When I mention Japan or China I include Taiwan in both.
Of course at the current moment there is a chronic lack of tournaments for China Qiwan pros. But I'm not to worries, since I'm sure weiqi will gaoin even more traction in China in the coming years of the sort that will inviite sponsors. Right now, however, Korea and Japan and other places could host more international tournaments. Now you may say, what about international tournaments in Beijing-controlled area? well, if they can't get enough sponsors for domestic tournaments at the moment, I'm not putting too much hope for international tournaments. And in addition, the Beijing-controlled Area isn't as safe.

Make BADUK Slowww Again
Yes, fast games are absolutely brilliant for drawing in a certain crowd in a certain way that other time limits simply can't. We need the new ryusei, YK Construction, etc. But. As a child I was actually more interested in the two day games, and if anything if you were to go to--in fact maybe try this expriment--go to someone who has absolutely no interest in baduk and see which one draws the most interest. Obviously it will be the two-day games most of the time! It's ridiculous to think that they can't draw in a general crowd, it's everything to do with how it's presented. Obviously I think only games with short time limits are appropriate for TV and TV baduk is the most important in terms of, but to completely discount two-day games is something from the KBA I simply cannot understand. It's like they're determined to avoid anything with long time limits . . . And you can save the trump jokes about baduk, walls and Korea. Although I can say that snooker can last many frames and the world championships are always on BBC2 .

SO MORE international tournaments with greater VARIETY of time limits. But Also . . .
Next this should be standard international tournament procedure. China focuses on goodness of youth and Korea confucially respects of old, although by stressing they are still capable, a very diffeent style to how Japan respects the old. Time doesn't exist in Korea, only competence, while Japan is cyberpunk. China's focus on life means they think Women and Youth matches are interested while in Korea respecting the old as still worthy to be treated as capable makes Women and Elder matches are interesting. I don't have time to go into these clear cultural connotations for China and Korea right now, but shouldn't an international tournament contain both since it's . . . international? Just like AI can learn from information from all people, the true potential of baduk can only be reached when all the cultures are authentically--not trivially, think of Jordan Peterson's fast food analogy--combined. Now is the perfect time to have a more international outlook for baduk and cater to all possible cultural viewpoints one practically could. When in comes to Western pros playing female pros first, well to me that's Western pros perogative. Maybe it's a pride issue? But Martin Stiassny seemed pretty humble about the pro system (which made me confused as to the Nihon Kiin response until I thought maybe they weren't aware of his statement equivalenting EGF pros to Chinese local pros. Anyway perhaps the Nihon Kiin should instead of being bumpained about the Kansai Kiin, China Qiyuan, and Hunguk Kiwon all getting in before them, they. But maybe if Staissny says to the Nihon Kiin that they want to play their female pros first it might make the EGF look more humble (more humble only because it distances them from higher-level pros implying they're too strong, not by implying female pros are weak) and heal relations faster.

What determines a field's success is essentially the appropriate applications of exclusivity and inclusivity. By the latter I mean Real Inclusivity. Upon that standpoint many excuses for why baduk isn't popular in the west fall null and void, not because anyone is being exclusive, but due to a lack of effort to reach out to historically excluded groups (I mean I don't even see outreach specifically for those with learning disabilities or neurotypical brains, autism). Once that is prioritised then we can whine and complain. At least that's what I've realised over the past eight years. Play between different minority groups is real inclusivity. Play between a minority group and the dominant group is halfway inclusivity. Play between members of the same minority group is 75% inclusivity. That's just the way it is, the biological facts of life and neuropsychology. Outreach can't be a sideshow. You can't eat your cake and have it without doing the work unless there is a logical reason to eat your cake and have it.

On the other hand, not so much an active player anymore as such or seeing myself physically being involved in baduk anymore as much, preferring online for me these days, I'm personally focused on uniting territory and area rules in a more elegant way, to have good foundations for any olympic ruleset (although perhaps the olympics may not have so much relevance in the future for a few unilist reasons). In that sense it's good baduk rules were not united because the ones agreed upon would likely have been a half-baked effort at elegance.

No. I participated in the International Go Rules Forum and the major reason was: proponents of territory scoring did not want to abandon more than 1% of their tradition while proponents of area scoring did not want to move 99% in the direction of the territory scoring tradition.

Okay well yes, I do think that sums up the reason why it wasn't chosen. But for Area scoring to be truly elegant it must solve the free teire issue in an elegant way, and if you edit Ultimate Baduk Rules so that the winner is the player with the most places an opponent can't play, then that is the most elegant way to solve the free teire issue in Area Scoring with group tax.

What do you mean "elegant" to be?

What is "free" teire?

Yoav Yaffe's Ultimate is where I first saw the term used . . . see here

By elegant I mean accounting for situations where the last player to play would change due to the board having mutual life with a odd number of neutral points in a way better than AGA, because it's hard to see professional players handing their opponent pass stones and I don't see anyway for pros to simulate pass stones.

Area scoring rules that can be counted like territory scoring is the only way an international ruleset can be devised. If they reject something like AGA or my edit of Ultimate go based on it not technically being territory scoring, even though it is aesthetically indifferentiable, then clearly it seems more like they're in denial that a territory-scoring based ruleset can never be an international rulest. It's a ridiculous concept. I don't see how an Olympic set of rules an be created unless China retakes authority, or at least Taiwan-Korea be more dominant philosophically, but preferably seemingly weiqi philosophically healthier Taiwan-China.