really became popular in US for
> two reasons - first it was a British game, and at some point in time the
> Americans tried very hard to stay away from anything British. Second -
> it was a game with well established structure in the world in terms of
> organization, while americans were looking for "something new" which can
> be developed domestically and in which the developers can become the big
> honchos. I am not sure how much truth there is to that story, though.
Basketball is really the only one that seems to have sprung from whole
cloth in the U.S. Once the major U.S. sports had their target
demographics sewed up, Soccer had a hard row to hoe. That, of course, is
helping to make things hard for Go as well--Chess got here first.
In any event, I don't really think complex rules helped popularize the
sports :) One of basketball's great strengths is that it's simple enough
to be highly accessible--none of the "now why are they doing that?"
questions that I hear from people unfamiliar with baseball.
Bantari
games.com) said...
> Bantari wrote:
> > I am not sure I can agree with that. Baseball, one of the
> > favorite american sports, is just ridiculous for its lack of action!
>
> It's not fast paced, but it has physical feats. The stolen base, the
> homerun, etc. That seems to help with people who aren't interested in
> the tactical and strategic elements of the game.
Well, of course. But compared to soccer, its just standing
around, no matter how much tobacco you chew. :-)
I was just beating down the argument that soccer's "lack of fast
action" prevents it from catching on in the US, and I gave baseball as
counter-example.
Ming Y. Choy
>
>
> > What kind of sport is it that 90% of the players either sit or idly stand
> > for 90% of the time? The same goes for some other favorites - like golf
> > and bowling
>
And what kind of sport is it that is: 10% actual action time + 90% commercial time, huddling
time, time separating the players from the pile of inertwining bodies, and time waiting for
the referee to make a dicision about a play? ^_^
I think there is good reason basketball has been well accepted by the world, but not baseball
or American rugby. Basketball makes more sense as a sport and with the rules and the
objectives of the game, and is not so ridiculous.
-Ming Y. Choy
Milton N. Bradley
> Milton N. Bradley wrote:
> (...)
> > problem lies in the intrinsic nature of Go itself - comprehensible only by
> that tiny
> > proportion of humanity whose brains are appropriately wired by heredity to
> be capable of
> > the combination of pattern recognition and strategic thinking needed to
> become at least
> (...)
>
> Does the existence of "Baduk TV" (see elsewhere in this ng) mean than Korean
> brains are (statistically) "wired" differently than ours ?
This is an interesting question for which no definitive answer is currently
known, and given the sensitive nature of this issue, may never be. The very fact
that Baduk, WeiQi and Igo are all highly respected, relatively widely practiced
and deeply and long integrated aspects of their respective cultures implies that
the answer is "yes", but in no sense proves it!
> IMHO, it is not just heredity but also education that does that kind of
> "wiring".
Also an interesting question - the "nature vs. nurture" controversy! And still
unresolved and subject to fractious debate.
> However, and maybe this is the catch, understanding a bike race
> requires a lot less "wiring" than understanding a go (, chess, draughts,
> shogi, xiangqi, ...) match.
A key point which goes a long way toward explaining why corporations will gladly
sponsor bike races but have no interest in Go!
>
> Tony.
Milton N. Bradley
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:39:12 +0100, Antoine Mechelynck
> (antoine.m...@belgacom.net) said...
> > Milton N. Bradley wrote:
> > (...)
> > > problem lies in the intrinsic nature of Go itself - comprehensible only by
> > that tiny
> > > proportion of humanity whose brains are appropriately wired by heredity to
> > be capable of
> > > the combination of pattern recognition and strategic thinking needed to
> > become at least
> > (...)
>
> First, let me say that I hate to cross swords with Milt again, but
> I just have to say it - BALONEY! Hehe...
Well! That certainly caught my attention, Rafael! So please see below. Perhaps
what I say there will neither satisfy you or change your opinion, but you will at
least understand my position and how I quite logically arrived at it a bit better.
> I bet that for centuries this is exactly what Japanese thought of
> the Chinese and Koreans - that their brains were wired differently to
> make them incapable of playing Go at highest level. And see what
> happened.
You say "I bet that ..." , but do you know that this actually happened? And even
if it did, how is that relevant? As you will see below, I wasn't discussing any
real or imagined difference between ethnic groups, but between individuals.
whether within groups or across all of them. More on this in the following
> >
> > Does the existence of "Baduk TV" (see elsewhere in this ng) mean than Korean
> > brains are (statistically) "wired" differently than ours ?
>
> Well - this is, as far as I know, exactly what Milt is suggesting.
Not so! It's a possibility, of course, but far from established as fact.
>
> But I am still waiting to see any kind of reasonable explanation of why
> this has to be so and why the disparity cannot be explained by other,
> quite obvious, factors - like cultural differences, for example.
I've already posted a response to this, but for the sake of obviating the
necessity of searching for that I repeat it again here. What I said in this
context was:
"This is an interesting question for which no definitive answer is currently
known, and given the sensitive nature of this issue, may never be. The very fact
that Baduk, WeiQi and Igo are all highly respected, relatively widely practiced
and deeply and long integrated aspects of their respective cultures implies that
the answer is "yes", but in no sense proves it!"
> > IMHO, it is not just heredity but also education that does that kind of
> > "wiring". However, and maybe this is the catch, understanding a bike race
> > requires a lot less "wiring" than understanding a go (, chess, draughts,
> > shogi, xiangqi, ...) match.
>
> I am not sure that heredity has *anything* to do with the problem.
And this is where we differ diametrically!! And where my 8 years of teaching Go to
over 700 children (mainly 3rd thru 5th grade students) IMHO proves its value! ( I
don't mention this to pat myself on the back, but rather to point out that my
opinion on this subject is based upon observation of a rather large sample of
relevant cases, and may therefore have just a bit more credibility than mere
speculation!).
A teacher would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to recognize the immense range
of intrinsic (i.e. hereditary) capabilities that his students bring with
themselves to school. And in the case of Go, the most prominently visible of such
"built in" differences immediately appear in the student's ability to recognize
and appropriately respond to the shapes of the stones on the board. And I'm not
speaking of differences between various ethnic groups, but among individuals
within any given group. And, of course, this sort of phenomenon also exists to an
equal degree in all other aspects of cognitive function, as any teacher in any
subject area can readily verify. There are stars and dunces in every class and
every subject, and most of these differences come "built in" to their respective
packages, and are only mildly modified (usually only detrimentally) by
environmental factors.
> The pattern recognition in Go is not at any higher level than the pattern
> recognition we have to apply in everyday life, for example to interpret
> traffic signs or to play video games.
Once again, I must disagree, and once again I believe that a dispassionate
appraisal of the relevant facts proves me right! The reality is that even retarded
individuals can often properly interpret and appropriately respond to traffic
signs, but only a tiny proportion of even the brightest portion of the population
can handle the complexities routinely presented on the Go board!
> And as for strategic thinking... I
> do not think that its on a different level than, say, running a
> successful business or playing office politics. Americans seem to be
> doing really well in these areas.
This sounds as though it should be a tautology, but the facts indicate that it's
not! And the fact that a statement like this sounds logical doesn't make it true!
If it did Aristotle would have been right when he said that heavier objects fall
faster than light ones! But he was dead wrong! And so are you, no matter how
logical your premise might seem. If you examine the skills required to succeed in
business - and I spent most of my professional life doing that in Industrial
Engineering and Operations Research, you will discover that a few highly developed
organizational skills coupled with some financial acumen are usually sufficient
for success, and being more than a bit lucky is often even more important! (To
keep this already too long posting from becoming even longer I'll omit examples,
but these can be provided if necessary.)
In contrast, in the pure totally abstract world of the Go board the correlation of
skill with results is almost perfect.
> Pattern recognition might be different in chess than in Go, but
> strategic thinking is at least related. And yet Go fails to have the
> popularity of chess in the US.
Of course it does! As far back as the 1850's when Paul Morphy of Louisiana was
effectively World Chess Champion chess was already well established in the US. In
contrast, Go only got started here during the 1910's - see my web page for exactly
how. And chess in the US has had rich and influential patrons, while to date Go
has had none!
> The Fisher-boom proved that chess can be learned and enjoyed by almost every
> american, and while not everybody can become a GrandMaster, many can become very
> strong... and even more can get strong enough to enjoy the game and get hooked
> for life.
I don't believe that it proved that at all!!! IMHO it only proved that "the
average man in the street" would get caught up in any fad that became popular
enough - as also occurred with Backgammon about 25 years ago - but that really had
little lasting effect. And most of the people who took up chess during the craze
not only never became even modestly strong players but also quickly dropped out
once it ended! Yes, there was a significant salutary effect because the craze
reached people who never would otherwise have been exposed to chess, but despite
that in a nation of over 260,000,000 the membership is still only about 60,000.
Compared to the 2,000 or so in the AGA that's great of course, but in terms of
proving Bantari's premise that "while not everybody can become a GrandMaster, many
can become very strong... and even more can get strong enough to enjoy the game
and get hooked for life." I believe that it effectively proves the exact converse.
> I dunno... There seem to be so many indications that heredity and
> genetics do not play any significant role in the un-popularity of Go in
> the US that I seriously think that a controversial statements like this
> of Milt should be made only if accompanied by solid scientific proof.
I've made my case, but of course in the absence of some carefully statistically
designed experiments - something that almost certainly will never happen - no
absolute "proof" that will satisfy skeptics like Bantari can ever be developed. So
this will regrettably remain an unresolved "pissing contest".
> I won't bore you with more on this topic. We had a lengthy thread
> about this some time ago where most of the arguments were already made.
> No use repeating it all again. :-)
That was my feeling too, but failure to respond to your mistaken conclusions would
be tacit assent, and I believe that would be to do a disservice to the readers of
this ng who might not have the background to independently choose between our
competing and widely divergent understanding of reality.
> --
> ________________________________________
> -Bantari
> e-mail: kapr...@yahoo666.com (remove the 666)
> homepage: http://home.san.rr.com/rafgo
Milt
Stefan Verstraeten
"Milton N. Bradley" wrote:
(snip)
And this is where we differ diametrically!! And where my 8 years of teaching Go to
over 700 children (mainly 3rd thru 5th grade students) IMHO proves its value! ( I
don't mention this to pat myself on the back, but rather to point out that my opinion
on this subject is based upon observation of a rather large sample of relevant cases,
and may therefore have just a bit more credibility than mere speculation!).
(snip)
Milton,
The sample of students is large, but the sample of teachers contains only one. To
arrive at conclusions on the kids' ability, how do you exclude alternative factors
such as study method, teaching style or teacher's playing level?
--Stefan
Bantari
(brad...@villagenet.com) said...
> And this is where we differ diametrically!! And where my 8 years of teaching Go to
> over 700 children (mainly 3rd thru 5th grade students) IMHO proves its value! ( I
> don't mention this to pat myself on the back, but rather to point out that my
> opinion on this subject is based upon observation of a rather large sample of
> relevant cases, and may therefore have just a bit more credibility than mere
> speculation!).
This is fair. But it is only relevant if you were teaching the
game to both oriental pupils brought up in the west (I.e. with no Go
background) and to non-orientals. If you did, and you have seen clear
disparity, I could accept your theory. If you did not, even 100 years of
teaching Go has no real relevance because all you know is one side of the
story.
> A teacher would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to recognize the immense range
> of intrinsic (i.e. hereditary) capabilities that his students bring with
> themselves to school. And in the case of Go, the most prominently visible of such
> "built in" differences immediately appear in the student's ability to recognize
> and appropriately respond to the shapes of the stones on the board. And I'm not
> speaking of differences between various ethnic groups, but among individuals
> within any given group. And, of course, this sort of phenomenon also exists to an
> equal degree in all other aspects of cognitive function, as any teacher in any
> subject area can readily verify. There are stars and dunces in every class and
> every subject, and most of these differences come "built in" to their respective
> packages, and are only mildly modified (usually only detrimentally) by
> environmental factors.
I am inclined to agree with it. Like some people are smarter and
some are less smart, for example. Or better and worse athletes, and so
on...
However - there still needs to be a level of Go established which
a person need some special inborn talent to reach. I know such level
must exist - this is only natural. I guess where we differ in this
respect is that you set this level very low, while I think that almost
anybody can become an AGA dan player with sufficient determination.
Which is not to say that for some this is easier than for others.
>
> > The pattern recognition in Go is not at any higher level than the pattern
> > recognition we have to apply in everyday life, for example to interpret
> > traffic signs or to play video games.
>
> Once again, I must disagree, and once again I believe that a dispassionate
> appraisal of the relevant facts proves me right! The reality is that even retarded
> individuals can often properly interpret and appropriately respond to traffic
> signs, but only a tiny proportion of even the brightest portion of the population
> can handle the complexities routinely presented on the Go board!
This is because Go is much more than just pattern recognition. It
is also pattern *understanding*. I can assure you that I can recognize
every single possible pattern on a Go board and tell it apart from other
patterns. I can even memorize any single one of them... but this does
not necessarily makes me a strong player.
> > And as for strategic thinking... I
> > do not think that its on a different level than, say, running a
> > successful business or playing office politics. Americans seem to be
> > doing really well in these areas.
>
> This sounds as though it should be a tautology, but the facts indicate that it's
> not!
I assume that the facts you talk about is just one fact - that do
not seem to be doing well in Go. As opposed to, for example, chess or
business. I can hardly dispute this fact - it is certainly true. But
there are so many more factors influencing this... the only situation in
which you could make a case of it being predetermined genetically somehow
is if all other inhibitors are removed and the fact still persists. But
I have no clue how to conduct such experiment at present.
What we have right now is a whole array of factors which we *know*
seriously inhibit a development of Go players in the western world.
> And the fact that a statement like this sounds logical doesn't make it true!
But it certainly makes it worth considering.
> If it did Aristotle would have been right when he said that heavier objects fall
> faster than light ones! But he was dead wrong! And so are you, no matter how
> logical your premise might seem.
Well... Aristotle was wrong because he was *proven* wrong. I have
not seen any proof from you yet. Just an opinion. And, in all fairness,
all we have here is one opinion against another... which does not make my
opinion "dead wrong"... because if it did, you would have to be "dead
right" - and to make such strong statement you'd have to actually present
some *proof*.
> If you examine the skills required to succeed in
> business - and I spent most of my professional life doing that in Industrial
> Engineering and Operations Research, you will discover that a few highly developed
> organizational skills coupled with some financial acumen are usually sufficient
> for success, and being more than a bit lucky is often even more important! (To
> keep this already too long posting from becoming even longer I'll omit examples,
> but these can be provided if necessary.)
Ok. Fair. So how about to become a successful lawyer? Or an
detective? Or even a scientist? Do not tell me that in none of these
cases pattern recognition and strategic thinking does not play a role.
I am not sure what are the exact skills needed to become a good Go
player. Pattern recognition is certainly one of them. The ability to
read move sequences in your head is another. I'd even risk a statement
that with this skill developed sufficiently, everybody can play at high
level...
Good memory also plays a role.
Many other areas in life need these abilities to be successful at.
You might as well ask if it is genetically predetermined that
americans are not very good at soccer.
> In contrast, in the pure totally abstract world of the Go board the correlation of
> skill with results is almost perfect.
So is chess, so is mathematics... or almost any other science at
high level.
>
> > Pattern recognition might be different in chess than in Go, but
> > strategic thinking is at least related. And yet Go fails to have the
> > popularity of chess in the US.
>
> Of course it does! As far back as the 1850's when Paul Morphy of Louisiana was
> effectively World Chess Champion chess was already well established in the US. In
> contrast, Go only got started here during the 1910's - see my web page for exactly
> how. And chess in the US has had rich and influential patrons, while to date Go
> has had none!
Exactly. And, in my opinion, this is the one crucial factor why
Go does not have the popularity here as it has in orient.
But its not popularity we are arguing here but apparent ability.
My point is that they are related, yours that they are not, or not
exclusively.
You have all this experience with teaching so-and-so many kids to
play Go. This is great. But you meet many obstacles, many kids which
seem to lack talent for Go, and you assume that its caused by genetics.
I disagree - at least to the level we are discussing here (which
I assume to be AGA kyu). What I think is that it is caused mainly by
lack of popularity of Go than anything else. This popularity determines
how important the game is to these kids, hot motivated they are, and how
much effort they are willing to put in.
>
> > The Fisher-boom proved that chess can be learned and enjoyed by almost every
> > american, and while not everybody can become a GrandMaster, many can become very
> > strong... and even more can get strong enough to enjoy the game and get hooked
> > for life.
>
> I don't believe that it proved that at all!!! IMHO it only proved that "the
> average man in the street" would get caught up in any fad that became popular
> enough - as also occurred with Backgammon about 25 years ago - but that really had
> little lasting effect. And most of the people who took up chess during the craze
> not only never became even modestly strong players but also quickly dropped out
> once it ended!
Ok. But what would happen if Fisher kept playing? Or if another
Fisher emegred? Short-lived as the Fisher boom was, it showed us exactly
how to reach the masses and how to mobilize them. Many of the current
(and past) leading american chess players grew up on the Fisher boom...
many of them maybe would never pick up chess if not for this boom.
Now in Go - how many such great players there are who never learn
Go because of the lack of such boom? How many youngsters fail to treat
Go seriously because of the lack of such players?
In orient, Go experiences a constant boom like this, with new
"Fisher" emerging almost every year. Is this really so strange that
korean kids take up Go with much more determination that american kids?
Is there really no other way to explain this phenomenon as with genetics?
What I am saying here is not proven, but it is my strong belief:
If we had such "Fisher" in Go, if we had a whole infrastructure with
great funds devoted to Go, if schools were teaching it and parents were
supporting it, if larger masses of kids were exposed to it at younger
levels, if the society at large took it seriously - I bet that many kids
who cannot make it to 10k would be 5k, and those who are 5k would be dan
players, and so on.
But there would still be kids to whom Go strength comes faster and
with less effort than to others. And there would still be kids who
would ultimately reach higher level that others. So in this sense you
are right.
But I do not think that the current level of Go in the US is
determined by some genetic inadequacies. Why? Because the potential
which is genetically there is far from being used optimally.
> Yes, there was a significant salutary effect because the craze
> reached people who never would otherwise have been exposed to chess, but despite
> that in a nation of over 260,000,000 the membership is still only about 60,000.
> Compared to the 2,000 or so in the AGA that's great of course, but in terms of
> proving Bantari's premise that "while not everybody can become a GrandMaster, many
> can become very strong... and even more can get strong enough to enjoy the game
> and get hooked for life." I believe that it effectively proves the exact converse.
Why? I consider 60,000 of registered players and maybe 10 times
that many unregistered but still dedicated players to be "many"...
especially taking into account the low popularity of chess in the US.
The deciding factor for the USCF membership to jump to 260,000,000
(with maybe 3 times as many unregistered players) and then decline back
to 60,000 is the raise and then the fall of Fisher. Nothing else... and
certainly not genetics. If anything - this proves my theory that
popularity of a game is the deciding factor, not genetics.
Do you think that the membership numbers would have declined if
Fisher kept playing and winning? Or if a new "Fisher" appeared? I think
the numbers would not drop, and I think that we would have had many more
american GrandMasters now and that the average USCF rating level would
rise too.
Same in Go. Except that in Go there was never any "Fisher".
> > I dunno... There seem to be so many indications that heredity and
> > genetics do not play any significant role in the un-popularity of Go in
> > the US that I seriously think that a controversial statements like this
> > of Milt should be made only if accompanied by solid scientific proof.
>
> I've made my case, but of course in the absence of some carefully statistically
> designed experiments - something that almost certainly will never happen - no
> absolute "proof" that will satisfy skeptics like Bantari can ever be developed. So
> this will regrettably remain an unresolved "pissing contest".
Hehe... There can be an experiment performed. We need two things
- a group of dedicated teacher who would work with selected groups of
americans and oriental-americans (maybe 3rd or 4th generation) who have
no Go background. And we need A dedicated group of teachers to work with
an average group of american youngsters. And then we need to compare
notes.
I believe that two things would happen: 1) There would be no
significant difference between the american and oriental students; and 2)
almost every one from the group of average american youngsters can be
brought to a level of at least AGA 5k, probably much higher (although
there will probably be some very few who would not reach this level).
Notice that I said a "group of teachers", not a single teacher.
As everybody who every went to school know the effectiveness of a teacher
depends in certain amount not only on the abilities of this teacher, but
also on how well the teacher and the student are working together... in
other words, some teacher are better for some students while others are
better for other students. No single teacher can teach everybody with
the same effect.
If I had time I would even do it myself - I would ask you to send
me one of your average students and make a bet that I will make him AGA
5k or better within half year. And if he had even a little talent,
within a year he'd be as strong as you or me. This assumes ont-on-one
instructions for at least a few hours every day. The important thing
would be here my time and the student's determination.
No genetics involved. :-)
>
> > I won't bore you with more on this topic. We had a lengthy thread
> > about this some time ago where most of the arguments were already made.
> > No use repeating it all again. :-)
>
> That was my feeling too, but failure to respond to your mistaken conclusions would
> be tacit assent, and I believe that would be to do a disservice to the readers of
> this ng who might not have the background to independently choose between our
> competing and widely divergent understanding of reality.
Hehe... you manage to call my conclusion "mistaken" and yet your
opinion unproven in the same post. Bravo. :-)
As I said - at best we can call it "divergent" opinions... in lack
of any proof, it is impossible to call any of us "mistaken". :-)
*****
I know, I know - I promised I will not add to this thread
anymore... but I just have too much fun arguing with you, so what the
heck!
Enjoy. :-)
Milton N. Bradley
Stefan:
This quite valid argument has been made before by several observers, and obviously cannot
be disproved by me based only upon my own experience - but .........to perhaps make my
position more credible I ask you to consider an extremely widespread and long established
educational phenomenon - the masses of people who simply don't "get" mathematics! The
cases of "math phobia" are legion! And to those of us who don't suffer from this problem
it seems incredible, but it's real, prevalent, quite definitely "built in" (i.e.
hereditary), and NOT occasioned by either the material taught, teachers or methods used.
(Although those things can make matters better or worse, of course.)
So why is everyone here so unwilling to accept that a completely analogous phenomenon can
exist for Go?? To make the simplest case possible "If it looks like a duck, walks like a
duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck!"
Perhaps our reluctance to accept this reality stems from the accompanying realization
that it means that Go will never become a preferred activity of the masses, but will
always be relegated to the status of a pastime for a select few. But, as with every other
problem, finding a solution and instituting appropriate corrective action can only result
from accurately determining its causal mechanisms, and will never be achieved if we "put
our heads in the sand" and refuse to confront the reality of the situation.
Milton N. Bradley
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2001 21:20:14 -0500, Milton N. Bradley
> (brad...@villagenet.com) said...
> > And this is where we differ diametrically!! And where my 8 years of teaching Go to
> > over 700 children (mainly 3rd thru 5th grade students) IMHO proves its value! ( I
> > don't mention this to pat myself on the back, but rather to point out that my
> > opinion on this subject is based upon observation of a rather large sample of
> > relevant cases, and may therefore have just a bit more credibility than mere
> > speculation!).
>
> This is fair. But it is only relevant if you were teaching the
> game to both oriental pupils brought up in the west (I.e. with no Go
> background) and to non-orientals. If you did, and you have seen clear
> disparity, I could accept your theory. If you did not, even 100 years of
> teaching Go has no real relevance because all you know is one side of the
> story.
>
Great! Gotcha!!!
Please look closely at the photos of the kids in my after school Go program in my web
page!!! In this program I had more than a few children of immigrants from Japan, China
and Korea, as well as a number of other even more exotic locations!! And, in the story I
relate therein about the little girl who didn't "get" Go but persisted and eventually
became #1 on the rating ladder, the reason for her persistence was that she was Japanese
and her mother pushed her relentlessly to learn Go!
>
> > A teacher would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to recognize the immense range
> > of intrinsic (i.e. hereditary) capabilities that his students bring with
> > themselves to school. And in the case of Go, the most prominently visible of such
> > "built in" differences immediately appear in the student's ability to recognize
> > and appropriately respond to the shapes of the stones on the board. And I'm not
> > speaking of differences between various ethnic groups, but among individuals
> > within any given group. And, of course, this sort of phenomenon also exists to an
> > equal degree in all other aspects of cognitive function, as any teacher in any
> > subject area can readily verify. There are stars and dunces in every class and
> > every subject, and most of these differences come "built in" to their respective
> > packages, and are only mildly modified (usually only detrimentally) by
> > environmental factors.
>
> I am inclined to agree with it. Like some people are smarter and
> some are less smart, for example. Or better and worse athletes, and so
> on...
>
> However - there still needs to be a level of Go established which
> a person need some special inborn talent to reach. I know such level
> must exist - this is only natural. I guess where we differ in this
> respect is that you set this level very low, while I think that almost
> anybody can become an AGA dan player with sufficient determination.
> Which is not to say that for some this is easier than for others.
Indubitably true, but why would they even want to try???? Those who are mathematics
phobic persist despite that because it's REQUIRED if they are to graduate, but where is
the incentive for someone who doesn't "get" Go to persist despite that??? So if you can
solve this problem, then we might have something approaching masses of Go players
-albeit not very good ones - but lacking that I aver that we must resign ourselves to a
permanent place on the periphery.
Very minor role at best! Just ask any member of those professions.
>
> I am not sure what are the exact skills needed to become a good Go
> player. Pattern recognition is certainly one of them. The ability to
> read move sequences in your head is another. I'd even risk a statement
> that with this skill developed sufficiently, everybody can play at high
> level...
>
> Good memory also plays a role.
>
> Many other areas in life need these abilities to be successful at.
>
> You might as well ask if it is genetically predetermined that
> americans are not very good at soccer.
>
General athletic ability, and the phenomenon of those "with two left feet" is far too
well known to dispute!
>
> > In contrast, in the pure totally abstract world of the Go board the correlation of
> > skill with results is almost perfect.
>
> So is chess, so is mathematics... or almost any other science at
> high level.
>
And (as already described above and the other posting I made on this subject today) each
exhibits this same syndrome, albeit to somewhat different degree than does Go.
>
> >
> > > Pattern recognition might be different in chess than in Go, but
> > > strategic thinking is at least related. And yet Go fails to have the
> > > popularity of chess in the US.
> >
> > Of course it does! As far back as the 1850's when Paul Morphy of Louisiana was
> > effectively World Chess Champion chess was already well established in the US. In
> > contrast, Go only got started here during the 1910's - see my web page for exactly
> > how. And chess in the US has had rich and influential patrons, while to date Go
> > has had none!
>
> Exactly. And, in my opinion, this is the one crucial factor why
> Go does not have the popularity here as it has in orient.
No argument here - tautological.
>
> But its not popularity we are arguing here but apparent ability.
> My point is that they are related, yours that they are not, or not
> exclusively.
>
> You have all this experience with teaching so-and-so many kids to
> play Go. This is great. But you meet many obstacles, many kids which
> seem to lack talent for Go, and you assume that its caused by genetics.
>
> I disagree - at least to the level we are discussing here (which
> I assume to be AGA kyu). What I think is that it is caused mainly by
> lack of popularity of Go than anything else. This popularity determines
> how important the game is to these kids, hot motivated they are, and how
> much effort they are willing to put in.
>
See the above for the refutation of this argument.
>
> >
> > > The Fisher-boom proved that chess can be learned and enjoyed by almost every
> > > american, and while not everybody can become a GrandMaster, many can become very
> > > strong... and even more can get strong enough to enjoy the game and get hooked
> > > for life.
> >
> > I don't believe that it proved that at all!!! IMHO it only proved that "the
> > average man in the street" would get caught up in any fad that became popular
> > enough - as also occurred with Backgammon about 25 years ago - but that really had
> > little lasting effect. And most of the people who took up chess during the craze
> > not only never became even modestly strong players but also quickly dropped out
> > once it ended!
>
> Ok. But what would happen if Fisher kept playing? Or if another
> Fisher emegred? Short-lived as the Fisher boom was, it showed us exactly
> how to reach the masses and how to mobilize them. Many of the current
> (and past) leading american chess players grew up on the Fisher boom...
> many of them maybe would never pick up chess if not for this boom.
>
> Now in Go - how many such great players there are who never learn
> Go because of the lack of such boom? How many youngsters fail to treat
> Go seriously because of the lack of such players?
>
An unanswerable question, although they clearly exist. But if my analysis of the
situation is correct, many fewer than you would prefer to believe!
>
> In orient, Go experiences a constant boom like this, with new
> "Fisher" emerging almost every year. Is this really so strange that
> korean kids take up Go with much more determination that american kids?
> Is there really no other way to explain this phenomenon as with genetics?
>
Their determination is a cultural artifact, almost entirely unrelated to the subject
under discussion, although it does raise another unanswerable (albeit very interesting)
question - why did Go take hold in China, Japan and Korea in the first place and not
elsewhere??? It implies (but certainly doesn't prove) an inherent (i.e. genetic)
influence.
> What I am saying here is not proven, but it is my strong belief:
> If we had such "Fisher" in Go, if we had a whole infrastructure with
> great funds devoted to Go, if schools were teaching it and parents were
> supporting it, if larger masses of kids were exposed to it at younger
> levels, if the society at large took it seriously - I bet that many kids
> who cannot make it to 10k would be 5k, and those who are 5k would be dan
> players, and so on.
>
> But there would still be kids to whom Go strength comes faster and
> with less effort than to others. And there would still be kids who
> would ultimately reach higher level that others. So in this sense you
> are right.
>
> But I do not think that the current level of Go in the US is
> determined by some genetic inadequacies. Why? Because the potential
> which is genetically there is far from being used optimally.
Of course! But let's make another analogy. How much additional
incentive/training/infusion of monetary resources will it take to transform even a
single "normal" individual into an Einstein??? You know the answer as well as I do -
even infinite resources are insufficient! Yes, more people will play and the achieved
average level of play will be higher, but the genetically predisposed level
(Unfortunately unknowable with existing technology) will remain invariant!!!
> > Yes, there was a significant salutary effect because the craze
> > reached people who never would otherwise have been exposed to chess, but despite
> > that in a nation of over 260,000,000 the membership is still only about 60,000.
> > Compared to the 2,000 or so in the AGA that's great of course, but in terms of
> > proving Bantari's premise that "while not everybody can become a GrandMaster, many
> > can become very strong... and even more can get strong enough to enjoy the game
> > and get hooked for life." I believe that it effectively proves the exact converse.
>
> Why? I consider 60,000 of registered players and maybe 10 times
> that many unregistered but still dedicated players to be "many"...
> especially taking into account the low popularity of chess in the US.
>
> The deciding factor for the USCF membership to jump to 260,000,000
> (with maybe 3 times as many unregistered players) and then decline back
> to 60,000 is the raise and then the fall of Fisher. Nothing else... and
> certainly not genetics. If anything - this proves my theory that
> popularity of a game is the deciding factor, not genetics.
>
Doesn't prove it at all, as already discussed above.
Milt
Milton N. Bradley
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2001 21:20:14 -0500, Milton N. Bradley
> (brad...@villagenet.com) said...
> > And this is where we differ diametrically!! And where my 8 years of teaching Go to
> > over 700 children (mainly 3rd thru 5th grade students) IMHO proves its value! ( I
> > don't mention this to pat myself on the back, but rather to point out that my
> > opinion on this subject is based upon observation of a rather large sample of
> > relevant cases, and may therefore have just a bit more credibility than mere
> > speculation!).
>
> This is fair. But it is only relevant if you were teaching the
> game to both oriental pupils brought up in the west (I.e. with no Go
> background) and to non-orientals. If you did, and you have seen clear
> disparity, I could accept your theory. If you did not, even 100 years of
> teaching Go has no real relevance because all you know is one side of the
> story.
>
Great! Gotcha!!!
Please look closely at the photos of the kids in my after school Go program in my web
page!!! In this program I had more than a few children of immigrants from Japan, China
and Korea, as well as a number of other even more exotic locations!! And, in the story I
relate therein about the little girl who didn't "get" Go but persisted and eventually
became #1 on the rating ladder, the reason for her persistence was that she was Japanese
and her mother pushed her relentlessly to learn Go!
>
> > A teacher would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to recognize the immense range
> > of intrinsic (i.e. hereditary) capabilities that his students bring with
> > themselves to school. And in the case of Go, the most prominently visible of such
> > "built in" differences immediately appear in the student's ability to recognize
> > and appropriately respond to the shapes of the stones on the board. And I'm not
> > speaking of differences between various ethnic groups, but among individuals
> > within any given group. And, of course, this sort of phenomenon also exists to an
> > equal degree in all other aspects of cognitive function, as any teacher in any
> > subject area can readily verify. There are stars and dunces in every class and
> > every subject, and most of these differences come "built in" to their respective
> > packages, and are only mildly modified (usually only detrimentally) by
> > environmental factors.
>
> I am inclined to agree with it. Like some people are smarter and
> some are less smart, for example. Or better and worse athletes, and so
> on...
>
> However - there still needs to be a level of Go established which
> a person need some special inborn talent to reach. I know such level
> must exist - this is only natural. I guess where we differ in this
> respect is that you set this level very low, while I think that almost
> anybody can become an AGA dan player with sufficient determination.
> Which is not to say that for some this is easier than for others.
Indubitably true, but why would they even want to try???? Those who are mathematics
phobic persist despite that because it's REQUIRED if they are to graduate, but where is
the incentive for someone who doesn't "get" Go to persist despite that??? So if you can
solve this problem, then we might have something approaching masses of Go players
-albeit not very good ones - but lacking that I aver that we must resign ourselves to a
permanent place on the periphery.
> >
Very minor role at best! Just ask any member of those professions.
>
> I am not sure what are the exact skills needed to become a good Go
> player. Pattern recognition is certainly one of them. The ability to
> read move sequences in your head is another. I'd even risk a statement
> that with this skill developed sufficiently, everybody can play at high
> level...
>
> Good memory also plays a role.
>
> Many other areas in life need these abilities to be successful at.
>
> You might as well ask if it is genetically predetermined that
> americans are not very good at soccer.
>
General athletic ability, and the phenomenon of those "with two left feet" is far too
well known to dispute!
>
> > In contrast, in the pure totally abstract world of the Go board the correlation of
> > skill with results is almost perfect.
>
> So is chess, so is mathematics... or almost any other science at
> high level.
>
And (as already described above and the other posting I made on this subject today) each
exhibits this same syndrome, albeit to somewhat different degree than does Go.
>
> >
> > > Pattern recognition might be different in chess than in Go, but
> > > strategic thinking is at least related. And yet Go fails to have the
> > > popularity of chess in the US.
> >
> > Of course it does! As far back as the 1850's when Paul Morphy of Louisiana was
> > effectively World Chess Champion chess was already well established in the US. In
> > contrast, Go only got started here during the 1910's - see my web page for exactly
> > how. And chess in the US has had rich and influential patrons, while to date Go
> > has had none!
>
> Exactly. And, in my opinion, this is the one crucial factor why
> Go does not have the popularity here as it has in orient.
No argument here - tautological.
>
> But its not popularity we are arguing here but apparent ability.
> My point is that they are related, yours that they are not, or not
> exclusively.
>
> You have all this experience with teaching so-and-so many kids to
> play Go. This is great. But you meet many obstacles, many kids which
> seem to lack talent for Go, and you assume that its caused by genetics.
>
> I disagree - at least to the level we are discussing here (which
> I assume to be AGA kyu). What I think is that it is caused mainly by
> lack of popularity of Go than anything else. This popularity determines
> how important the game is to these kids, hot motivated they are, and how
> much effort they are willing to put in.
>
See the above for the refutation of this argument.
>
> >
> > > The Fisher-boom proved that chess can be learned and enjoyed by almost every
> > > american, and while not everybody can become a GrandMaster, many can become very
> > > strong... and even more can get strong enough to enjoy the game and get hooked
> > > for life.
> >
> > I don't believe that it proved that at all!!! IMHO it only proved that "the
> > average man in the street" would get caught up in any fad that became popular
> > enough - as also occurred with Backgammon about 25 years ago - but that really had
> > little lasting effect. And most of the people who took up chess during the craze
> > not only never became even modestly strong players but also quickly dropped out
> > once it ended!
>
> Ok. But what would happen if Fisher kept playing? Or if another
> Fisher emegred? Short-lived as the Fisher boom was, it showed us exactly
> how to reach the masses and how to mobilize them. Many of the current
> (and past) leading american chess players grew up on the Fisher boom...
> many of them maybe would never pick up chess if not for this boom.
>
> Now in Go - how many such great players there are who never learn
> Go because of the lack of such boom? How many youngsters fail to treat
> Go seriously because of the lack of such players?
>
An unanswerable question, although they clearly exist. But if my analysis of the
situation is correct, many fewer than you would prefer to believe!
>
> In orient, Go experiences a constant boom like this, with new
> "Fisher" emerging almost every year. Is this really so strange that
> korean kids take up Go with much more determination that american kids?
> Is there really no other way to explain this phenomenon as with genetics?
Their determination is a cultural artifact, almost entirely unrelated to the subject
under discussion, although it does raise another unanswerable (albeit very interesting)
question - why did Go take hold in China, Japan and Korea in the first place and not
elsewhere??? It implies (but certainly doesn't prove) an inherent (i.e. genetic)
influence.
> What I am saying here is not proven, but it is my strong belief:
> If we had such "Fisher" in Go, if we had a whole infrastructure with
> great funds devoted to Go, if schools were teaching it and parents were
> supporting it, if larger masses of kids were exposed to it at younger
> levels, if the society at large took it seriously - I bet that many kids
> who cannot make it to 10k would be 5k, and those who are 5k would be dan
> players, and so on.
>
> But there would still be kids to whom Go strength comes faster and
> with less effort than to others. And there would still be kids who
> would ultimately reach higher level that others. So in this sense you
> are right.
>
> But I do not think that the current level of Go in the US is
> determined by some genetic inadequacies. Why? Because the potential
> which is genetically there is far from being used optimally.
Of course! But let's make another analogy. How much additional
incentive/training/infusion of monetary resources will it take to transform even a
single "normal" individual into an Einstein??? You know the answer as well as I do -
even infinite resources are insufficient! Yes, more people will play and the achieved
average level of play will be higher, but the genetically predisposed level
(Unfortunately unknowable with existing technology) will remain invariant!!!
> > Yes, there was a significant salutary effect because the craze
> > reached people who never would otherwise have been exposed to chess, but despite
> > that in a nation of over 260,000,000 the membership is still only about 60,000.
> > Compared to the 2,000 or so in the AGA that's great of course, but in terms of
> > proving Bantari's premise that "while not everybody can become a GrandMaster, many
> > can become very strong... and even more can get strong enough to enjoy the game
> > and get hooked for life." I believe that it effectively proves the exact converse.
>
> Why? I consider 60,000 of registered players and maybe 10 times
> that many unregistered but still dedicated players to be "many"...
> especially taking into account the low popularity of chess in the US.
>
> The deciding factor for the USCF membership to jump to 260,000,000
> (with maybe 3 times as many unregistered players) and then decline back
> to 60,000 is the raise and then the fall of Fisher. Nothing else... and
> certainly not genetics. If anything - this proves my theory that
> popularity of a game is the deciding factor, not genetics.
>
Doesn't prove it at all, as already discussed above.
>
Milt
Milton N. Bradley
A further thought, which regrettably extends this already overly long contretemps, but
which I hope will justify itself by shedding much needed light.
Bantari wrote:
- snip -
> However - there still needs to be a level of Go established which
> a person need some special inborn talent to reach. I know such level
> must exist - this is only natural. I guess where we differ in this
> respect is that you set this level very low, while I think that almost
> anybody can become an AGA dan player with sufficient determination.
> Which is not to say that for some this is easier than for others.
Although I'm fully aware of the serious logical flaw of "generalizing from the
particular", I believe that the few actual examples I now cite in support of my position
are far superior to the completely unsupported opinion of Bantari quoted above that
"almost anybody can become an AGA dan player with sufficient determination." - which is
IMHO obviously totally incorrect.
Here are 4 examples, 3 from my own personal experience and 1 that is "public knowledge":
Case #1: Age 50, Lawyer, Scrabble Champion (so obviously no dummy, and with excellent
memory) playing Go for several decades and current tournament competitor, and stuck at
AGA 12k.
Case #2: Age also about 50, Physics Ph.D. and leader of a research group with a leading
aerospace manufacturer (so obviously a competent and sophisticated thinker), playing Go
for many decades, and stuck at AGA 8k.
Case #3: Similar age, Computer Programmer (ditto on sophisticated thought) , playing Go
for several decades, stuck at AGA 12k for years and then quit!!!
Case #4 (public domain): Age (perhaps 35?), occupation unknown to me, playing Go for
about 5 years, but taking professional lessons and very active in teaching/tournament
activities, stuck at AGA 18K!!!!!!!!!
Finally, it is logical to ask why it is that most of you have never encountered the
above phenomenon if it is really representative. The answer (as I've pointed out
repeatedly in the past) is that the vast majority of those who have this genetically
imposed inability to "get" Go simply drop out, and therefore become invisible unless one
specifically searches for the clues which show their (transitory) existence on the Go
scene.
Once again, I rest my case (at least until challenged yet again).
Greg Miller
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2001 14:37:37 -0600, Greg Miller (gmiller@classic-
> games.com) said...
> Well, of course. But compared to soccer, its just standing
> around, no matter how much tobacco you chew. :-)
>
> I was just beating down the argument that soccer's "lack of fast
> action" prevents it from catching on in the US, and I gave baseball as
> counter-example.
Well, actually, the full quote was "lack of fast action and physical
feats"... That seems to be the most likely reason why so many Americans
complain that soccer is "boring". It apparently doesn't have the hooks
required to overcome its current disadvantageous market position. Then
again, if MLS went the way of the XFL, people might stick around to
learn the sport ;)
Greg Miller
[snipped quotes and rhetorical question]
> I think there is good reason basketball has been well accepted by the world, but not baseball
> or American rugby. Basketball makes more sense as a sport and with the rules and the
> objectives of the game, and is not so ridiculous.
By "makes more sense" I assume you mean "is more similar to existing
sports in those countries". That certainly could help in gaining a
foothold. I find the repetition of basketball (and soccer) tiresome, but
to each his own.
I wonder if the climate here (relative to much of Europe) gives an
advantage to games that provide the players with regular rest? That
likely wouldn't affect professional teams all that much, but it could
make a very real difference to casual players. *shrug* That's just a theory.
If it's true that basketball is more popular overall outside the U.S., I
suspect that it's simply more accessible to people who have never seen
the game before than Baseball or American Football. It also helps both
here and abroad that basketball doesn't absolutely require a large
amount of space or equipment.
Of course, Baseball has done rather well through most of the western
hemisphere and parts of Asia, so it's not unique to the U.S.
Greg Miller
> Stefan Verstraeten wrote:
> So why is everyone here so unwilling to accept that a completely analogous phenomenon can
> exist for Go?? To make the simplest case possible "If it looks like a duck, walks like a
> duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck!"
This is only my interpretation of what's been said, but it appears that
what many here object to is the idea that non-Asians are inherently less
likely to be "wired" to enjoy Go. It's not a full-time obsession in
Japan or Korea and it won't be here--but making it one doesn't seem to
be the objective of the posters in this thread. The question is how to
make the per capita number of players in the western world more similar
to what it is in some eastern countries--and there are a number of
factors that contribute to the current extreme difference in popularity.
Bantari
(brad...@villagenet.com) said...
> Bantari wrote:
> > This is fair. But it is only relevant if you were teaching the
> > game to both oriental pupils brought up in the west (I.e. with no Go
> > background) and to non-orientals. If you did, and you have seen clear
> > disparity, I could accept your theory. If you did not, even 100 years of
> > teaching Go has no real relevance because all you know is one side of the
> > story.
> >
>
> Great! Gotcha!!!
Hehe... ok. Mea culpa. :-)
>
> Please look closely at the photos of the kids in my after school Go program in my web
> page!!! In this program I had more than a few children of immigrants from Japan, China
> and Korea, as well as a number of other even more exotic locations!! And, in the story I
> relate therein about the little girl who didn't "get" Go but persisted and eventually
> became #1 on the rating ladder, the reason for her persistence was that she was Japanese
> and her mother pushed her relentlessly to learn Go!
Yes, ok - but this actually strengthen *my* argument - if the
parents of the children who just don't "get" go were to push them so hard
as the mother of the japanese kid, they might have also topped the
charts. The point here is, I think, the mother's push, not the fact that
the kid was oriental.
Well... as I have said in another post - the solution is to
popularize the game. But again, all it says is that if the kids *did*
have a reason to persist, they would be doing much better than you seem
to give them credit for. So the reasons for poor performance is not as
much genetics as cultural influence.
Which is my point exactly.
The point is proven in many areas - the larger the pyramid, the
more people on the top, and the more people above average, and the higher
the average. I seriously do not see what makes Go so different from
virtually every other human activity we know.
If anything - this fact is proven by the strength of Go in Japan.
There are many strong players there, but also many weak ones, as we all
know from playing on the net. Their player pool is just so much larger.
Once we get our pool as large as they have, and the culture adjusts
correspondingly, I think that our Go will be as strong as theirs.
> > Ok. Fair. So how about to become a successful lawyer? Or an
> > detective? Or even a scientist? Do not tell me that in none of these
> > cases pattern recognition and strategic thinking does not play a role.
> >
>
> Very minor role at best! Just ask any member of those professions.
I have. And even more that this - I have worked with many of them
very closely. As a matter of fact, both my parents are scientists, and
most of their friends are scientists, so I have been exposed to this
crowd from very early age.
Strategic thinking is nothing else than looking ahead and
weighting out advantages and disadvantages. It heavily depends on
knowledge. Crossing the road during rush hour contains some amount of
strategic thinking. So does office politics. So does running an
election. So does playing chess, bridge or tic-tac-toe.
Strategic thinking is not something foreign to most people - it is
something familiar. True - games like Go or chess might take it to a
higher level, but its a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one.
One would even argue that the strategy in Go is in many way easier
and simpler than the one we see in real life - because of the "zero-sum"
thingie. In Go, with enough time, we can actually *derive* all the
possible strategic plans in given situations, as well as all the possible
counter-plans and counter-moves. In real life the situation is much more
complicated. To be successful in life, in many areas, one needs much
more than what one needs in Go. But this might be an entirely different
argument, hehe...
> General athletic ability, and the phenomenon of those "with two left feet" is far too
> well known to dispute!
But you cannot say that "americans have two left feet" because
they do not seem to excel at soccer. Granted - there are some people who
do have two left feet, but these are just a few. While also very few can
ever make it on a World Cup winning team, most of the population is
somewhere inbetween. They can play, they can enjoy it, and with practice
they can become good at it.
Same in Go. There are undisputably some people who are just not
wired the proper way to enjoy Go. Like there are some who have enough
talent to make it to the top. But the middle is just this - the middle.
And they are the majority - and what should be possible for them is to at
least become decent club player... i'd say around AGA 1d. Which is not a
very high level on the scale from beginner to pro.
There are very few (if any) entertainment activities which are not
designed in such a way that your average Joe can be good at it with
persistence.
Anyways - in my experience, the "two left feet" argument is used
much more often than it should be - to cover things like lack of
motivation or dedication, or to cover for poor abilities of teachers and
couches. Just my opinion, of course. :-)
> > > In contrast, in the pure totally abstract world of the Go board the correlation of
> > > skill with results is almost perfect.
> >
> > So is chess, so is mathematics... or almost any other science at
> > high level.
> >
>
> And (as already described above and the other posting I made on this subject today) each
> exhibits this same syndrome, albeit to somewhat different degree than does Go.
Sure, every activity is a little different. But the difference
between chess and Go is of the same quality as between chess and othello,
for example - they are just different games. But all of the share the
same qualities - zero sum, and so on... In both of them you need the same
qualities to become successful, although maybe to a different degree.
> > I disagree - at least to the level we are discussing here (which
> > I assume to be AGA kyu). What I think is that it is caused mainly by
> > lack of popularity of Go than anything else. This popularity determines
> > how important the game is to these kids, hot motivated they are, and how
> > much effort they are willing to put in.
> >
>
> See the above for the refutation of this argument.
I see above, but I see no refutation. Just the opposite - things
you say (about this japanese girl and all) seem to support my point and
contradict yours. Please elaborate.
> > Ok. But what would happen if Fisher kept playing? Or if another
> > Fisher emegred? Short-lived as the Fisher boom was, it showed us exactly
> > how to reach the masses and how to mobilize them. Many of the current
> > (and past) leading american chess players grew up on the Fisher boom...
> > many of them maybe would never pick up chess if not for this boom.
> >
> > Now in Go - how many such great players there are who never learn
> > Go because of the lack of such boom? How many youngsters fail to treat
> > Go seriously because of the lack of such players?
> >
>
> An unanswerable question, although they clearly exist. But if my analysis of the
> situation is correct, many fewer than you would prefer to believe!
Well... Fisher boom caused the chess population to soar way above
260,000,000, as you have said yourself - and these are all people who, at
least at the moment, treated chess seriously. Seriously enough to pay
USCF dues, seek out teachers and pay them, buy chess equipment and books,
and spend countless hours on the game.
Most of my chess-friends learned the game due to this boom, and
are still playing. Some of them are very good. All of them are decent
players.
What makes you think that such boom is impossible in Go as well?
If there only was a Go-Fisher and the political situation was succeptible
for making a big hu-ha out of it, like during the Cold War?
> > In orient, Go experiences a constant boom like this, with new
> > "Fisher" emerging almost every year. Is this really so strange that
> > korean kids take up Go with much more determination that american kids?
> > Is there really no other way to explain this phenomenon as with genetics?
>
> Their determination is a cultural artifact, almost entirely unrelated to the subject
> under discussion, although it does raise another unanswerable (albeit very interesting)
> question - why did Go take hold in China, Japan and Korea in the first place and not
> elsewhere???
You said it yourself - its a cultural artifact. :-)
> It implies (but certainly doesn't prove) an inherent (i.e. genetic)
> influence.
Not so! Go took hold in these countries because for a long time
it was only enjoyed by the aristocracy - with the Shoguns support and all
the bells and whistles and status that go with it! If you read the
history of Go in Japan, you'll see how much government support there was
for Go during whole centuries! This is the basis of Japanese Go
successes, not genetics.
Same in China - Go was unable to reach a comparably high level
until there was government support (just read the intro to Nie Weiping's
book) - and this too was aided by appearance of "Fishers" - like Ma
Xiaohun and Nie Weiping who started whooping the Japanese. If you look
at the political situation closely, this bears striking similarities to
the Fisher/Soviets struggle during Cold War - and this is why it was
given so much attention in China.
Same in Korea - not until Cho Hun Hyun, who studied and perfected
his Go in Japan, returned to Korea and spent countless years building up
the Korean Go environment, with help of his unparalleled successes over
both the Chinese and the Japanese in international arena, did Korean Go
become a powerhouse it is now.
When I started learning Go, not many even heard of any Chinese or
Korean players. Tell me - if Go in orient is really predetermined by
genetics, why weren't the other oriental countries besides Japan
producing super-strong Go players 30, 40, 50, 60 or 70 years ago?
I tell you why - because the game did not enjoy the popularity it
has now... because the necessary cultural attributes were not present.
The same cultural attributes which are not present in the US today.
Back to Japan - Once Go was introduced to the general population
there (or once the general population reached the level at which it could
pursue such activities instead of just fending for their lifes) - the
general population, which always tried to imitate the aristocracy
anyways, took it up in a flash.
Same thing happened here with golf, for example, although in
different times.
Most trends go from top down, and people always try to imitate
what the "aristocracy" does. If you hook the american "aristocracy"
(I.e. the big money and career people) on Go, its popularity will surge
as well, with everybody and their mothers trying to learn the game... and
many of them, who now not even know it exists, would become very good at
it.
> > But I do not think that the current level of Go in the US is
> > determined by some genetic inadequacies. Why? Because the potential
> > which is genetically there is far from being used optimally.
>
> Of course! But let's make another analogy. How much additional
> incentive/training/infusion of monetary resources will it take to transform even a
> single "normal" individual into an Einstein??? You know the answer as well as I do -
> even infinite resources are insufficient! Yes, more people will play and the achieved
> average level of play will be higher, but the genetically predisposed level
> (Unfortunately unknowable with existing technology) will remain invariant!!!
Agreed, but we are not talking about Einsteins here - we are
talking about, at best, low level college teachers. I am not trying to
argue that almost everybody has the talent to win the Kisei. All I am
saying that almost everybody has the tools to become AGA 1d. The
Einstein-analogy is really misplaced.
> > > Yes, there was a significant salutary effect because the craze
> > > reached people who never would otherwise have been exposed to chess, but despite
> > > that in a nation of over 260,000,000 the membership is still only about 60,000.
> > > Compared to the 2,000 or so in the AGA that's great of course, but in terms of
> > > proving Bantari's premise that "while not everybody can become a GrandMaster, many
> > > can become very strong... and even more can get strong enough to enjoy the game
> > > and get hooked for life." I believe that it effectively proves the exact converse.
> >
> > Why? I consider 60,000 of registered players and maybe 10 times
> > that many unregistered but still dedicated players to be "many"...
> > especially taking into account the low popularity of chess in the US.
> >
> > The deciding factor for the USCF membership to jump to 260,000,000
> > (with maybe 3 times as many unregistered players) and then decline back
> > to 60,000 is the raise and then the fall of Fisher. Nothing else... and
> > certainly not genetics. If anything - this proves my theory that
> > popularity of a game is the deciding factor, not genetics.
> >
>
> Doesn't prove it at all, as already discussed above.
Ok, lets recap. You are saying that the surge in chess popularity
and the influx of countless new players who started taking the game
seriously at the time of Fisher was due to genetics??
The situation of Go in Japan, China, and Korea seem to support my
point - in each of these countries Go developed to its current level
after it become a culturally and socially desirable activity. And after
it secured massive financial support (which might be interrelated with
the cultural situation).
Bantari
my own experience which show how many kids who had to seriously struggle
in school become great Go players. But what would it prove?
I honestly do not think that what you say is relevant to anything
under discussion. I never said that there are no people who just "don't
get Go", only that such people are a minority. At least to a level of
AGA 1d.
Also - from your examples, I see that most of these people are in
their 50s. Maybe age is a factor here? Do you think that, at this age,
the Physics PhD fella would be able to get another PhD in another,
unrelated field? Or that the scrabble champion could make it to become
checkers champion?
And how about the other guy, who quit after 10 years? How do you
know he would not become a dan player had he played for another 10 years?
For some people the barriers of certain ranks are very difficult to
overcome, and many quit. But so what - this does not show that these
barriers are *impossible* to overcome.
I myself know a player (a close personal friend of mine, as a
matter of fact, plays in the same club as me) who was stuck at the level
of AGA 1k for years to no end! In spite of playing tournaments, Go-
learning trips to Japan, and doing everything he could to improve. And
suddenly, after years and years, something clicked - and he become AGA d4
within a year!
*****
You say that my opinion is "completely unsupported". Did you miss
everything that I wrote about the raise in Go in Japan, China, and Korea
and the cultural foundations for it? Did you miss my explanations about
the raise of chess in the Soviet Union and the cultural foundation of it?
Did you miss my point about Fisher-boom and it giving the cultural basis
for the raise of chess in US, short lived as it have been?
We see examples of the culture influencing the level of activity
all over the world, many many times. What we do *not* see, however, is a
situation in which the cultural foundation is present and yet some
genetic imperfections prevent the level of activity to raise! All we
have to support your side is your statement that you have met some people
who just "don't get Go". I have met such people too... strangely enough
even among orientals! But what does this tell us? Big fat NOTHING!
Gee, Milt - many of your own examples support my point!
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:35:50 -0500, Milton N. Bradley
(brad...@villagenet.com) said...
--
Milton N. Bradley
My apologies for having allowed myself to be drawn into a seemingly endless round of over long
near polemics, but I believe that the subject under discussion has a powerful impact on the
very future of Go in America and the rest of the world outside the orient. So for that reason
I beg your continued indulgence.
Thanks.
Milt
Bantari::
You certainly are persistent! Please see below.
Bantari wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:53:31 -0500, Milton N. Bradley
> (brad...@villagenet.com) said...
> > Bantari wrote:
> > > This is fair. But it is only relevant if you were teaching the
> > > game to both oriental pupils brought up in the west (I.e. with no Go
> > > background) and to non-orientals. If you did, and you have seen clear
> > > disparity, I could accept your theory. If you did not, even 100 years of
> > > teaching Go has no real relevance because all you know is one side of the
> > > story.
> > >
> >
> > Great! Gotcha!!!
>
> Hehe... ok. Mea culpa. :-)
>
> >
> > Please look closely at the photos of the kids in my after school Go program in my web
> > page!!! In this program I had more than a few children of immigrants from Japan, China
> > and Korea, as well as a number of other even more exotic locations!! And, in the story I
> > relate therein about the little girl who didn't "get" Go but persisted and eventually
> > became #1 on the rating ladder, the reason for her persistence was that she was Japanese
> > and her mother pushed her relentlessly to learn Go!
>
> Yes, ok - but this actually strengthen *my* argument - if the
> parents of the children who just don't "get" go were to push them so hard
> as the mother of the japanese kid, they might have also topped the
> charts. The point here is, I think, the mother's push, not the fact that
> the kid was oriental.
Sorry! But this in no way vitiates any of my premises because all of these kids could still
only be classed as beginners - at year's end having progressed from 9x9 to 13x13, but never
having played on a big board. The very best might perhaps have been at 25k AGA, so there is
really no way to accurately determine if any would ever be able to attain your hypothesized
"everyman's" 1 Dan AGA level, although as previously noted my experience with such cases very
strongly indicates that such will NOT occur.
As previously discussed, not true! The talent or lack thereof shows up in the very first
lesson, and can't be mistaken!!! Any "cultural influence" can only modify that innate talent
to a certain degree, but can never take precedence over it!
> Which is my point exactly.
>
> The point is proven in many areas - the larger the pyramid, the
> more people on the top, and the more people above average, and the higher
> the average. I seriously do not see what makes Go so different from
> virtually every other human activity we know.
>
Tautologically true - in that context all are equal.
> If anything - this fact is proven by the strength of Go in Japan.
> There are many strong players there, but also many weak ones, as we all
> know from playing on the net. Their player pool is just so much larger.
> Once we get our pool as large as they have, and the culture adjusts
> correspondingly, I think that our Go will be as strong as theirs.
And how do you propose to "get our pool as large as they have"???? If you have a mechanism for
achieving this miracle I'm sure that all the readers of this ng and AGA officials would like
to hear what it is. So please tell us!
> > > Ok. Fair. So how about to become a successful lawyer? Or an
> > > detective? Or even a scientist? Do not tell me that in none of these
> > > cases pattern recognition and strategic thinking does not play a role.
> > >
> >
> > Very minor role at best! Just ask any member of those professions.
>
> I have. And even more that this - I have worked with many of them
> very closely. As a matter of fact, both my parents are scientists, and
> most of their friends are scientists, so I have been exposed to this
> crowd from very early age.
Scientists are as different from lawyers as men are from women, at least in the intellectual
sense we are interested in.
> Strategic thinking is nothing else than looking ahead and
> weighting out advantages and disadvantages. It heavily depends on
> knowledge. Crossing the road during rush hour contains some amount of
> strategic thinking. So does office politics. So does running an
> election. So does playing chess, bridge or tic-tac-toe.
>
> Strategic thinking is not something foreign to most people - it is
> something familiar. True - games like Go or chess might take it to a
> higher level, but its a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one.
>
> One would even argue that the strategy in Go is in many way easier
> and simpler than the one we see in real life - because of the "zero-sum"
> thingie. In Go, with enough time, we can actually *derive* all the
> possible strategic plans in given situations, as well as all the possible
> counter-plans and counter-moves. In real life the situation is much more
> complicated. To be successful in life, in many areas, one needs much
> more than what one needs in Go. But this might be an entirely different
> argument, hehe...
Sorry! But you are wrong here again! The kinds of strategic thinking needed in the pure,
abstract world of Go are quite different from those needed for success in office (or real
world) politics, for example. Once again I will cite an example (again with the caveat that
I'm fully aware that one cannot validly generalize from the particular, but nevertheless with
the assurance that even a single contrary example like the one that follows is enough to
disprove your thesis of equivalence!).
I'm quite fully and intimately aware of the capabilities of the individual in question because
she's my wife of 53 years! When it comes to strategic board games, she is totally incompetent,
and only marginally competent in understanding things mechanical and devices like computers,
although she now handles the latter quite well except for the fact that my assistance is
required whenever any sort of error message appears! But in the area of human and business
relations she is unquestionably the most talented and competent person that I (and everyone
else she comes in contact with) has *ever* seen!
We live near the Rt. 110 corridor, which is the commercial hub of Long Island (population 2
million+), and Sonya is the local civic leader and unofficial mayor of the area. As a result
of her work she has prevailed over 2 different $ billion + corporations and the State of New
York, in the process studying and analyzing site maps and legal briefs and preparing her own
successful ones, although she has no engineering or legal training! The result has been that
now, in advance of even submitting proposed local projects to the Town's Planning Board,
Corporations, builders and developers seek her (totally unofficial) approval and do NOT
proceed until they get it! (Proof of all of this via feature article in Newsday - Long
Island's major newspaper - available for skeptics!!!)
Oh, yes! With that kind of talent and clout, the reasonable question to ask is why Sonya
hasn't run for public office. The answer is simple - she's been asked to do so repeatedly but
has no desire to either get a job or (more important) to abandon the complete freedom of
action she now has to select those projects on which she works and how she works on them!
So the talent complex required for success on Go vs. the other areas you cite are, in fact and
as I contend, almost completely different!
> > General athletic ability, and the phenomenon of those "with two left feet" is far too
> > well known to dispute!
>
> But you cannot say that "americans have two left feet" because
> they do not seem to excel at soccer. Granted - there are some people who
> do have two left feet, but these are just a few. While also very few can
> ever make it on a World Cup winning team, most of the population is
> somewhere inbetween. They can play, they can enjoy it, and with practice
> they can become good at it.
Here again, all your argument proves is that soccer isn't a popular sport in America, so few
even try it and still fewer expend sufficient time and effort to get good at it! The question
at issue is whether or not someone "with two left feet" could ever become good at soccer, and
the answer to that is a clear and unequivocal NO!!
> Same in Go. There are undisputably some people who are just not
> wired the proper way to enjoy Go. Like there are some who have enough
> talent to make it to the top. But the middle is just this - the middle.
> And they are the majority - and what should be possible for them is to at
> least become decent club player... i'd say around AGA 1d. Which is not a
> very high level on the scale from beginner to pro.
And here is where we differ (yet again) - on precisely where this "middle" (read "average")
lies. You contend that it's at a level that with application/dedication/proper instruction
will lead to 1 Dan AGA. I contend that experience shows that that's fantasy, and that the
"average" man-in-the-street has a brain pre wired for perhaps 10-15k AGA at best. To date I've
given you experience and examples to prove my contention and in "refutation" you've produced
only your own completely unsupported supposition. So don't you think that it's time to stop
the wild speculation and offer some hard factual evidence in support of your position??? I'm
waiting impatiently to see it, and I'm sure that others reading this (if any are left) are as
well.
See above! Q.E.D.
For a smart guy, Bantari, it's really astonishing to me how readily and repeatedly you can
miss the point!! You say "Go took hold in these countries because for a long time it was only
enjoyed by the aristocracy - with the Shoguns support and all the bells and whistles and
status that go with it! " and my question is "why were the aristocracy and the Shogun
attracted to Go in the first place?" That can't have been "a cultural artifact"! Instead it
must have resulted from some innate (i.e. "built in") response, and that proves my point!!!!
The first part of Bantari's premise here is not in dispute. More total players will almost
certainly lead to more strong players. What remains in dispute, although I believe that it
should no longer be based on the foregoing, is the level that the "average" person starting Go
can ultimately achieve.
>
> > > But I do not think that the current level of Go in the US is
> > > determined by some genetic inadequacies. Why? Because the potential
> > > which is genetically there is far from being used optimally.
> >> Of course! But let's make another analogy. How much additional
> > incentive/training/infusion of monetary resources will it take to transform even a
> > single "normal" individual into an Einstein??? You know the answer as well as I do -
> > even infinite resources are insufficient! Yes, more people will play and the achieved
> > average level of play will be higher, but the genetically predisposed level
> > (Unfortunately unknowable with existing technology) will remain invariant!!!
>
> Agreed, but we are not talking about Einsteins here - we are
> talking about, at best, low level college teachers. I am not trying to
> argue that almost everybody has the talent to win the Kisei. All I am
> saying that almost everybody has the tools to become AGA 1d. The
> Einstein-analogy is really misplaced.
Sorry to disagree again, but it's actually right "on point"! As the masses of "math phobic"
people can attest, it's not possible to even turn them into "ordinary" scientists, yet that's
what Bantari would have us believe is true of Go. Sorry! No way!!
> > > > Yes, there was a significant salutary effect because the craze
> > > > reached people who never would otherwise have been exposed to chess, but despite
> > > > that in a nation of over 260,000,000 the membership is still only about 60,000.
> > > > Compared to the 2,000 or so in the AGA that's great of course, but in terms of
> > > > proving Bantari's premise that "while not everybody can become a GrandMaster, many
> > > > can become very strong... and even more can get strong enough to enjoy the game
> > > > and get hooked for life." I believe that it effectively proves the exact converse.
> > >
> > > Why? I consider 60,000 of registered players and maybe 10 times
> > > that many unregistered but still dedicated players to be "many"...
> > > especially taking into account the low popularity of chess in the US.
> > >
> > > The deciding factor for the USCF membership to jump to 260,000,000
> > > (with maybe 3 times as many unregistered players) and then decline back
> > > to 60,000 is the raise and then the fall of Fisher. Nothing else... and
> > > certainly not genetics. If anything - this proves my theory that
> > > popularity of a game is the deciding factor, not genetics.
> > >
> >
> > Doesn't prove it at all, as already discussed above.
>
> Ok, lets recap. You are saying that the surge in chess popularity
> and the influx of countless new players who started taking the game
> seriously at the time of Fisher was due to genetics??
Wow! If you can misread what I said to this degree, how can we even have a reasoned
discourse?? I, of course, said no such thing!
> The situation of Go in Japan, China, and Korea seem to support my
> point - in each of these countries Go developed to its current level
> after it become a culturally and socially desirable activity. And after
> it secured massive financial support (which might be interrelated with
> the cultural situation).
>
> --
> ________________________________________
> -Bantari
> e-mail: kapr...@yahoo666.com (remove the 666)
> homepage: http://home.san.rr.com/rafgo
Bottom line:
I'm still waiting for Bantari to produce some facts, any facts, to support his otherwise
entirely speculative conclusions!
Milton N. Bradley
> Well... for every one of your examples, I can cite examples from
> my own experience which show how many kids who had to seriously struggle
> in school become great Go players. But what would it prove?
It would prove that there is more than just your own speculation to support what you say!
> I honestly do not think that what you say is relevant to anything
> under discussion.
In that case, we have nothing further to discuss! But how can you say this, and then attempt
(unsuccessfully IMHO) to rebut me point by point???
> I never said that there are no people who just "don't
> get Go", only that such people are a minority. At least to a level of
> AGA 1d.
And I said - in a word - NONSENSE!!!! All the facts I've ever seen point in exactly the
opposite direction. The vast bulk of humanity lack the hereditary brain wiring that would
enable them to really "get" Go.
> Also - from your examples, I see that most of these people are in
> their 50s. Maybe age is a factor here?
They are in their 50's now, but how else to have experienced decades without progress? If you
explain to me how a teenager (for example) can do this, I will be most impressed!
> Do you think that, at this age,
> the Physics PhD fella would be able to get another PhD in another,
> unrelated field?
If he desired to, without doubt, provided that field also exploited his own particular set of
analytic/cognitive talents.
> Or that the scrabble champion could make it to become
> checkers champion?
Almost certainly not, because the very same cognitive deficit that has prevented him from
"mastering" Go would also inhibit him in Checkers, although perhaps not to quite the same
degree because checkers is so much simpler.
> And how about the other guy, who quit after 10 years? How do you
> know he would not become a dan player had he played for another 10 years?
He didn't think so and neither did I! But perhaps he might have made it to 5k - and then again
perhaps not.
> For some people the barriers of certain ranks are very difficult to
> overcome, and many quit. But so what - this does not show that these
> barriers are *impossible* to overcome.
>
> I myself know a player (a close personal friend of mine, as a
> matter of fact, plays in the same club as me) who was stuck at the level
> of AGA 1k for years to no end! In spite of playing tournaments, Go-
> learning trips to Japan, and doing everything he could to improve. And
> suddenly, after years and years, something clicked - and he become AGA d4
> within a year!
Anyone who can reach 1k AGA has already demonstrated that his brain IS appropriately wired for
playing Go by heredity, and is therefore NOT relevant to our discussion here! What's at issue
between us is the proportion of the general population whose brains are so wired - you contend
that it's the majority, and I say that the facts prove that it's a tiny minority.
> *****
> You say that my opinion is "completely unsupported". Did you miss
> everything that I wrote about the raise in Go in Japan, China, and Korea
> and the cultural foundations for it? Did you miss my explanations about
> the raise of chess in the Soviet Union and the cultural foundation of it?
> Did you miss my point about Fisher-boom and it giving the cultural basis
> for the raise of chess in US, short lived as it have been?
And did you miss my question as to why the "elite" in Japan, for example, chose to latch on to
Go as something to be pursued vigorously, without any "cultural imperative" to impel them to
do so??? The answer to that question strikes to the heart of the hereditary issue which is at
the base of our disagreement, while all that later followed in the general population is, in
fact, culturally driven as you contend (and I don't disagree with).
> We see examples of the culture influencing the level of activity
> all over the world, many many times.
"Level of activity" is NOT at issue between us, and is irrelevant to this discussion! Repeat!
Repeat! What's at issue is the proportion of the general population with the inherent
capability of reaching 1 Dan AGA level!!
> What we do *not* see, however, is a
> situation in which the cultural foundation is present and yet some
> genetic imperfections prevent the level of activity to raise! All we
> have to support your side is your statement that you have met some people
> who just "don't get Go". I have met such people too... strangely enough
> even among orientals! But what does this tell us? Big fat NOTHING!
>
> Gee, Milt - many of your own examples support my point!
As just noted, quite the contrary!! And the fact that you still can't seem to (or is want to
closer to the truth??) recognize this is astonishing to me.
Joel Olson
<<
You say that my opinion is "completely unsupported". Did you miss
everything that I wrote about the raise in Go in Japan, China, and Korea
and the cultural foundations for it? Did you miss my explanations about
the raise of chess in the Soviet Union and the cultural foundation of
it? Did you miss my point about Fisher-boom and it giving the cultural
basis for the raise of chess in US, short lived as it have been?
>>
<
And did you miss my question as to why the "elite" in Japan, for
example, chose to latch on to Go as something to be pursued vigorously,
without any "cultural imperative" to impel them to
do so??? The answer to that question strikes to the heart of the
hereditary issue which is at the base of our disagreement, while all
that later followed in the general population is, in fact, culturally
driven as you contend (and I don't disagree with).
>
If I might address this part of the larger discussion ...
The conventional "cultural" explanation still seems adequate to me.
In a prescientific "culture" organized by competing warlords, the
analogy between go and battle strategy would appear stronger than it
does today, with computerized wargames and defense funding research. The
magical law of similarity woud be accepted so prowess at go would be
seen as highly correlated with strategic ability. Candidates could be
easily evaluated - just play a game or two. (How many job applications
nowdays ask one's rating?)(This is where talent, i.e. wiring, comes in.)
The warlords who survived and won, i.e. those who led and chose the best
field officers, were those who valued go highly. (Times involved are
much too short for genetic heredity, but well within the scope of
selection on the social scale of competing organizations.)
On a practical level, a board and some stones is a handy way of laying
out deployments.
Call that the historical imperative. In the recent present, recall the
limited but definite popularity of Sun Tzu, purportedly among the upper
executives and boardrooms of our population of corporations. THERE are
the the potential sponsors. They can not just fund events, but summon
exposure for them, and lend them their status.
-------
GO, man, GO - hipster
-------
peter zandveld
for commercial reasons. I think there is allways someone in the company
who likes go, with sufficient influence to tap some money for a go project.
The most extreme case is Ing, he sponsored go with large amounts of money on
go
without making reference to his business at all.
So, so do not have to look among big companies for sponsors, but among go
players.
Some need only little help to get used to the idea of sponsoring go.
--
peter zandveld
schaak en go winkel het paard
pa...@xs4all.nl
http://www.xs4all.nl/~paard
peter zandveld
expensive as a typical boxed game like Risk or Settlers of Catan,
but much more value for money.
A nice go set is as expensive as a nice chess set
Price is not the problem.
Antoine Mechelynck
BOOM it went, and by whose fault ? Mine.
Apologies to everybody.
Tony.
Michael G. Dobbins
Bantari <ban...@mynet.com> wrote in message
> Same in Go. There are undisputably some people who are just not
> wired the proper way to enjoy Go. Like there are some who have enough
> talent to make it to the top. But the middle is just this - the middle.
> And they are the majority - and what should be possible for them is to at
> least become decent club player... i'd say around AGA 1d. Which is not a
> very high level on the scale from beginner to pro.
>
> There are very few (if any) entertainment activities which are not
> designed in such a way that your average Joe can be good at it with
> persistence.
This whole argument (thread) misses the point and saying 1dan is a low level
is destructive (as are other disparaging remarks about the low level of play
others seem to reach.) THE point is that Go can be fun at any level. People
at any level can have a great time playing people near (even more than 9
stones) their level. I know several people who are weaker than 20k who love
the game, have a great time playing it, but will never ever see the single
digit kyu mark. When you start taking the fun out and start pushing that
you should be able to reach a certain level, you start losing many people
who don't have the time, dedication, genetics, whaterver, and only want to
have fun. That is what kids are all about, FUN. I know for myself about 5
years ago when I first hit 5k that 15k was more fun and I almost quit go and
floundered at a low level of participation since. When I forget about
trying to reach 1d and just play for the beauty of the game, I have more fun
and probably play better.
If you want Go to flourish in the west, forget about level of accomplishment
and the stress that accompanies that and concentration on the fun and beauty
of the game.
Pekka Karjalainen
>This whole argument (thread) misses the point and saying 1dan is a low level
>is destructive (as are other disparaging remarks about the low level of play
>others seem to reach.) THE point is that Go can be fun at any level. People
>at any level can have a great time playing people near (even more than 9
>stones) their level. I know several people who are weaker than 20k who love
>the game, have a great time playing it, but will never ever see the single
>digit kyu mark. When you start taking the fun out and start pushing that
>you should be able to reach a certain level, you start losing many people
>who don't have the time, dedication, genetics, whaterver, and only want to
>have fun. That is what kids are all about, FUN. I know for myself about 5
>years ago when I first hit 5k that 15k was more fun and I almost quit go and
>floundered at a low level of participation since. When I forget about
>trying to reach 1d and just play for the beauty of the game, I have more fun
>and probably play better.
>
>If you want Go to flourish in the west, forget about level of accomplishment
>and the stress that accompanies that and concentration on the fun and beauty
>of the game.
>
I don't claim to know anything about learning go or about attaining a certain level
of play in certain time. I can only defer to the knowledge of those who've taught go
successfully for a longer time. They might know, but probably they just make it up
as they go along. People do that all the time.
However, if the attitude is that progressing is the most important thing about the
game or that we *stronger* players know how it is to be done and because of this
should be listened to, that is a wrong step already taken. Please let people learn
(or fail to learn) to think on their own! Please let people have fun with the game!
If they want to know something you stronger players know so well, they will
certainly ask. And you can encourage them to ask as well. But please be a little
careful lest you become just another dogmatic, bad teacher who always wants to tell
how things *really* are. People are in this game mostly for the fun, at least in the
West, not to be treated rudely by stronger players.
I know 'fun' is not really a very high-profile word. It is a bit like 'nice' in
that it doesn't really mean anything in the way words that can be rigorously defined
with elaborate phraseology or sesquipedalian vocabulary do mean. It is vague and
used by all kinds of people, including those who'd you might not want to associate
with. The horror!
But you know what? FUN is what the game is really about in the end. So
neener-neener you all who think otherwise :-)
Pekka K.
(Actually I am just happy that I got to use 'sesquipedalian' and 'neener-neener' in
the same posting on rgg. Ah, the possibilities.)
--
"[I]n high handicap games the black stones have a tendency to suddenly and
spontaneously die, but they shouldn't." -- Pieter Mioch
Milton N. Bradley
Thanks for your input - which is indisputable, and was never at issue in this
thread! But it completely misses the key point in dispute - which is simply
whether Go is or can ever be a pastime for "everyman", or is necessarily always
going to be the province of a relatively select few whose brains have been
appropriately wired by heredity.
The reason that arriving at a definitive resolution of this seemingly minor
point is that all of the appropriate (and potentially ultimately successful)
strategies for recruiting and training new Go players are heavily dependent on
which of these diametrically opposed premises is actually true.
See below for more specific comments.
Milt
"Michael G. Dobbins" wrote:
> Bantari <ban...@mynet.com> wrote in message
> > Same in Go. There are undisputably some people who are just not
> > wired the proper way to enjoy Go. Like there are some who have enough
> > talent to make it to the top. But the middle is just this - the middle.
> > And they are the majority - and what should be possible for them is to at
> > least become decent club player... i'd say around AGA 1d. Which is not a
> > very high level on the scale from beginner to pro.
> >
> > There are very few (if any) entertainment activities which are not
> > designed in such a way that your average Joe can be good at it with
> > persistence.
>
> This whole argument (thread) misses the point and saying 1dan is a low level
> is destructive (as are other disparaging remarks about the low level of play
> others seem to reach.)
There is no pejorative connotation in these assessments! Rather they are a
dispassionate acknowledgment of reality - and my experience as a trouble shooter
in industrial manufacturing processes established that it's simply not possible
to correct a problem unless and until is true causal mechanism is found! (That's
the reason and justification for the lengthy, painstaking and expensive
investigations of air crashes!)
> THE point is that Go can be fun at any level.
Of course! But that's neither in dispute nor the issue here! On the other hand,
the grim reality is that most beginners who fail to make what in their own minds
is "satisfactory" progress do NOT persist, but drop out!
> People
> at any level can have a great time playing people near (even more than 9
> stones) their level. I know several people who are weaker than 20k who love
> the game, have a great time playing it, but will never ever see the single
> digit kyu mark. When you start taking the fun out and start pushing that
> you should be able to reach a certain level, you start losing many people
> who don't have the time, dedication, genetics, whaterver, and only want to
> have fun.
No one here is advocating "pushing that you should be able to reach a certain
level"! Both Bantari and I agree with you on this (as far as I can tell from
what he says), but the difference between us is that he believes that the
"natural" skill level that our hypothetical "anyman" can reach is 1 Dan AGA, and
I contend that it's nowhere within shouting distance of that datum.
> That is what kids are all about, FUN. I know for myself about 5
> years ago when I first hit 5k that 15k was more fun and I almost quit go and
> floundered at a low level of participation since. When I forget about
> trying to reach 1d and just play for the beauty of the game, I have more fun
> and probably play better.
>
> If you want Go to flourish in the west, forget about level of accomplishment
> and the stress that accompanies that and concentration on the fun and beauty
> of the game.
As above noted, this would be a fine strategy IF everyone who failed to progress
was content to continue playing at whatever modest level they are able to reach,
but the reality is that most are NOT!! As proof, please check the ratings
distribution on IGS! The last time that I did this the modal value (most common)
was 1d* = 6 Dan AGA!!! And there were more players at that level or above it
than below. And this quite definitively proves my contention that most of those
who fail to progress to the higher ratings simply stop playing!! (Otherwise the
"natural" pyramid of the most players at the lowest level and succeedingly fewer
at each higher level would obtain - but it distinctly does NOT!!!)
I for one am more than content to accept any Go player of whatever skill level,
but those players themselves are not so accepting. Now if Bantari is right and
1D AGA is every beginner's "natural" ultimate level, all is well and Go will
grow just by exposure. But if I'm right - and I contend that all of Go's history
in America bears this out - then something far more drastic is necessary if our
numbers are ever to grow beyond our present approximately 1 in 130,000 people!
All I'm trying to do in this thread is to induce the Go community to acknowledge
and confront that (admittedly ugly) reality.
Ming Y. Choy
> Ming Y. Choy wrote:
>
> [snipped quotes and rhetorical question]
>
> > I think there is good reason basketball has been well accepted by the world, but not baseball
> > or American rugby. Basketball makes more sense as a sport and with the rules and the
> > objectives of the game, and is not so ridiculous.
>
> By "makes more sense" I assume you mean "is more similar to existing
> sports in those countries". That certainly could help in gaining a
>
No, I mean basketball does not have ridiculous rules such as, in baseball: the pitcher must throw
the ball within an imaginary square area as arbitrarily determined by the umpire or else it's a
bad ball; and in American rugby: each team must advance the ball 10 yards with 3 or 4 (can't
remember) plays, but there are so many possible ilegalities in each play, you can't do this, you
can't do that, or the referees will give you this penalty for 3 yards, that penalty for 5 yards,
and so often the game is paused for the referees to measure the 1 yard's difference. There might
exist in other sports similar ridiculous rules, but none so ridiculous I can think of right now in
any major international sports such as football, basketball, volleyball.
> foothold. I find the repetition of basketball (and soccer) tiresome, but
> to each his own.
>
Most every sport, certainly including baseball and American rugby, have repetitive motions by the
players, the pitcher's pitching motions in baseball, the 2 lines of players running into each
other and piling up at every play in American rugby, assuming you like baseball and American
rugby, then this can not be your reason. The reason give by most Americans I've talked to are
that they say football is "boring" because there's not much scoring, the score is often 0-0. But
I think if they change the rules to widen the goal, or to award 10 points for each ball getting
into the net, 3 points for each corner kick, 5 points for each free kick, like they do with
American rugby, (^_^ I'm exaggerating a bit of course) I'm sure the score would be a lot higher.
^_^ If you've ever done any football yourself, you would appreciate that those top players in the
World Cup or the UEFA champions league are some of the greatest athletes with amazing skills and
teamworks, and do amazing things, and they are normal-sized people like you and me. Try to
appreciate the beauty of the game itself and the process, the result is important of course, but I
think Americans tend to emphasize too much on the final score, and nothing else. Another reason
why their games have such complicated rules? More ways to score? More factors to affect a score?
Football is the most team-oriented team sport. On the other hand the more popular "team" sports
in US are actually more likely to promote indiviual heroism, like the pitcher and the
quarterback. Another reason for their popularity? US is a society that places great values in
individualism and freedom.
>
> I wonder if the climate here (relative to much of Europe) gives an
> advantage to games that provide the players with regular rest? That
> likely wouldn't affect professional teams all that much, but it could
> make a very real difference to casual players. *shrug* That's just a theory.
>
That's another balony, what climate difference? Too hot and dry? what about Africa? Too cold?
what about Scandinavia? Too humid? what about Brazil? They don't need rest?
My theory is that the very complicated nature of the rules of these sports happened to dictate
that there must be many pauses during a game, and this happened to fall on the favors of the big
corporations, because it gives ample opportunities to do commercials and advertisements. These
games are perfect for capitalistic society, so they have large corporations' backings and they're
pushing hard to sell these sports to the people. And US is a very capitalistic society. In
Europe and S. America, and some parts of Asia, the traditions and the beauty of the football game
are more important in people's mind, so even the large corporations are pushing their way in
trying to get more commercial time, the game itself would not bow.
>
> If it's true that basketball is more popular overall outside the U.S., I
> suspect that it's simply more accessible to people who have never seen
> the game before than Baseball or American Football. It also helps both
> here and abroad that basketball doesn't absolutely require a large
> amount of space or equipment.
>
Agree with this. This is true. But it's rooted in the originality and the simplicity of the
rules, don't you think?
-Ming Y. Choy
Antoine Mechelynck
-------------------------
Pekka Karjalainen < pkar...@oka11.oulu.fi > wrote:
(...)
> (Actually I am just happy that I got to use 'sesquipedalian' and
'neener-neener' in
> the same posting on rgg. Ah, the possibilities.)
-------------------------
English is not my mother language, and I understood neither of these words,
so I looked them up in the Concise Oxford (7th ed. 1982, 9th printing 1987).
For those who are even less lucky than I am in understanding English, here
is what I found:
sesqui- (...) ~pedalian, (of word) many-syllabled [f. L /sesquipedalis/
(Horace), lit. 1 1/2 feet long], cumbrous and pedantic; (...)
neener-neener (not found)
Tony.
PS: English is not my mother language (French is), but Finnish is worse: I
know only "hyvää päivää" and "hyvää huomentä". But I can count from "yksi,
kaksi, kolme, neljä..." up to "yhdeksänkymmenen yhdeksän" (which is a lot
easier, once you get the hang of it, than from "un, deux, trois, quatre..."
to "quatre-vingt-dix-neuf" -- not to speak of "ichi, ni, san, shi... OR
hitotsu, futatsu, mittsu, yottsu...").
Peter Kron
"Antoine Mechelynck" <antoine.m...@belgacom.net> wrote in message
news:9695cu$ega$1...@news1.skynet.be...
Planar
>neener-neener (not found)
In French: nananère...
--
Planar
Pekka Karjalainen
In Finnish, nää-nää-nää-nää. That is a front vowel like in 'bat' for
you who can't read the Finnish orthography due to cluelessness or 7-bit
character sets.
It is something little children shout at each for the purpose of
annoying. Perhaps I tried to suggest that what I wrote should not always
be taken quite seriously, but you all have figured that out by now anyway.
Pekka K.
Greg Miller
> No, I mean basketball does not have ridiculous rules such as, in baseball: the pitcher must throw
> the ball within an imaginary square area as arbitrarily determined by the umpire or else it's a
> bad ball; and in American rugby: each team must advance the ball 10 yards with 3 or 4 (can't
> remember) plays, but there are so many possible ilegalities in each play, you can't do this, you
> can't do that, or the referees will give you this penalty for 3 yards, that penalty for 5 yards,
> and so often the game is paused for the referees to measure the 1 yard's difference. There might
> exist in other sports similar ridiculous rules, but none so ridiculous I can think of right now in
> any major international sports such as football, basketball, volleyball.
None of those seems particularly ridiculous to me.
>> foothold. I find the repetition of basketball (and soccer) tiresome, but
>> to each his own.
>>
>
>
> Most every sport, certainly including baseball and American rugby, have repetitive motions by the
> players, the pitcher's pitching motions in baseball, the 2 lines of players running into each
> other and piling up at every play in American rugby, assuming you like baseball and American
> rugby, then this can not be your reason. The reason give by most Americans I've talked to are
On the contrary, it can. I don't see anything particularly interesting
or momentous happening. In soccer, it's the same thing, except that the
scoring happens less often. That may be, as they say, your cup of
tea--but it isn't mine.
> that they say football is "boring" because there's not much scoring, the score is often 0-0. But
> I think if they change the rules to widen the goal, or to award 10 points for each ball getting
> into the net, 3 points for each corner kick, 5 points for each free kick, like they do with
> American rugby, (^_^ I'm exaggerating a bit of course) I'm sure the score would be a lot higher.
You're exaggerating a lot, actually. In American football, a touchdown
is 6 points. Period. There are significan differences among various
plays. Soccer may seem the same way to someone who grew up with the
game, but it certainly doesn't to a typical American.
> Football is the most team-oriented team sport. On the other hand the more popular "team" sports
> in US are actually more likely to promote indiviual heroism, like the pitcher and the
> quarterback. Another reason for their popularity? US is a society that places great values in
> individualism and freedom.
On the contrary, American Football is extremely team-oriented. Hence,
blocking and preset plays. You are correct, however, in pointing out
that Baseball includes more of an individual element. I'm not sure it's
so much about individualism as it is the physical feats.
As someone unfamiliar with Soccer, all I see is a group of people moving
the ball around. I'm not arguing for a second that there isn't something
more interesting going on there to people who know the game, but there's
not a lot of reason for Americans to adopt it, given that we already
have sports where clearly significant events occur often. Nothing really
seems to *happen* during the game.
> My theory is that the very complicated nature of the rules of these sports happened to dictate
> that there must be many pauses during a game, and this happened to fall on the favors of the big
> corporations, because it gives ample opportunities to do commercials and advertisements. These
> games are perfect for capitalistic society, so they have large corporations' backings and they're
> pushing hard to sell these sports to the people. And US is a very capitalistic society. In
> Europe and S. America, and some parts of Asia, the traditions and the beauty of the football game
> are more important in people's mind, so even the large corporations are pushing their way in
> trying to get more commercial time, the game itself would not bow.
The traditions and beauty of American Football, Baseball, and Basketball
are pretty important to the fans of those games here. Breaks are nice
for fans, not just advertisers (I occasionally need a trip to the
refrigerator or the bathroom).
> Agree with this. This is true. But it's rooted in the originality and the simplicity of the
> rules, don't you think?
No, not really. In a very general way, Basketball is sort of like fast
soccer. Obviously, there are numerous differences in the details, but I
think the familiarity of the general principles is more important than
simplicity to its adoption in countries where soccer is popular.--
Greg Miller
> A basic go set, glass stones and MDF board, is about as
> expensive as a typical boxed game like Risk or Settlers of Catan,
> but much more value for money.
>
> A nice go set is as expensive as a nice chess set
>
> Price is not the problem.
When I went searching for a Go set locally after learning the game a few
years back, the best I was able to do (after much searching) was $60,
and that was in a rather large city (Memphis, TN). When people ask me
where they can get a set, all I can tell them is "online"--and most
people in the US still don't buy products via online sellers.
I wouldn't suggest for a minute that it's "the problem" (I believe a
number of smaller problems combine to inhibit Go's growth here).
--
Ming Y. Choy
Greg Miller wrote:
> You're exaggerating a lot, actually. In American football, a touchdown
> is 6 points. Period. There are significan differences among various
>
No, its not "Period". There is the field goal worth 3 points, the extra point after touchtown is worth
1 point, but if you do the extra point after touchtown as another touchdown then it's worth 2 points.
heheh... Seems I know more about American football than you do, although I doubt it.
>
> On the contrary, American Football is extremely team-oriented. Hence,
> blocking and preset plays. You are correct, however, in pointing out
>
There is really only one guy who can pass the ball regularly and that's the quarterback, everybody else
once they got the ball all they can do is run run run. If there is no passing the ball between
teammates how can there be high team works? Just watch a game of the international rugby. Team
formations, movements without the ball, that's basic stuff for a team sport, the more elaborate team
work is every teammate to be able to pass the ball to every other teammate who is on the move. The the
skill is even more admirable if you can do those same accurate passes with your feet instead of your
hands. ^_^
-Ming Y. Choy
Bantari
(Michael...@unisys.com) said...
>
> Bantari <ban...@mynet.com> wrote in message
> > Same in Go. There are undisputably some people who are just not
> > wired the proper way to enjoy Go. Like there are some who have enough
> > talent to make it to the top. But the middle is just this - the middle.
> > And they are the majority - and what should be possible for them is to at
> > least become decent club player... i'd say around AGA 1d. Which is not a
> > very high level on the scale from beginner to pro.
> >
> > There are very few (if any) entertainment activities which are not
> > designed in such a way that your average Joe can be good at it with
> > persistence.
>
> This whole argument (thread) misses the point and saying 1dan is a low level
> is destructive (as are other disparaging remarks about the low level of play
> others seem to reach.)
Hehe... I guess I deserved it.
However, what I meant was that AGA 1d is not a relatively low
level per se, but rather in comparison to latent human mental
capabilities - if we take beginner to be one end of the spectrum and a
top pro to be the other. AGA 1d seems to me to be somewhere in the
middle... which I was trying to argue here - the average man should be
able to reach somewhere near the middle of the scale.
It was only in context of disputing Milt's statement which implies
that AGA 1d is such a high level of Go understanding that only people who
are somehow genetical predisposed (Milt used the word "superior" in some
previous threads) can attain it. I though this was much more
"destructive", sine what does it tell us if true - that most of us will
never ever have any spark of a chance to play that well, no matter what.
I simply do not believe in this.
Sorry if in the "heat of the battle" I have made remarks which are
seen as destructive by others. My intent was just the opposite.
Sigh...
Bantari
(brad...@villagenet.com) said...
> I for one am more than content to accept any Go player of whatever skill level,
> but those players themselves are not so accepting. Now if Bantari is right and
> 1D AGA is every beginner's "natural" ultimate level, all is well and Go will
> grow just by exposure. But if I'm right - and I contend that all of Go's history
> in America bears this out - then something far more drastic is necessary if our
> numbers are ever to grow beyond our present approximately 1 in 130,000 people!
>
> All I'm trying to do in this thread is to induce the Go community to acknowledge
> and confront that (admittedly ugly) reality.
Milt... you are using much too strong words here. The statements
you are arguing for, for the lack of proof, are at best an adventurous
theory, not reality. Now, I might give you this - you *might* be
right... but until you prove it, what you say is not "reality", only
speculation.
If you presented it as such, I'd probably have much less of a
problem with it. But you dress it as some undisputable fact, as the
reality we *must* acknowledge. This is too dogmatic, I think.
Bantari
Dear Milt (and others who still did not loose patience with our
bickering, hehe):
It seems obvious that we just choose to disagree on this issue. I
for one have said more or less what I wanted to say, and I feel
that further discussion would just run in circles, each of us repeating
our arguments ad nuasea.
So, to close the subject (for now), let me try to summarize the
discussion, for my own sake, hehe...
In advance - sorry for the lengthy post.
Anyways - here's what's been going on:
********************
Fact 1:
Orientals (especially Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese) are doing
much much better in Go than americans.
Milt's interpretation:
There must be some genetic reasons for this. It seems unfeasible
for the americans to be so far behind without some objective scientific
reason for this. Beyond the statement of the fact itself, I am not sure
what arguments Milt brings to support this. Except maybe for his
experience with countless people he was unable to introduce to the higher
level of Go. This argument keeps popping up and it is a weighty one.
Some arguments Milt gives seem to contradict his point slightly (like the
story of japanese girl who did not go nowhere until her mother started
pushing and then developed quite nicely).
But, I agree, the fact itself is indisputable.
My interpretation:
There are tremendous social and cultural differences between US
and Japan (for example) - differences which weight strongly on the game.
There are centuries old tradition of Go in the Orient, while in the US it
is a relatively new and unknown game. There is massive government and
industrial (I.e. financial) support for Go in the Orient, and has been
for long centuries. There are professional schools and teachers. This
has to account for a lot to explain the disparity.
Also - in each of the Go-developed countries the raise of Go skill
ca be directly traced to cultural changes supporting its popularity. In
the US we have not seen such changes. As yet.
We can observe similar phenomena in chess - the raise of the
Soviet chess imperium, and the Fisher boom (although this one is short-
lived). Also - chess in china seem to be coming out of the dark ages,
and we'll have to see what happens with India now that Anand won the FIDE
championship. In each of the cases a country seems to develop from a
virtual nothing (so maybe they were genetically handicapped?) to a giant
almost overnight (so maybe they were not genetically handicapped
afterall). Although if we investigate closer, we see how many years of
detailed preparation and support was necessary to accomplish this.
Milt's conclusion (as I see it):
We are just unable to become much better than we already are.
Most people just do not have the stuff necessary to become any stronger
than, say AGA 15k, so they should not despair if they do not improve any
further. They should just accept things as they are and get all the fun
and enjoyment they can. It will not get better, no matter what.
Genetics.
My conclusion:
We should raise the cultural awareness of Go in the US, and strive
to secure some kind of financial/cultural support for the game. Once we
have done this, the general level of Go in US will raise dramatically,
with average AGA rank going up and the number of AGA members growing.
This is not to say that there will be no individuals who are unable to
break to the magic AGA 1d level. I accept the fact that the ability
varies between people. I just do not accept the premise that inborn
ability for Go varies that much between whole populations or ethnic
groups.
In short - Go is an oriental game - it has its roots there, its
tradition, and its support. Orientals play the game much longer, and
there are many more of them playing it. Why isn't this sufficient to
explain the disparity?
In the orient, kids grow up around Go - their fathers play it,
their mothers play it, their friends play it... in many cases you almost
cannot escape learning it at early age. There is Go programs on TV,
there are Go cartoons... There are great go players around every corner,
many of whom are willing to teach and guide. Such environment just
*must* produce higher general level of play, genetics or not! Even if a
person does not take up Go seriously till much later age, he already has
a favorable mindset towards the game... while in the US its just a
oddity, even for the selected few who ultimately get "hooked".
********************
Fact 2:
Some people do better in Go than others.
Milt's interpretation:
From Milt's experience, the majority of americans do poorly in Go.
The reasons for this are genetic, which prevent most of the non-orientals
to reach a level higher than, say AGA 15k. Milt has vast experience
teaching Go to beginners, and his numbers beg for some kind of
explanation of this fact. As said above - he chooses genetic inability
to progress any further. There are many examples for seemingly
intelligent people to be unable to grasp Go at any higher level. It must
be genetics.
My interpretation:
I cannot argue with Milt's number. If 600 out of his 700 pupils
never reached 15k, so it is. However - I prefer to believe other
reasons for this fact than Milt does. The first reason is that maybe the
instructions given to them were insufficient. This is not to belittle
Milt's teaching abilities, which I respect greatly, but just the fact
that one teacher, when confronted with such masses, can only do so much,
and certainly cannot provide every student with the best personal
approach. As a matter of fact, my experience, even if much more limited,
is diametrally different. Every single pupil I had reached a level of at
least European 5k (about AGA 2k) - but each of them received a very
personal instructions, with many hours of my time spent on every single
one of them. Some of them eventually dropped out, but not for the lack
of progress, but for external reason (family, job, etc).
The other reason I see is that, as Milt says, the abilities
necessary to become a good Go player seem to be sadly underdeveloped in
many (most?) americans. So in this respect - I agree with Milt.
However, I have seen no such under-development in the majority of people
I used know in Europe - and these were people who come from the same
genetic stock that the americans. This leads me to believe that other
reasons are responsible for this. In particular, the educational system
in US does not seem do a very good job in developing abstract thinking in
kids. I do not have much first hand experience with youngsters, but I
have been through enough universities and colleges in America to see the
results of the grade-school education, and the difference between what I
saw in Europe is staggering, at least in general sense. The american
education see to parallel its culture - in which the street-smarts are
much higher on the list of essential skills than the skill of analytic
approach and abstract thinking - both qualities essential to become a
good Go player.
In general, american culture at large, is very unsympathetic to
people investing a lot of effort in persuing such "useless" activity as
Go if there is no money to be made this way. This goes especially for
youngsters, I imagine, who often do not see Go as something special,
like basketball or baseball. Which kid does not dream to play in NBA and
thus is determined to practice practice and practice to become closer to
his goal. How much pain kids will endure to get there, how many hours
they invest perfecting their skills. And for this they will gain
respect from both their peers and their elder. In Go, such motivation is
totally absent, thus kids treat it as "just another game" and so are more
prone to quitting while the going gets tough.
Also - a trait very important in succeeding in Go is humility -
readiness to agree that we do not know much and run for help to the
"wiser" ones. The ability to be absolutely honest with ourselves, to
accept how little we know and how weak we are, and then turn it into
strength to improve further. These traits are almost non-existent in the
american culture, while they are historically fundamental to many of the
oriental activities. Personally, I find this to be the greatest
impedement to improving at Go in many of my pupils, at least on personal
level. Those who are humble, do better. Those who believe that by
reaching certain level they have proven themselves "superior" in some way
to others are usually on their way to hitting a dead end. But I know
such attitudes can be broken.
Milt's conclusion:
As for fact number 1 - its genetics that makes us unable to excel
in Go on the scale of, for example, the Japanese. So we should just
accept things as they are and enjoy what we have. Nothing can be done.
At best, on a personal level, marry an oriental and hope your kids will
have enough of the good gene to play good Go.
My conclusion:
I have to admit that I am not certain how to change the situation,
or if it even can be changed. At least in near future. But I see hope -
eventually somebody somewhere will figure something out, something will
break, american culture will become more sympathetic to Go and american
Go players will spread their wings and soar high with the others. :-)
But seriously - what I am saying is that, step by step, we all can
do something to make Go more popular in the US, and even if the road is
long and winding, it *does* lead us out of the woods, eventually. Or at
least - if we are determined enough. Time will tell.
********************
Note 1:
I have to concede one point to Milt, namely that there might be
some truth in what he is saying that americans are somehow genetically
Go-handicapped as compared to orientals. However, I think that even if
it is so, I do not believe that it will seriously manifest at low kyu
levels. Maybe US will never be able to produce as many pros as Japan
has, or maybe never pros of such high caliber as Korea. Maybe an average
american can only make it to 1d, while the average oriental can make
it to 3d.
But I just cannot see that average americans reach their limits at
15k while average orientals make 5d easy. We are just not that
different.
Would be funny if some researcher found out that americans are
actually more genetically "talented" in Go, just that the culture and
education holds them back too much. :-)
I wouldn't be surprised.
Note 2:
It might be that, as I have argues in another thread (with Robert
Jasiek, I believe), that the usual western approach to problems, namely
by categorizing and theoretical analysis might be inferior to the
oriental
approach of teaching by example and repetition, at least with respect to
Go. I am not sure I believe it, but it was a though that was going
through my mind at some time, and I just wanted to throw it to the public
to check its validity.
But again - I do not believe that it has any genetic reasons,
merely long tradition and maybe upbringing. This method worked for us in
so many cases that we are unable to toss it aside and try something new.
Note 3:
Reading the excellent articles on Milt's page I noticed that he
himself seems to be an advocate for the theory that Go is a very useful
tool to develop the qualities involved in playing Go. I believe this too
- I believe these qualities *can* be trained and developed, to almost any
level in almost every single one of us. Its just a matter of
determination. Same in all other human activities - almost everyone can
become good at almost anything, even if only a fraction of us will ever
break world records, and even if one ethnic group breaks more records
than other.
One of Milt's articles is titled "A pleasurable way to a superior
mind" (or something like this), but if we are to accept Milts genetics-
theory, there is no way to "superior mind", only a dead end we will hit
relatively early on in our development - there is no *way* to a "superior
mind" since any way there might have been is genetical blocked anyways.
What kind of message does this send? We are genetically preordained to
be only that "superior", and not more, and nothing we can do or say can
change it - nothing can make us more superior than we already are.
Nothing can be done.
I just do not believe it.
********************
This will be my final post on this subject, for now. I'd like
Milt to comment on it, to see if I got his position right. Maybe we are
just talking without really listening (or maybe just I am), and in
principle, we actually agree.
So go on, Milt - have the last word, and then lets let it rest.
:-)
Milton N. Bradley
- snip -
> However, what I meant was that AGA 1d is not a relatively low
> level per se, but rather in comparison to latent human mental
> capabilities - if we take beginner to be one end of the spectrum and a
> top pro to be the other. AGA 1d seems to me to be somewhere in the
> middle... which I was trying to argue here - the average man should be
> able to reach somewhere near the middle of the scale.
>
> It was only in context of disputing Milt's statement which implies
> that AGA 1d is such a high level of Go understanding that only people who
> are somehow genetical predisposed (Milt used the word "superior" in some
> previous threads) can attain it. I though this was much more
> "destructive", sine what does it tell us if true - that most of us will
> never ever have any spark of a chance to play that well, no matter what.
> I simply do not believe in this.
Let me repeat the evidence which I believes proves my premise and disproves yours!
IF what you say is true - that 1 D AGA is at about the middle of "average" human
capability, and that with sufficient effort anyone can attain that level - then
when looking at the distribution of players in any Go organization (AGA, IGS,
NNGS, etc.) we would expect to find at worst a rather close to uniform
distribution from beginner up to that "average" level, based almost entirely upon
the length of time and amount of effort expended. Bu t what do we actually find??
Almost no players at any of the beginning levels and increasing numbers as we get
to and surpass the supposed "average" level. Why? Because all of those who
constitute the vast majority of the population who haven't got the "built in"
brain wiring to play Go simply drop out, and only that tiny cadre of
physiologically pre-programmed adepts remain. Of course, for that small group
Bantari's premise does work, and effort pays off!
As I've repeatedly noted, just because something sounds as though it is logical
and "ought" to be true doesn't make it so - as Aristotle demonstrated millennia
ago! It may be "politically incorrect" to recognize the truth as I've stated it,
but until we face that reality the probability that we will ever solve the problem
of making Go more popular in our culture will remain where it is now - at near
zero! And, regrettably, even if we face the reality that I've pointed out that
very reality itself will only raise that potential at best to match the small
proportion of individuals who possess the requisite "built in" brain wiring.
Please understand that this is neither negative nor pessimistic - just a calm
reasoned acceptance of reality, with all of its warts and imperfections - whether
we like it or not.
Antoine Mechelynck
> What simplistic tosh. Were you born this stupid or did you attain this
> level of stupidity through grinding years of study?
> Or was it thrust upon you?
Please, jo ! With that kind of talk you will accomplish nothing positive.
Even when my opinions are in total disagreement with Milt's, I respect his
person. He belongs to my father's generation, and, letting for the moment
outside of discussion his opinions on where the ability to play Go comes
from, his accomplishments are, I think, worthy of respect.
Tony.
Milton N. Bradley
Sigh! I don't mind being disputed, but I really object to being misquoted and
THEN disputed on that basis! Please see below.
Bantari wrote:
> Dear Milt (and others who still did not loose patience with our
> bickering, hehe):
>
> It seems obvious that we just choose to disagree on this issue. I
> for one have said more or less what I wanted to say, and I feel
> that further discussion would just run in circles, each of us repeating
> our arguments ad nuasea.
>
> So, to close the subject (for now), let me try to summarize the
> discussion, for my own sake, hehe...
>
> In advance - sorry for the lengthy post.
>
> Anyways - here's what's been going on:
>
> ********************
>
> Fact 1:
> Orientals (especially Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese) are doing
> much much better in Go than americans.
>
> Milt's interpretation:
> There must be some genetic reasons for this.
I NEVER said this! I said that it is reasonable to suppose that this MIGHT be
true but until some substantive proof was produced it must remain an
hypothesis, and no more.
As an aside, the most appalling aspect of my posting this hypothesis was the
resultant accusations of racism that were heaped on me! What made this so
difficult to take is that if there was ever a person who accepts each
individual on his or her own merits, it's me! But it seems that the most
exercise that some here in rgg land get is "jumping at conclusions". Sad!!
- snip -
> But, I agree, the fact itself is indisputable.
>
Ah! A (rare) point of agreement!
>
> My interpretation:
> There are tremendous social and cultural differences between US
> and Japan (for example) - differences which weight strongly on the game.
> There are centuries old tradition of Go in the Orient, while in the US it
> is a relatively new and unknown game. There is massive government and
> industrial (I.e. financial) support for Go in the Orient, and has been
> for long centuries. There are professional schools and teachers. This
> has to account for a lot to explain the disparity.
> Also - in each of the Go-developed countries the raise of Go skill
> ca be directly traced to cultural changes supporting its popularity. In
> the US we have not seen such changes. As yet.
> We can observe similar phenomena in chess - the raise of the
> Soviet chess imperium, and the Fisher boom (although this one is short-
> lived). Also - chess in china seem to be coming out of the dark ages,
> and we'll have to see what happens with India now that Anand won the FIDE
> championship. In each of the cases a country seems to develop from a
> virtual nothing (so maybe they were genetically handicapped?) to a giant
> almost overnight (so maybe they were not genetically handicapped
> afterall). Although if we investigate closer, we see how many years of
> detailed preparation and support was necessary to accomplish this.
>
> Milt's conclusion (as I see it):
> We are just unable to become much better than we already are.
Not quite! What I'm saying is that we can never achieve what Bantari believes
we can because most people simply don't have the "built in" brain wiring for
Go - just as most do not have the built in brain wiring for more than simple
mathematics. And, at least equally important - that the only way that we will
ever be able to attain whatever level of Go involvement by the populace at
large this situation allows is to recognize that reality and then devise the
strategies that will best respond to it!
> Most people just do not have the stuff necessary to become any stronger
> than, say AGA 15k, so they should not despair if they do not improve any
> further. They should just accept things as they are and get all the fun
> and enjoyment they can. It will not get better, no matter what.
> Genetics.
>
Regrettably true, whether we wish to confront that ugly reality or not!!
> My conclusion:
> We should raise the cultural awareness of Go in the US, and strive
> to secure some kind of financial/cultural support for the game.
Of course! A strategy that applies equally no matter what the proportion of Go
adepts in the population.
> Once we
> have done this, the general level of Go in US will raise dramatically,
> with average AGA rank going up and the number of AGA members growing.
There will certainly be more Go players if some dramatic event(s) like a Go
equivalent of Bobby fischer occur, but just as you can't make more Einsteins
from "average" people, nothing will substantially change the average level
"average" people will achieve.
> This is not to say that there will be no individuals who are unable to
> break to the magic AGA 1d level. I accept the fact that the ability
> varies between people. I just do not accept the premise that inborn
> ability for Go varies that much between whole populations or ethnic
> groups.
This is the same argument that has been raging for decades in education, and
is behind the push for "special education" programs, and the opposition of
some to "gifted and talented" programs.
> In short - Go is an oriental game - it has its roots there, its
> tradition, and its support. Orientals play the game much longer, and
> there are many more of them playing it. Why isn't this sufficient to
> explain the disparity?
It may well be - and then again it may NOT! So why is it unacceptable to look
at the facts and interpret them in other than the way that Bantari (and many
others) prefer? The history of science is that new hypotheses to explain what
were formerly accepted as well settled understanding of reality has led to
significant breakthroughs, so why is that possibility so unwelcome here?
> In the orient, kids grow up around Go - their fathers play it,
> their mothers play it, their friends play it... in many cases you almost
> cannot escape learning it at early age. There is Go programs on TV,
> there are Go cartoons... There are great go players around every corner,
> many of whom are willing to teach and guide. Such environment just
> *must* produce higher general level of play, genetics or not! Even if a
> person does not take up Go seriously till much later age, he already has
> a favorable mindset towards the game... while in the US its just a
> oddity, even for the selected few who ultimately get "hooked".
>
Manifestly true! And even most math phobics learn enough to pass their courses
and graduate, but then they invariably part company with it and put it out of
their lives forever more! And just as those math phobics will never even
master such a simple subject as calculus, the equivalent Go phobics will never
achieve even the objectively modest level of AGA 1 Dan!!! Everyone (including
even Bantari, I bet!) recognizes the reality of the former, so why is the
equivalent reality of the latter so difficult to accept? It's a mystery to me.
>
> ********************
> Fact 2:
> Some people do better in Go than others.
>
> Milt's interpretation:
> From Milt's experience, the majority of americans do poorly in Go.
> The reasons for this are genetic, which prevent most of the non-orientals
> to reach a level higher than, say AGA 15k. Milt has vast experience
> teaching Go to beginners, and his numbers beg for some kind of
> explanation of this fact. As said above - he chooses genetic inability
> to progress any further. There are many examples for seemingly
> intelligent people to be unable to grasp Go at any higher level. It must
> be genetics.
>
Even the posters to rgg how profess to disagree with my position also
simultaneously have stated that one must reach 1d in a year if 5d is ever to
be attained! And what does this say? Simply that lacking talent, no amount of
hard work will ever suffice. So all that's at issue here is the level that can
be attained lacking talent. Perhaps its higher than 15k, but in my experience
it's nowhere near 1d!! And you can tell which student has or hasn't that
talent usually in the first 15 minutes!
>
> My interpretation:
> I cannot argue with Milt's number. If 600 out of his 700 pupils
> never reached 15k, so it is. However - I prefer to believe other
> reasons for this fact than Milt does. The first reason is that maybe the
> instructions given to them were insufficient. This is not to belittle
> Milt's teaching abilities, which I respect greatly, but just the fact
> that one teacher, when confronted with such masses, can only do so much,
> and certainly cannot provide every student with the best personal
> approach. As a matter of fact, my experience, even if much more limited,
> is diametrally different. Every single pupil I had reached a level of at
> least European 5k (about AGA 2k) - but each of them received a very
> personal instructions, with many hours of my time spent on every single
> one of them. Some of them eventually dropped out, but not for the lack
> of progress, but for external reason (family, job, etc).
The question here is how these students were chosen, and with what background
they came to Bantari for instruction. My kids were literally a random
selection of the population at large, whose mothers sent them to the Go
program because it offered a benign alternative to TV. My strong suspicion is
that Bantari's students were in one way or the other already "hooked" on Go,
and therefore already preselected as members of the "adept" group. And if this
is true, the level they ultimately attained is irrelevant to our dispute.
> The other reason I see is that, as Milt says, the abilities
> necessary to become a good Go player seem to be sadly underdeveloped in
> many (most?) americans. So in this respect - I agree with Milt.
> However, I have seen no such under-development in the majority of people
> I used know in Europe - and these were people who come from the same
> genetic stock that the americans.
Once again Bantari misses my point! We are not here comparing any possible
group differences between orientals and occidentals (that was addressed
above), but rather the distribution of ability within any group. And this was
already covered in the math analogy discussed above.
> This leads me to believe that other
> reasons are responsible for this. In particular, the educational system
> in US does not seem do a very good job in developing abstract thinking in
> kids.
True! And this definitely exacerbates the underlying problem.
> I do not have much first hand experience with youngsters, but I
> have been through enough universities and colleges in America to see the
> results of the grade-school education, and the difference between what I
> saw in Europe is staggering, at least in general sense. The american
> education see to parallel its culture - in which the street-smarts are
> much higher on the list of essential skills than the skill of analytic
> approach and abstract thinking - both qualities essential to become a
> good Go player.
> In general, american culture at large, is very unsympathetic to
> people investing a lot of effort in persuing such "useless" activity as
> Go if there is no money to be made this way. This goes especially for
> youngsters, I imagine, who often do not see Go as something special,
> like basketball or baseball. Which kid does not dream to play in NBA and
> thus is determined to practice practice and practice to become closer to
> his goal. How much pain kids will endure to get there, how many hours
> they invest perfecting their skills. And for this they will gain
> respect from both their peers and their elder. In Go, such motivation is
> totally absent, thus kids treat it as "just another game" and so are more
> prone to quitting while the going gets tough.
Unquestionably!! And indisputably!
> Also - a trait very important in succeeding in Go is humility -
> readiness to agree that we do not know much and run for help to the
> "wiser" ones. The ability to be absolutely honest with ourselves, to
> accept how little we know and how weak we are, and then turn it into
> strength to improve further. These traits are almost non-existent in the
> american culture, while they are historically fundamental to many of the
> oriental activities. Personally, I find this to be the greatest
> impedement to improving at Go in many of my pupils, at least on personal
> level. Those who are humble, do better. Those who believe that by
> reaching certain level they have proven themselves "superior" in some way
> to others are usually on their way to hitting a dead end. But I know
> such attitudes can be broken.
No disagreement here either!
> Milt's conclusion:
> As for fact number 1 - its genetics that makes us unable to excel
> in Go on the scale of, for example, the Japanese.
I repeat: I NEVER STATED THIS AS FACT! IT IS ONLY A PLAUSIBLE HYPOTHESIS
WHICH MAY WELL TURN OUT TO BE INCORRECT! And I shall not bemoan that result if
it proves true!! But whatever the truth, knowing it will better enable us to
improve the situation than lack of such knowledge!
> So we should just
> accept things as they are and enjoy what we have. Nothing can be done.
Wrong!! Of course things can be done to improve the situation, but the
important question is precisely what? And the only way we can EVER arrive at
that is if we first characterize the underlying situation correctly - whether
we like what that dispassionate appraisal reveals or not.
> At best, on a personal level, marry an oriental and hope your kids will
> have enough of the good gene to play good Go.
>
This cynical attempt to denigrate my position demonizes me and is really
beneath the level of civilized discourse.
> My conclusion:
> I have to admit that I am not certain how to change the situation,
> or if it even can be changed. At least in near future. But I see hope -
> eventually somebody somewhere will figure something out, something will
> break, american culture will become more sympathetic to Go and american
> Go players will spread their wings and soar high with the others. :-)
Please! Talk is cheap! Provide a few implementable proposals, and then put
them into practice. I've spent over 50 years doing just that, and that's what
has given rise to the conclusions you find so distasteful.
> But seriously - what I am saying is that, step by step, we all can
> do something to make Go more popular in the US, and even if the road is
> long and winding, it *does* lead us out of the woods, eventually. Or at
> least - if we are determined enough. Time will tell.
>
At last something we can all agree on! DO something - anything - to try spread
the word about Go! Teach beginners! Seek sponsorship!
An old, old saying : "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear".
Bantari, what do you think that says? Or can't you see the connection to our
dispute that has been "folk wisdom" for who knows how many centuries?
>
> This will be my final post on this subject, for now. I'd like
> Milt to comment on it, to see if I got his position right. Maybe we are
> just talking without really listening (or maybe just I am), and in
> principle, we actually agree.
>
> So go on, Milt - have the last word, and then lets let it rest.
>
> :-)
>
> --
> ________________________________________
> -Bantari
> e-mail: kapr...@yahoo666.com (remove the 666)
> homepage: http://home.san.rr.com/rafgo
I don't really want "the last word" if that leaves bad aji! But as for
"letting it rest"? I say amen!
Milton N. Bradley
> Milton N. Bradley wrote:
>
> >Because all of those who
> >constitute the vast majority of the population who haven't got the "built in"
> >brain wiring to play Go simply drop out, and only that tiny cadre of
> >physiologically pre-programmed adepts remain.
>
> What simplistic tosh. Were you born this stupid or did you attain this
> level of stupidity through grinding years of study?
> Or was it thrust upon you?
> --
>
> Exterminate!
> /
> ___
> D>=G===' '.
> |======|
> |======|
> )--/]IIIIII]
> |_______|
> C O O O D
> C O O O D
> C O O O D
> C__O__O__O__D
> snd [_____________]
>
This is a prime example of the very worst kind of character assassination! Jo,
baby, whoever you are, I'll match my intellectual abilities against yours and
almost anyone else's! I don't stoop to calling you stupid, but based upon what you
say above I really don't have to because you've done such a fine job of so
characterizing yourself!
In the future, if you disagree with my (or anyone else's) premises or statements,
do the readers of your response a service by providing some substantive
information to demonstrate why your view of reality is more believable than mine!
More in sadness than in anger
Greg Miller
>
> Greg Miller wrote:
>
>
>> You're exaggerating a lot, actually. In American football, a touchdown
>> is 6 points. Period. There are significan differences among various
>>
>
>
> No, its not "Period". There is the field goal worth 3 points, the extra point after touchtown is worth
> 1 point, but if you do the extra point after touchtown as another touchdown then it's worth 2 points.
> heheh... Seems I know more about American football than you do, although I doubt it.
I must have misinterpreted your post, then. If you're referring to
scoring in general, there are variations as you note. The 2-point play
following a touchdown is a conversion. There's also a 2-point safety.
In XFL football, conversions are 1 point and extra points don't exist.
Turnovers on conversion plays may result in 1 point for the other team.
>> On the contrary, American Football is extremely team-oriented. Hence,
>> blocking and preset plays. You are correct, however, in pointing out
>>
>
>
> There is really only one guy who can pass the ball regularly and that's the quarterback, everybody else
> once they got the ball all they can do is run run run. If there is no passing the ball between
> teammates how can there be high team works? Just watch a game of the international rugby. Team
Easy. The receiver has to get into position to catch the ball and get as
much yardage as possible. Other players have to block or distract the
opponents in order to prevent them from getting to the QB or receiver.
Working together like that is what teamwork is all about. There are few
team sports where every player is completely interchangeable (neither
American Football nor Soccer falls in that category).
--
S. G. Fawthrop
Greg Miller wrote in message <3A8B11F4...@classic-games.com>...
> ... In XFL football ...
A nice oxymoron. Wish I had thought of it.
liyang niu
As a new comer to this NG, and also an oriental (come from China), I read most posts
about this thread with great interest. Well, I consider both Milt's and Bantari's
opinions are revelatory, however, I tend to support what Bantari said "......just that
the culture and
education holds them back too much. " In my personal experience of teaching Go to
occidentals, I find that the biggest roadblock in the way is their thinking method
which appears to be much concretely. For instance, most of them have difficulty to
understand why and how does a atsumi of black in upperleft will affect a group of
white stones in the right; why this shape makes a sense of strong while that shape
does not. They always want a list of substantive reasons (1, 2, 3...) to support it,
otherwise they won't understand. But as you know, in most situations like this, we use
a abstract way to make estimation or judgment. People may get implications from the
subtle distinction between traditional chinese paintings and oil paintings. Oil
paintings technically use perspective to make the painting more *real*, closer to
reality, while a traditional chinese painting never try to image the reality but just
describe the feelings the painter's got in the reality. Why this? A deposition of the
culture and history in mind. So that makes some part of Go more easy to understand for
an oriental.
And another aspect affects, I think, is how people treat Go. Most of occidentals treat
Go as just a kind of game, at best a game does lots of good to the players. Orientals
don't. Go was not only a game, or entertainment in ancient China. It was treated as a
high skill. Good Go players gained respect. So eastern children have the concept that
being a strong Go player or even learn to play Go is very important. I think that is
why they can learn it more active and lasting.
Cipher
Milton N. Bradley
> Milton N. Bradley wrote:
>
> >This is a prime example of the very worst kind of character assassination!
>
> Don't be silly; I only called you stupid ffs.
Ah, yes! If you have no facts to support your assertions, throw mud!
> >Jo,baby,
>
> Milt, baby?
>
> > whoever you are
>
> Pardon?
Perhaps I should have said "whatever you are" because you're certainly acting like an
angry juvenile, and not a mature adult here.
> > I'll match my intellectual abilities against yours and
> >almost anyone else's!
>
> I doubt there are many readers of this group who have managed to
> ignore your desire to number yourself amongst the 'intellectual
> elite'.
No desire! After living for almost 74 years if I didn't have a good idea of how my
intellectual capabilities stacked up against everyone else's I really would be stupid,
indeed! (And you'd love that to be true, wouldn't you?) Of course there are people who
are smarter and more capable than I, even markedly so, but as my life experience from
childhood on has demonstrated repeatedly, not very many! So should I rather pretend
that I'm just an "average Joe"?? Perhaps that would make what I say more palatable to
you but I've always believed that the facing the truth (i.e. reality) is the only way
to arrive the right conclusions and make the appropriate decisions.
> The snag in this context, and why I put my 'stupid' post in, is that
> your intellectual elitism is seriously off putting to the average go
> newbie.
> I have seen many posts to this group, in the couple of years or so I
> have been reading it, from kyu players asking how to improve. I have
> put posts in offering suggestions, as have others; the Bradley
> approach appears to be: 'Hey, newbie; you probably can never make it'.
I encourage every newbie, but I do NOT engender unrealistic expectations! Evidently
that distinction is beyond your limited intellectual capacity to grasp!
> Ok, you have your years of experience as a teacher... but, as has been
> mentioned recently here, your sample of students may be large; your
> sample of teachers is, er, not.
And here's where we differ! You sit on your duff and suggest and criticize, while I've
gone out into the real world and put into practice my own ideas, learned from them,
and then (obviously quite naively and foolishly) attempted to pass on what I have
learned to those (like you) who haven't had that experience and who are therefore
basing their opinions on nothing more substantive than their own "intuition". As I've
repeatedly pointed out I began with no preconceptions, and was appalled at the
unpleasant reality that I found. But I refused to allow it to deter me from saying
"the emperor has no clothes" when that was appropriate, no matter how badly ignorant
people like you would prefer to continue to reside in their own fantasy world!
Please consider the simplest and most common analogy. The average high school athlete
in any sport cannot and will not make his/her school's varsity team, no matter how
much time and effort they devote to that quest. And I believe that any reasonable
observer will agree that the Go analogy to making a high school varsity is
(approximately) the Bantari standard of achieving 1d AGA. So if you are willing to
accept the former, why oh why is it so hard for you (and others) to accept the
latter???
> >I don't stoop to calling you stupid, but based upon what you
> >say above I really don't have to because you've done such a fine job of so
> >characterizing yourself!
>
> Wouldn't it be easier to call me stupid?
It certainly would, but it's not necessary for me to stoop to that because you've done
a superb job of demonstrating it yourself!
> >In the future, if you disagree with my (or anyone else's) premises or statements,
> >do the readers of your response a service by providing some substantive
> >information to demonstrate why your view of reality is more believable than mine!
>
> In the future, I will put whatever posts to this ng that I choose. My
> main objection to the posts you make here is when you tell a kyu
> player that she probably cannot make shodan.
> This, I believe to be inexcuseable.
I see! So you need no facts to support your opinions, and just your bald statement of
them should be enough for everyone to accept that they are correct? When Aristotle
made this logical error it was acceptable because no one then knew better. But today,
such an unreasonable attitude is no longer acceptable, at least among the educated.
And you believe that my telling the truth as I believe it to be based upon experience
and not just supposition is unacceptable in your pantheon?? Your attitude was dominant
when the Catholic Church jumped all over Galileo, but is also no longer acceptable in
rational society.
The truth is often unpleasant and inconvenient, but unless you confront it your
chances of finding the right answers to the significant and puzzling existing problems
is effectively nil. Just one simple example. When America's first President George
Washington became ill, using the incorrect supposition that then passed for the best
medical wisdom that he had "bad blood", they bled him with leeches and thus certainly
hastened (and perhaps even caused) his death. Your equally incorrect notion that any
beginner can make AGA 1d may not kill anyone, but it's equally mistaken and equally
stands in the way of both retaining the maximum possible number of beginners as
permanent members of the Go community and of maximizing the percentage who will
actually achieve that magic 1d status.
> >More in sadness than in anger
>
> Well, there's a thing, eh?
How can I be angry with an unsophisticated thinker like you who allows his emotions to
prevent an objective appraisal of the situation - even one who denigrates and attempts
to demonize me?? This has always been the way of the world with those whose ideas
challenge accepted "wisdom", so perhaps I should have been prepared for it. But my
problem was that I incorrectly believed that Go players could more or less routinely
transfer the sophisticate thinking processes used in playing Go to the remainder of
their lives. And here again, my original preconception has proved to be incorrect, and
I've discovered to my dismay that it appears that most Go players (quite obviously
including you) are no better at real life reasoning than non Go players. So much for
what pure logic unsupported by facts can generate! I've (almost as unwillingly as you
still appear to be) learned these hard lessons, but from your responses it appears
that you never will! Your loss, not mine.
> Configure your news client to keep out of my mail box.
My pleasure!!! With close minded people like you, attempting to reason (as I'm still
doing, for reasons I'm not sure that even I can fathom) is manifestly a futile
exercise.
Nick Wedd
<liyan...@oracle.com> writes
>In my personal experience of teaching Go to occidentals, I find that
>the biggest roadblock in the way is their thinking method which appears
>to be much concretely. For instance, most of them have difficulty to
>understand why and how does a atsumi of black in upperleft will affect
>a group of white stones in the right; why this shape makes a sense of
>strong while that shape does not. They always want a list of
>substantive reasons (1, 2, 3...) to support it, otherwise they won't
>understand. But as you know, in most situations like this, we use
>a abstract way to make estimation or judgment.
atsumi = thickness
What you say is true. I am an occidental, and I am reluctant to believe
a statement until I have understood it.
I think my Go would be better if I accepted statements from respected
teachers without understanding them. But I would not enjoy it. A game
played that way would be like "painting by numbers", where you blindly
follow instructions without understanding what you are doing.
On the rare occasions when I have played an orientally-trained player
who plays worse than I do, I have sometimes felt "He looks as if he is
playing good moves. But he's only pretending. He does not really
understand what he is doing."
Nick
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
Chaz
<brad...@villagenet.com> writes
<snip>
>Please consider the simplest and most common analogy. The average high school
>athlete
>in any sport cannot and will not make his/her school's varsity team, no matter
>how
>much time and effort they devote to that quest. And I believe that any
>reasonable
>observer will agree that the Go analogy to making a high school varsity is
>(approximately) the Bantari standard of achieving 1d AGA. So if you are willing
>to
>accept the former, why oh why is it so hard for you (and others) to accept the
>latter???
Because 'average' is a statistic and not a real person - that's why. If
you 'gear' any form of education to the 'average ability' instead of the
'spectrum of ability' then you will reap the dubious rewards of
mediocrity.
BTW, Alec Guinness was Obi, not you. :)
--
Cheers Chaz
Milton N. Bradley
Thanks for your contribution of a calm, reasoned input to what has all too often
degenerated into a fractious confrontation.
Not much to disagree with in what you say, but perhaps a few observations will help
clarify my position. Please see below.
liyang niu wrote:
> Greetings, all,
>
> As a new comer to this NG, and also an oriental (come from China), I read most posts
> about this thread with great interest. Well, I consider both Milt's and Bantari's
> opinions are revelatory, however, I tend to support what Bantari said "......just that
> the culture and
> education holds them back too much. " In my personal experience of teaching Go to
> occidentals, I find that the biggest roadblock in the way is their thinking method
> which appears to be much concretely. For instance, most of them have difficulty to
> understand why and how does a atsumi of black in upperleft will affect a group of
> white stones in the right; why this shape makes a sense of strong while that shape
> does not. They always want a list of substantive reasons (1, 2, 3...) to support it,
> otherwise they won't understand. But as you know, in most situations like this, we use
> a abstract way to make estimation or judgment.
It is apparent that you are here talking about the thinking processes of adults, and about
strategic concepts that arise only after the student has already "learned" or "mastered"
the rudiments. My position regarding the inherent capability to learn Go of the "average"
western person was fashioned largely (but certainly not exclusively) from teaching
children in whom the thinking processes were still in the process of formation, and by
watching their struggles to learn things far, far simpler and more fundamental than the
implications of atsumi!!!
> People may get implications from the
> subtle distinction between traditional chinese paintings and oil paintings. Oil
> paintings technically use perspective to make the painting more *real*, closer to
> reality, while a traditional chinese painting never try to image the reality but just
> describe the feelings the painter's got in the reality. Why this? A deposition of the
> culture and history in mind. So that makes some part of Go more easy to understand for
> an oriental.
My underlying point regarding the possibility (and I repeat that this is at present only
an hypothesis and not to be interpreted as my firm belief), which it seems that everyone
chooses to ignore no matter how explicitly or how many times I state it is: There is the
very distinct possibility that this strong oriental cultural tradition (which all
recognize as markedly different from that of occidentals) did not arise and dominate
oriental societies by some sort of fortuitous accident, but rather came into being and
prospered because the way that the oriental mind functions at some basic level is
different from that of occidentals!!! And if this is true, then , of course, my
supposition that orientals may (repeat MAY - not yet, if ever, proven) have a genetic
advantage in learning/playing Go is not only conceivable but inevitable!! So this idea is
neither racist nor irrational, but rather one possible logical conclusion that naturally
arises from the observed data. Unfortunately, how to either prove or disprove it to
everyone's satisfaction is a problem that currently seems not to have a viable solution.
> And another aspect affects, I think, is how people treat Go. Most of occidentals treat
> Go as just a kind of game, at best a game does lots of good to the players. Orientals
> don't. Go was not only a game, or entertainment in ancient China. It was treated as a
> high skill. Good Go players gained respect. So eastern children have the concept that
> being a strong Go player or even learn to play Go is very important. I think that is
> why they can learn it more active and lasting.
Unquestionably a contributory factor, and one with which I have never disagreed.
>
> Cipher
Milton N. Bradley
After posting my response to the polemic from which this segment is excerpted, I
realized that a key item affecting both everyone's understanding of my position and
their impression of me was not addressed adequately enough by me to dispel the
misconceptions which manifestly exist. So the purpose of this subsidiary posting is to
clear that up, hopefully in a manner that will lay those misconceptions permanently to
rest!
jo wrote:
- snip -
> I have seen many posts to this group, in the couple of years or so I
> have been reading it, from kyu players asking how to improve. I have
> put posts in offering suggestions, as have others; the Bradley
> approach appears to be: 'Hey, newbie; you probably can never make it'.
The clear implication in the above is that I'm some kind of insensitive, incompetent
idiot who denigrates and abuses my students, and this is diametrically different from
the reality! Just where and how such a distortion of what I've said in such carefully
and explicitly spelled out detail in this ng could and did occur is baffling to me,
but IMHO can only be explained by noting that it is a common practice among some to
distort what the promulgator of unpopular opinions says, and then use that distortion
to denigrate and demonize them!
No teacher worthy of the name would EVER behave in such a stupid, demeaning and
counterproductive manner toward his students, and I most certainly never have!
Just as what the doctors say about a patient in private conference among themselves
differs from how they provide the appropriate information to the patient and his
relatives, so does how I relate to my students differ from what I express to other Go
teachers and here in rgg.
The reality is that when the subject of just what level any Go student is likely to
achieve has come up my answer has always been that it's no different from any other
activity, and will depend on the individual's talent and application. And the point
that I always emphasize is that Go can be enjoyed at every level, so that whatever the
rating one finally achieves the joy of playing is the most important reward!
I don't believe that I can state this any more clearly, so I hope and trust that this
will at last lay this "red herring" of an issue to rest forever more!
Thanks to all for your forbearance in this seemingly endless contretemps.
Tom Hoeber
>
>> From my experience with americans, they like everything grandiose
>> and flashy, everything which is on the large scale.
>
From my experience with non-Americans they like to make grandiose and flashy
generalizations about Americans, none of which have any basis except in
their own imaginations.
Tom Hoeber
Joel Olson
< ...
Same in Go - the lack of popularity is not due to the lack of
money, but the lack of money is due to the lack of popularity. Or at
least - the relationship goes more this way. Some kind of audience has
to be found first, then money will follow, generating more audience and
in turn - more money. The trick is to start the ball rolling.
Any ideas?
>
I vaguely recall someone (Piaget?) discussing the age at which children
grasp the idea of a fixed set of rules, and are able to adhere to them.
Maybe 5 or 6 years, depending on individual development. This seems to
me to be a good time to introduce them to the game - the simplicity of
go becomes an advantage. When do they learn tic-tac-toe?
Although ecouragment at home is desireable, it is more efficient if go
is presented at school, where a single somewhat knowledgeable person can
reach tens of youngsters each term. Which leads one to consider grade
school teachers, the majority of whom are women.
And those teachers come from colleges, where childhood development is
taken seriously, and where there may be a go club. I think a case can be
made for go as exercise in thinking that doesn't require much in the way
of background facts, a playful way to involve the child with logic in a
visually attractive context. So the suggestion is that the college clubs
pitch the education departments especially hard.
Are there any go programs that run on Nintendo? :-)
-----------
One must learn to think well before learning to think; afterward it
proves too difficult. - A. France
-----------
Greycat Sharpclaw
wrote:
>There is really only one guy who can pass the ball regularly and that's the quarterback, everybody else
>once they got the ball all they can do is run run run. If there is no passing the ball between
>teammates how can there be high team works?
Easily -- each player (on both the offense and the defense) has an
assignment of what he is to do. These assignments are different from
man to man, but if *any one* of these players screw up the results can
be decisive.
The players do their assignments according to a *plan* for the *whole
team*, and the team's success is greatly depended on this teamwork.
Honestly, anyone thinking that American football doesn't have much
teamwork does not understand the game.
>Just watch a game of the international rugby. Team
>formations, movements without the ball, that's basic stuff for a team sport,
And these things are in American football as well.
--
Greycat Sharpclaw
- does anyone have any spare tunafish??
Remove "nospam" in address to reply
MY Choy
Greycat Sharpclaw wrote:
>
> Easily -- each player (on both the offense and the defense) has an
> assignment of what he is to do. These assignments are different from
> man to man, but if *any one* of these players screw up the results can
> be decisive.
>
> The players do their assignments according to a *plan* for the *whole
> team*, and the team's success is greatly depended on this teamwork.
>
Every team sport can claim the above to be true. The point is the kind of assignments for the players.
Why can't the most of them be asked (or assigned) to do more skillful tasks, like passing the ball between
teammates while on the move? Why most of them can only do the basic stuff like blocking, tackling, and
carrying the ball (basically requring strength and speed)? Passing the ball require more than raw physical
ability, it requires using your head and vision, and higher level of coordination and cooperation with your
teammates.
I mean, what you claim above, every team sport does that, plus there are a lot of passing the balls between
teammates. American football lacks that.
-MY Choy
Joel Olson
<<
If there is no passing the ball between teammates how can there be high
team works?
>>
<
Easily -- each player (on both the offense and the defense) has an
assignment of what he is to do. These assignments are different from
man to man, but if *any one* of these players screw up the results can
be decisive.
The players do their assignments according to a *plan* for the *whole
team*, and the team's success is greatly depended on this teamwork.
Honestly, anyone thinking that American football doesn't have much
teamwork does not understand the game.
>
Football is THE model example of teamwork for many Americans, but it is
a highly authoritarian one. This type of teamwork is similar to
synchronization among programmed machines. It is the teamwork of
factories and of the military.
In contrast, there is the voluntary sort of teamwork that sometimes
occurs spontaneously. A type in which diverse individuals contribute
what they can, apply their talents as they think best, without
necessarily being told. It is perhaps less efficient, but can accomplish
tasks that the other sort can't.
Not sure how this applies to go. Perhaps the first type could be like
team members taking turns; and the second where they all discuss which
move to play next. But this models the second type better than the
first.
Dan Jerghiuta
> a highly authoritarian one. This type of teamwork is similar to
> synchronization among programmed machines. It is the teamwork of
> factories and of the military.
You can hardly call it teamwork. You have a group of subcontractors that do
their own job. If you coordinate them well and they to their job right, you
succeed.
They use the same model when building houses. Its' true that anybody's
failure could make the whole project a failure, but this doesn't mean it's
teamwork.
> In contrast, there is the voluntary sort of teamwork that sometimes
> occurs spontaneously. A type in which diverse individuals contribute
> what they can, apply their talents as they think best, without
> necessarily being told. It is perhaps less efficient, but can accomplish
> tasks that the other sort can't.
In most other team sports that I can think of, there's a real teamwork.
Players don't just do their duties without thinking, but they move from one
"job" to another as they see need for help there. A superplayer can always
cover for team's weaknesses.
> Not sure how this applies to go.
It's hard to apply any team concept in Go. It is an individual contest.
> Perhaps the first type could be like team members taking turns;
The first model is: one plays fuseki, one plays tsume-go, one plays endgame
and one coach decides who's to play next.
> and the second where they all discuss which move to play next.
> But this models the second type better than the first.
This is the "meeting model" 8-). Not very efficient 8-)
The second team model from team sports it's hard to implement in Go. Maybe
each one plays at his own board with an opponent but can also help his
teammates by saying "you need to defend that group" or "that move is bigger"
MY Choy
Joel Olson wrote:
>
> Football is THE model example of teamwork for many Americans, but it is
I only hope that you're right, but I'm afraid most Americans don't or don't
know how to appreciate the football's highest model of teamwork as a team
sports.
-MY Choy
Tom Hoeber
"MY Choy" <tin...@weiqi.online> wrote in message news:3A957627...@weiqi.online...
>
> , but I'm afraid most Americans don't or don't
> know how to appreciate the football's highest model of teamwork as a team
> sports.
>
> -MY Choy
>
Tom Hoeber
MY Choy
-MY Choy
Bantari
said...
> On the rare occasions when I have played an orientally-trained player
> who plays worse than I do, I have sometimes felt "He looks as if he is
> playing good moves. But he's only pretending. He does not really
> understand what he is doing."
Hehe... this might nicely tie up with the "memorization" argument
we had some time before. Maybe the best approach to go is just this -
memorize many things without necessarily understanding them, and play
many games, and then eventually understanding will come and you will be
very strong. When I talk to orientals - many of them indeed seem to
follow such model. But the westerners do not.
Could the effort to analyse and understand everything actually
hamper our progress? Is it our lack of patience? We want to understand
everything *now*, instead of putting in years of hard work with not much
understanding to finally reach the higher levels.
Just something to think about.
Bantari
said...
> Who forgot to zip his pants and out pops Tom Hoeber?
Hehe... good one.
Pekka Karjalainen
>On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:44:18 +0000, Nick Wedd (Ni...@maproom.co.uk)
>said...
>> On the rare occasions when I have played an orientally-trained player
>> who plays worse than I do, I have sometimes felt "He looks as if he is
>> playing good moves. But he's only pretending. He does not really
>> understand what he is doing."
I have to confess I have never noticed anything of the sort. I have
played on IGS, so I imagine I should have played many a game with
"orientally-trained" players as well. I couldn't tell the difference
between them and the western sort. I only notice the difference between
stronger than me and weaker than me.
Maybe it is not so apparent at IGS 3k level? That is where 'vinkupallo'
is now. (my account)
>
> Hehe... this might nicely tie up with the "memorization" argument
>we had some time before. Maybe the best approach to go is just this -
>memorize many things without necessarily understanding them, and play
>many games, and then eventually understanding will come and you will be
>very strong. When I talk to orientals - many of them indeed seem to
>follow such model. But the westerners do not.
How do I know which model I follow? Sometimes I memorize things,
sometimes I understand them (or try to). Probably that understanding, in
my case, will be long time in the coming and I will never be really
strong. But I don't really want to, either. IGS 3k is already good
enough for me :-) (maybe 4k* when I get the star...)
>
> Could the effort to analyse and understand everything actually
>hamper our progress? Is it our lack of patience? We want to understand
>everything *now*, instead of putting in years of hard work with not much
>understanding to finally reach the higher levels.
No we don't. At least I do not. I do lack patience, though :-)
>
> Just something to think about.
>
I'm trying, but as you can see it is too hard. My head hurts
already, and I've got so many questions. Should I just what take what you
say and memorize it and hope to understand it by 2006? (the stereotypical
Oriental approach?)
Pekka "tongue somewhat in cheek" Karjalainen
PS.
I don't believe in Eastern or Western thought; I only believe in sound
thinking.
slawek
Bantari wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:44:18 +0000, Nick Wedd (Ni...@maproom.co.uk)
> said...
> > On the rare occasions when I have played an orientally-trained player
> > who plays worse than I do, I have sometimes felt "He looks as if he is
> > playing good moves. But he's only pretending. He does not really
> > understand what he is doing."
I know I agree posts are most unwelcome but I just couldnt help it.
I AGREE.
We (occidentals) have our ability to learn high level Go hampered by
cultural
factors: lack of faith in tradition and lack of trust in elders.
This is the american way: learn by doing, be creatvie, new ideas are
profitable etc.
Well, not alwasy so ...
Some time ago I exchanged views with Bantari on memorisation vs
understandig where I was trying to express the above thought myself.
Pekka writes in Thinking about thinking about Go that he doesnt see any
difference between the way orientals play and he does.
Well I do see the difference. My much stronger friend confirm my
observations too. Orientals play better style, their stones work better
together, but they are generally weaker technically.
Slawek
Joel Olson
"He looks as if he is playing good moves. But he's only pretending. He
does not really understand what he is doing."
>>
This is probably a fairly common phenomenon. In my case, its due to too
many books and magazines in proportion to actual games. So I play moves
that were good in other situations, and see how they work out.
Then again, the books and magazines may be inadvertantly omitting some
important topics. Follow-up moves, and "resources" come to mind.
< Bantari said:
Maybe the best approach to go is just this - memorize many things
without necessarily understanding them, and play many games, and then
eventually understanding will come and you will be very strong.
>
I'd mention a third component - reading commentaries and material on the
theoretical/conceptual aspects of the game. To be absorbed if not fully
understood.
Which brings me to the main point. Understanding is a slippery word. Its
certainly not a boolean attribute, or even a linear scale. One of the
fascinating things about Go is that it reveals what a rich mixture it
can be.
----------
... impatience could also stem from insecurity about memory: the child
may fear that what it wants will slip from mind while other thoughts are
entertained. In other words, the child who is asked to "take turns"
might fear that by the time its turn arrives, it may not want the object
anymore. - M. Minsky
----------
Pekka Karjalainen
In article <3A98FCCB...@komes.com.pl>, slawek wrote:
>Pekka writes in Thinking about thinking about Go that he doesnt see any
>difference between the way orientals play and he does.
Hah, nobody quite plays the way I do, of course :-)
There is only ONE go player in the world whose mistakes make me blush
or want to hit my head against a wall. Luckily he is a nice fellow and
rarely plays those really serious blunders, usually being content to
wallow in the sea of general mediocrity instead.
>
>Well I do see the difference. My much stronger friend confirm my
>observations too. Orientals play better style, their stones work better
>together, but they are generally weaker technically.
Stones working well together is not technique, then?
When I started playing Go in 1997, I read (so I recall) a statement
along these lines in rgg:
I have noticed that oriental players generally are better at reading.
Somebody took a little offense to this statement if I remember
correctly. I still wonder why. Isn't it true?
If we consider some 9-dans and European amateurs 6-dans, for example,
then we certainly will find that the 9-dans are better at readings. Duh!
But if the person who noted the above was reasonable, s/he was comparing
players of equal skill level. And then we find that it is now orientals
who are supposed to be better technically. Is that still true or not?
I am not just trying to be contrary here, even though that is one of my
favorite hobbies. Maybe we just see things in some people's go style and
overgeneralize too easily. Can you really convince me that there is a
noticeable difference in oriental and western amateur go style? Please go
ahead & try!
I bet the variety between two players's styles will always outweigh such
differences, except in some cases of favored joseki or fuseki patterns.
No matter the grade, 9-dan or 20-kyu.
Thinking about the silly things I've read on rgg in the past, here is
something else I came accross when I was young & impressionable. Someone
was stating the the best players can become 5-dans on "tesuji and shape"
alone, and should leave studying joseki, fuseki and perhaps even life &
death until that grade, and make 6th and 7th with them then.
I believed that for a while, which was good, actually. I am now older &
wiser and know that joseki are basically useless. They can only make you
stronger at go, not a better player. Luckily I didn't get anywhere that
high with tesuji and shape myself.
Pekka K.
PS. As there no DejaNews archives to check up on whether anyone posted
this kind of stuff to rgg, you'll have to take my word & absolutely
perfect memory for it. :-)