Actually Dan levels I'm not overly concentrating on. Ignorance is my best defense here..
I thought Dan grades were awarded by National bodies anyway? as per:

http://www.britgo.org/ratings/danpromotion.html

The point is the Kyu grades.. where it strikes me that much of DDK can be formalised - and now automated. BUT, its only a part to do with awarding a rank.. its as much to do with having a priority structure for learning the game. In the same way that in judo you need demonstrate at high kyus that you know how to fall, and you can recognise certain throws and conduct certan kata. Dan grade in judo is about teaching. It is easy to beat most dan grades in judo if you are big and strong enough (and they are little enough). Beating someone at a game doesn't always mean you're good at the game..

If you are 20 kyu.. then actually being able to knock out 20 problems in half an hour (and training for that test) might have merit. At 15kyu - there might be merit in being guided/tested on common joseki... There are are quite a few Joseki.. how is a beginner really going to be able to prioritise her/his learning. Wild guesses?... Perhaps play someone who on the off chance knows them and is prepared to hand on the knowledge. Play enough games so he hits on the joseki by accident?- all very inefficient.

I'd still suggest that a rank can have added value over (possibly) equalizing a game.I also realise that it is very attractive to be able to say that "I am better than you because my rank is higher" and for some.. that simplicity of thought may be enough.

One day...I'll might even try to get a rank... .. on Tygem I'm 18 kyu.... any Dan players fancy giving me 19 stones??

That's just the thing; there isn't one.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Yes there is.. its crude but unless you know the rules you cant play..

Unless you know the difference in counting regimes then although you can play... you don't know who's won.

unless you know about eyes.. you've got problems.

I can believe that no one has formulated the structure - I don't believe a salvo attack on learning anything complicated is the best approach...

"priority structure for learning the game", not "priority structure for learning how to play the game".

I can see what you're trying to get at. But I think you err when you want this system to replace the actual ranks attained through playing. Your idea of "structured learning" has some use as a guide for players of around that strength to study, (see, for example, the way goproblems.com assings a rank to each of the problems on the site), and could be expanded beyond tsumego to all parts of the game (and already is, to some extent. For example, the lectures on wbaduk.org). But to replace actual ranks with these sorts of "tests" doesn't make any sense if rank is to be used as a measure of a player's strength.

(Excuse my messy writing style above, I'm in a hurry).

_________________
We don't know who we are; we don't know where we are.
Each of us woke up one moment and here we were in the darkness.
We're nameless things with no memory; no knowledge of what went before,
No understanding of what is now, no knowledge of what will be.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't amateur dan ranks in Japan awarded exactly as BobC suggests? You're examined by a pro. Your performance record is not considered. This seems to be pretty much how it's done in martial arts, minus the kata.

I'm with BobC here. I've always found the lack of formal structure in learning the game absurd and unnecessary. It boggles my mind that there isn't a set of standard lessons available, from beginner to high dan. One could imagine subtle differences in the structure of the lessons, e.g. some schools of thought may favour influence over territory, or unorthodoxy over orthodoxy, or whatever, but regardless, a reasonably similar set of instructions that guide from weak to strong.

I acknowledge that the handicapping system go is one of its charms (few other games can handicap so smoothly), but the fact that the rank/strength system combines with the handicap system has its limitations, particularly at the high dan and especially pro level.

Have you put effort into creating such a set of lessons? If not, I think that explains why there aren't any

If it's just a set of lessons that is important, Guo Juan's massive set of one euro lectures seems like the right sort of thing. She even advertises a 'Complete training program from 30 kyu to 7 dan'. I haven't tried any of her lectures, but I suspect they are excellent.



My main objection to the idea is that I don't really think there is a better lesson plan than 'do lots of tsumego and play lots of games'. For other things, which may interest you, there is a great deal of information available already.

Other than that, what do you really want? What would these lessons consist of? How would they help above and beyond what is already available.

I'm not qualified. I'm a marginal 1d, with little teaching experience. I also don't represent or belong to any suitable organisation with appropriate credibility. I realize you're saying why don't I do it instead of waiting for somebody else to do it, and you're right, perhaps there is an opportunity for someone or some group.



Sure, she has an impressive set of lessons, which are not bad, in fact, I've been a student of hers. I guess I'm talking about a bigger body, with authorized/accredited teachers.



I would have appreciated a formalized structure. My path to my current level has been a meandering journey that's taken a lot longer than I would have liked, and I know (in retrospect) that I spent too much time on unhelpful stuff.

I acknowledge that is a personal preference. No doubt some prefer the totally random, figure out as go along approach, but I believe there are a lot of people who give up the game as DDK or SDK because they get frustrated with their limited progress and the lack of knowledge of how to get better. I absolutely believe that a formalized teaching infrastructure would make a huge difference.

I knew there was a reason I was having trouble finding airplanes, programming languages and cancer treatments!

_________________
Occupy Babel!

The first is a tremendously profitable venture. For the second, programming languages may be created for many reasons, but one is indeed people deciding to make one. If you're one of very few people who think something is a good idea (as the OP appears to be), not doing it yourself is a good reason for your programming language to not exist. I'm not sure about the economics of cancer treatments, but I suspect massive profit is a current driving force.

I don't think massive profit is something we can realistically hope for in creating go lessons.

There are disanalogies, but the original poster asked for standards that stretch all the way up to high dan. Maybe quantumf could create some for lower kyus, though I think even there you'd want a truly strong player's input. But he definitely can't do dan grades, anymore than he can make better airplanes or cancer treatments* (I imagine several people on the board could design programming languages, though who knows if they could design truly good ones).

* Imagine my shock when it turns out that quantumf is the world's only aerospace engineering and cancer research polymath.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Really? Quite the converse. If they're done by me, or Guo Juan, then I agree with you. However, if the lessons are presented in the same way as martial arts are currently presented, i.e. with schools and accredited teachers, all belonging to a brand (e.g. Learn Go The Takemiya Way), then there absolutely is the opportunity for making money from the lessons. Admittedly its comparitively easy to progress at go without formal lessons, compared to Karate or Judo, but even so, I for one would have paid for lessons that took me from beginner to dan, especially if it was at that particular school I just imagined.

adding more..

The problem Go is not that there is too little material... it is that there is too much and a lot of conflicting advice about what is important.

A good teacher will structure their teaching by digesting material and presenting it in a logical, prioritised sequence. This is often built around a syllabus. How a teacher delivers on the syllabus is up to them. But at least there are clear short term goals that can be realised and tested.

The whole point of a syllabus is that it imposes order and structure and then efficiency on the learning process. Most syllabi's (pardon my greek) usually need testing at the end.

This things are not set in stone.. they should be reviewed to remove inefficiencies and to bring new ideas into the arena.

The learning curve for go currently... is out of hell...I spent three weeks thinking that exploiting "thickness" meant seeking out weaker players... this learning curve, I think, needs to be eased.

The application to higher Dans is a red herring I think. At that level perhaps an autonomous approach might be favoured.

Organisation of this really should fall under the remit of the IGF. I doubt this would work if it was done using goodwill. It would need resource - but there is clearly plenty of that knocking around in Korea, China and Japan.. a skilled diplomat could probably pull something off

good points...

I think that you are overoptimistic, but perhaps I am being over-pessimistic.

I accept that money can be made, but I stand by my belief that there is not scope for massive profit, for various reasons. For a start, as you say, formal teaching isn't necessary as it is in physical martial arts - results-based rank is itself an accreditation of skill, which anyone can gain in Go by playing online with the many free resources available (even if these paid-for lessons are themselves very good). You cannot practice karate online. Another problem is (I think) that Go is a more niche activity than the more popular martial arts - though that's less inherent and could potentially change, even if I don't think it will.

it is true that there is not much free available nor at all written syllabus, about what order of importance a player should study in. sounds like an interesting project to try

but once we talk about spending money, you can pay a teacher (and there are plenty of them available) and i am sure he will say you what to study, if you can't figure it out yourself

i feel that i still didn't really get what is so ground-breaking about this idea, sorry

_________________
Spilling gasoline feels good.

I might be wrong, but probably not.

This conversation isn't all that clear to me ... what is the OP looking to formalize? There are a number of possibilities ...

- teaching structure ("This is the lesson plan from 30k to 10k, etc.")
- practical ranking structure ("My play displays aspects A to F, therefore I am 3k. My friend has aspects C-K down really well, but because he's missing A and B he's only ranked 5k.")
- theoretical ranking structure ("Through tournament play I have achieved a rank of 6k. However, I have obtained a certificate in Go Theory Grade 8.")

What gap in the Go experience are we attempting to fill? Why are we comparing Go to so many things that Go is not?

It was not meant to be ground breaking... but.. look at this:

http://www.britishjudo.org.uk/technical ... llabus.pdf

at lower kyu levels in Go the learning is disorganised, confusing for the novice and presents little quality control. If a bunch of oiks in pyjamas can cobble together a logical syllabus.. then why can't the Go community

Look at this:

http://senseis.xmp.net/?RankWorldwideComparison

come on.. the internet has for the first time meant that players through the world can compete on a nightly basis. on Tygem I see 20000 players a night.. across Japan, Korea and China (and me from the UK). Unstructured learning of an intellectual activity seems very odd...

I think the real problem is that your original suggestion is inconsistent:




Many have stated the practical problems related to "unifying" the global ranking systems (play between groups, different algorithms, tournament vs. casual vs. turn-based)...A rank for the amateur systems being discussed is not a measure of competency. It is not like a driver's license, a doctor's degree, or even a martial arts rank. It is not something one acquires through demonstration of skills. It is more like a batting average, a statistic based on your results in play. You can't have a standardized set of tests for a batting average ("If you can hit X number of balls in a batting cage") because that's not what is being measured.

If you wanted to have a series of tests to earn some sort of award, that could be fine...but it would also be a poor metric for tournaments (Just like how using only martial arts ranks is a poor metric for who will win in a fight). It's unlikely your new system would or could replace current rank systems.