I have borrowed "the 9-dan to 1-dan titles of Emperor Xiao Yan's go academy" from JF's post. I liked his statement, "Since this unnervingly accurate portrayal is from the 6th century, I'm not sure we can easily claim to have progressed much over the past 1500 years."

So where do you fit and why do you think so?

I like to think that I am at least "Practising his Knowledge". Yet my so-called friends keep insisting that I am at best resorting to trick plays - when I am not simply acting like a fool.

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

You need a #10: official floor mopper and toilet cleaner.

Though not a dan player by any ranking system, I put myself down for "plays like fools". Hopefully, if I was playing back then, I'd be able to hold my own a little better than today but that'd probably be my next "big" thing to overcome (not reading out well enough and/or ignoring glaring good/bad situations).

Bruce "But I can make (very small) lightning!" Young

_________________
Currently reading: Plutarch, Cerebus, and D&Q 25th Anniversary

One of those who are waiting in the long line to hand in an application for the go academy.

_________________
http://tchan001.wordpress.com
A blog on Asian go books, go sightings, and interesting tidbits
Go is such a beautiful game.

Well as of now, I'd definitely fall under Content with being Unskillful at best... I'll save foolishness for my betters

_________________
"It has cost me much, but I have learned... Lemon need not squeeze lemon to survive..!"

The translations seem strange (Meijin???) and also more negative in tone for the lower grades.

Below are my translations. They may also be inaccurate as ancient Chinese is pretty hard to decipher, but I do think they are considerably more accurate than the translation in the OP.

Note that the part in brackets are less certain (they are mostly from explanations from a much later work in Ming, which means they are someone's interpretation much later).

I also want to point out that none of the grades have negative connotations in Chinese.

入神 - Approaching/entering true essence/divinity.

坐照 - Able to reveal (truth) though reflection.

具体 - Possessing the attributes (of 入神, but of a lower quantity).

通幽 - Reaching a profound place/state (through a long and winding road).

用智 - Applying wisdom.

小巧 - (Relying on) smaller cleverness (but does not aspire to greatness).

斗力 - (Engage in) battles of strength (without applying wisdom).

若愚 - Appearance of foolishness. (By the way, there is a Chinese proverb that "great wisdom seems foolish", but not sure if it existed at the time.)

守拙 - Sticks to set patterns (unenterprising).

As a reference, the work in Ming gave the following differences in strength (from first grade):

坐照 - Half a stone.

具体 - 1 stone.

通幽 - 2 stones.

用智 - 3 stones.

小巧 - 4 stones.

斗力 - 5 stones.

若愚 - Not provided.

守拙 - Not provided.

Also, contrary to John's assessment, I don't think the descriptions are particularly insightful. Then again, that may be because I'm in the "Go is all about reading and choosing" camp.