The following link gives one chess expert's answer, even if indirectly, to a question go fans often ask. It's a valid explanation also of why Europeans and Americans find the going especially hard.

http://www.chess.com/article/view/reade ... mpensation

But what intrigues me is why Silman put alcohol first. He mentioned health as a separate issue, and put it last. Certainly stories about Japanese pros and sake abound. Are freelancers like pros, having an uncertain life, specially tempted by booze?

I think the point about money is also too often overlooked in go. Parents who can pay for tuition (e.g. Iyama's?) presumably give their kids a big head start. Even in China many aspiring players now benefit from well-off parents.

It is commonplace that a player who wants to be a pro has to start young. I would expect that means beginning serious study, not just playing around. I think we can get some insight from analyzing the experience of European or American players who went to China, Korea, or Japan to become "insei". Even if they have support from a pro teacher, few of them actually succeed and qualify as pros. Why does this happen? I suspect it could partly be because the candidate player has to leave his/her home country and culture. Japanese students can get support just from being in Japan, same goes for China and Korea. Foreigners have to live in an unfamiliar culture where they have to pay for lodging and food, without having a job. One of the most successful "foreign" student must be Michael Redmond, born and raised in America. reached amateur 5d and went to Japan at age 13 to study to become a pro. He did make pro and, eventually 9p.

There's also the law of demand and supply. I know extremly devoted professional triathletes who can barely make a living while there's plenty of mediocre professional football players who waste tons of cash in the night life. Incidentally one can hear these football players complain about their lack of private life or overexposure in the boulevard press, not realizing that 90% of their salary is justified precisely by fame, not skill.

Some of the obstacles to becoming pro have already been mentioned in this thread. Tuition is one. Those who go to a Go school of course have to pay monthly or yearly for instruction and entering the professional program is not easy. My guess is that the pro instructors look at the students in the regular program and invite those who show promise as pros to join. Once they join the pro divisions, the candidates for a pro diploma have to study and play hard to stay in the game.

As for a direct link between motivation to study and the financial background of the aspirant, the aspirant from a well-off family will not have to worry about how things are proceeding back home and so be free to pursue success at leisure. The aspirant of humbler financial background may actually be more motivated to improve, as he/she will feel the hopes of the family rest on his/her success as a Go player. Of course not much money is made even by top-name pro players, but the allure of fame is very strong, especially for the poorer aspirants.

In any case, studying to become pro is a matter not only of talent, but also the diligence displayed by the aspiring candidate. It is perfectly feasible for a player that, despite not attending a Go school, devotes lots of time and effort to perfecting his/her skill at the game to attain the strength of a professional shodan, regardless of whether or not a school bestows a professional qualification. Lee Chang-ho is such a pro. Of course he did receive instruction from a professional and even holds a 9th degree pro diploma from the KBA, but Lee has been able to stay near the top of the professional Go world through constant study and refinement of his skills. And Lee did not come from any long line of baduk players.

The stress to which many a star athlete is subject can often result in more than a few trips to the pub. Of course this does not apply to each and every star athlete, but when one feels that he/she has reached the pinnacle, a drink or two of liquor may not appear to be a dangerous distraction. Of course alcoholism and drug use have led to the downfall of many a star athlete's fall, but to say that star athletes must abstain absolutely from alcohol and drugs is unrealistic; star athletes are often at the same level in society as star actors, politicians, and star musicians and artists and, wherever these people meet, there is bound to be fine food and drink in abundance.

At least for amateurs, the money question is not so pressing. In my view, the only really necessary materials, apart from a weiqi set, would be a collection of pro games and a collection of exercises in all 6 skill categories. Theory books should not be required except as reference. Finally, TIME is a vital factor. If the aspiring weiqi player has to devote time to earning money through a job, then that cuts into the time available for weiqi. At least in the case of the young child attending a Weiqi Institute on his/her parents' dime, there is no need to worry about food and board. Perhaps this is why in old Japan, promising weiqi pupils were allowed to live at the master's residence; the master took care of food and board and in exchange the pupil studied and refined his skills at the game. Paying the pupil's way was the price that the master paid to have access to top weiqi talent.

What I find interesting is that, while I really like Silman and his books, I don't think he really answered the question here. Sure, he listed some of the obstacles and hardships one must overcome in order to reach his/her peak... and then he said a few words about his own choices... but this was not really what was asked.

The question, as I see it, was this:
How come somebody who knows and understand so much theory, somebody who not only understands it so well but can also communicate it so clearly - how come somebody like that is not much stronger?

In other words, how come knowing and clearly understanding a lot (all?) of the available theory is not enough?

Silman skirted the answer by talkinbg a little about psychological factors like fear of losing and such, but the rest was slightly OT, I think. Which is not to say the article was boring - just the oposite.

So, how come knowledge of the theory is not enough? And he clearly does. And by extension - one can infer that Silman knows and clearly understands more theory than some players stronger than himself. At least he can communicate it much clearer - since his books are among the most useful and understandable I have ever seen.

How come? What other factors are important to reach the top, maybe even more important than knowledge and theory?
What do you all think?

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Time is vital factor, indeed. But at least when I was starting Go, money was much more pressing. Good Go books in english are rare and expensive, more so when you have to order them online and pay shipping. Furthermore every serious Go student should take a teacher - in my opinion.

I would even say, money is more important than time because you have the chance to circumvent pitfalls and dead ends with good books and a teacher, thus progressing faster.

_________________
My "guide" to become stronger in Go

Some 20+ years ago at a US Go Congress a strong Japanese pro told me that a good 5p or higher ranked pro knows and understands as much about go as the title holders. That clearly indicates that it isn't understanding or knowledge that distinguishes the tournament winners. I suggest that stamina and drive are important to reach and stay at the top level. The general question of what it takes to gt to the top applies in most of life's activities. Why, for example, does one MBA holder from a good university become a CEO of a major corporation while another MBA from the same university ends up as a middle level manager?

Beyond the point where skill makes the difference, determination and motivation are the deciding factors for success and failure. This applies frequently in the corporate world. A hunger to know more and apply more is needed to get to the highest echelons of a company. As well, one needs to take better care of their benefactors on the way to the top. The mid-level manager is likely loath to make any compromises to get to the pinnacle, but the one on the way to CEO status knows that the need for deal-making comes with the territory. The only thing that's non-negotiable is the candidate's desire to sit in the CEO's leather seat. I guess one can say that this is the point where business ends and politics begins.

In weiqi, the tournament winners and challengers already know the basics, but they study and refine the living s**t out of their skills in a bid to take the peak.

Coincidentally, this same question has peaked this week in the field of pro basketball. A player by the name of Gilbert Arenas ( himself a decent professional ) compares Micheal Jordan ( who seems to get a majority vote for the greatest BB player ever ) to Kobe Bryant ( almost universally agreed to be in the top ten best )

For those who want the details, the page is here: http://www.lakersnation.com/instagram-g ... 015/07/30/

For those who want a summary: Jordan is described as a genetic freak, an "alien life form", with abilities that most other athletes can never match ( such as a 48-inch vertical leap ).
Kobe Bryant is described as the most obsessively focused player, who works with decent potential to become one of the best. ( Some will say that he is an outright sociopath )

In basketball, as in most other professions, it seems that the best are usually the ones who focus obsessively.

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

The answer lies in the communication factor, I believe. Some people are not good at articulating, let alone communicating their knowledge. They actually do know more than the experts close behind them, but they can't really make that difference clear in words. They just "feel" it. Sometimes this might even be beyond current human articulation capability. Thus, the difference in skill cannot be shown otherwise than by the aggregate of competitive results.

On the other hand, this factor might have a much smaller impact than the already mentioned stamina, mental and physical capabilities that allow players to put their knowledge to maximum use in competitive circumstances.

The articulation factor may even be an articulation paradox: it's not inconceivable that the ability to bring expert knowledge down to layman levels of comprehension precisely degrades the ability to move further into the realm of uncovered knowledge.

The evidence in scientific history may be deceiving: sometimes great simplification came about because the genius "felt it to be possible to simplify" but only after having done so it was articulated to great simplicity, either by themselves or others. The work of Galois for example has greatly simplified existing problems but in itself was completely unintelligible because he had been operating at an incomprehensible level already. It required a brain like Liouville's to see what was in there and bring it to the "masses".

I think there is a definite physiological or biochemical issue in taking abstract games seriously: "adrenalin", or in other words the cumulative effect of stress-testing the brain in the particular fashion. This being the point at which "mind sport" becomes an appropriate phrase. I would say only some people are designed to thrive on the tension of a close match against a peer.

So if alcohol is what many players use to recuperate, it can clearly get out of hand.

Yes. This sounds just like a well known fact of journalistic life. Very many (almost all?) of us believed we wrote our best stories if we waited until minutes before a deadline. Apart from, I really do think, better writing, it gave an enjoyable adrenalin kick. But it doesn't last, and maybe that's likewise why the association of journalists and alcohol (Lunchtime O'Booze) is legendary. I was lucky in that I dislike alcohol.

What is remarkable is that I don't ever recall a deadline being missed. Accuracy didn't flicker much either, although I do still cringe when recalling reporting on a GATT conference in Uruguay. The Uruguayan foreign minister was called Iglesias but I'd forgotten his first name. I queried it with a shout across the press room and somebody shouted out "Julio" and that's what I typed. It should have been Enrique. But what really miffed me was that the subs back in the UK didn't pick up the mistake. That was rare. And there's the difference between journalists and go pros. journalists have a back-stop. Pros don't. That's one reason I admire them.

I was once interested in the playing career of second-rank Japanese pros. The guys who would appear in the top leagues for a number of years, and then fade away.

There was a fairly definite pattern to it, of reaching a "personal best" standard. No doubt the back story would be emphasis on key games, special study, business and teaching interests on hold for a while, pacify the partner ...

Looking back, my own second wind as a go player from about 1994 to say 2001 was a bit like this.

As I told one importunate person who asked "what happened?" to me, taking up go again at age 40 means you can't hope for too much. I was anyway studious rather than really talented: I always had to get back in form for the UK Candidates' League each year with tournaments I didn't specially enjoy.

I did end up thinking frying the brain at the board brought diminishing returns.

Bantari, knowledge must be complemented with dynamic thinking, such as reading, counting and actual decision-making amidst seemingly contradicting aspects of theory. Having top level knowledge does not guarantee top level strength because the latter also requires top level speed of performing dynamic thinking well. (Besides, there are minor factors, such motivation, concentration and stamina.)

I still wonder till this date if there is or will be a go savant that we haven't found yet.

A person who not only understands the rules of the game but understands the game.

A go savant would probably not be interested in joseki or fuseki, tesuji and life and death.

They would have this understanding of the game as whole and not in pieces like all the other people do.