Hopefully this will be my last major ratings musing in a while. Factors such as burnout and a temporary compromise in sharpness left me go philosophising^ to the point were it replaced go playing. At the very least, I think there is a pattern of ideas from people with limited knowledge of an area, included those so-called 'left-of-field': in most cases, 50% will be gibberish, 40% will be something everyone knows but that the newbie thinks is novel because, of course, she or he has never seen it, but 10% might remotely mention something a more competent person can take and make useful.

^Hopefully, the resulting rants have a tolerably obnoxious tone, contrasting with a couple of my... older ones.

Part one: A capping play


So I was wondering if any activity may be considered a Base, with a set of knowledge and intuition defining it. A thought experiment: football (all shapes welcome) can be described as the knowledge of how to move one's self and organise many selves to put a ball past the line according to the rules of football. Against another team. In order to keep and use this knowledge efficiently, the mind converts it into it's high-power form: intuition. Having greater intuition might allow one to understand and then pick up ideas from professional football matches, increasing knowledge at a faster rate.

In order to play, athleticism in both the mind and the body are required; a minimum amount each of physical and mental ability different and depending on the sport (in this case, football). It may be difficult to improve if one threw in the towel at the slightest set back, or transitioned to chimp mode every loss and disappointment. Improving the control of one's emotions and temperament seems useful.

One's overall athletic abilities and temperament control are the same, moving this cap from base to base. It is true that different traits of athleticism and temperaments do best for different activities, but at least at the lower levels of each, improvement optimal for one is helpful for all or most of others. Except perhaps improvement in competitive sleeping. Actually, even that.

I think sometimes people enjoy a sport at first for the cap as much as anything else about it. If through go kids can find a way to improve their mental and physical* in athleticism and to better manage ups and downs, finding a talented individual who can benefit from a base focus is good karma, a matter of course for helping the community. *Myousu English 2, pg 48

Part two: Promoting
Go population pyramid. Along with the healthiest numbers.

0.16% Class P: Pursuant, (often 5 dan) exPert (often 6 dan) and Pro (often 7+ dan)
^20% v80%
0.64% Class A: Advanced (often 1 dan to 4 dan)
^20% v80%
3.20% Class B: hoBby, anyone who wants to improve (often Single Digit Kyu)
^20% v80%
16.0% Class C: Casual, 13x13, anyone who just plays for fun (often Double Digit kyu)
^20% v80%
80.0% Class D: introDuctory, 9x9, anyone who knows the game and rules (often Twenty plus kyu)

The number of people in each class is four times more than of all the classes above them combined. I think this balance is more sustainable than one where class B is biggest. Maybe one could put go events, promotion and activities into three types:

Types 1: Casual, Cap— Classes D, C and B.
Social and fun.

I think it would be good to try to normalise go in the popular culture. Rather than focusing on go's difficulty, it would make sense to show it most appropriate for many people.

To this end, I wonder about whether teaching beginners the opening is good. Beginning game theory changes over time, and is best understood when one has gotten a feel for the game and the consequences of different plays. It's an advanced concept. Endgame theory is more defined. Anyone can understand it, as it refers to concrete terms: the points at the end of the game. Maybe beginners should learn endgame theory first, before even being told that it is best to play in the corners. telling beginners to play this or that in the opening may stifle their creativity. The goal at the beginning isn't to get them to be good, it's to get them to think, and to get them to feel, to focus on the cap.

Tell beginners they can play wherever they want, but to look at pro games and figure out what the best moves are. This has two benefits. They will already have an adventure to figure out, even if they have zero interest in go, they will want to see if they can be the on to figure out the best move. This is better than dictating to them where to play, which might discourage them from learning as it's like going to class. Saying they can be free to play wherever they want in the opening is also a great encouragement. Many might also like a stimulating mental challenge especially parentys for for their kids as an alternative to video games and the elderly as social addition to the likes of Sudoku and wordsearch (sorry that I may be stereotyping here). Health benefits of go.This is the upper left hand corner.

Kids have two options to learn.

1. Rather than dictating to them what to play, get kids to talk about why they play each move. not only is it good for a child to get into the good life habit habit of reviewing her mistakes (introspection), but writing up a review should be seen as a normal task after playing a go game which would be a great way to improve her language skill.

2. Multiplication and other math techniques from calculating the endgame, or estimating the score during the game.

Given kids a choice of what they prefer is already a way to encourage them to learn. This should be a parents heaven. This is the upper right hand corner of the Cap-Base model. Keep everything as neat and fun as possible and there should be little to lose.

In reviews, only note the major points of the beginning and focus on the endgame. Once they first learn the consequences of the moves they played earlier on, it would be easier to teach them the middle game, and then the beginning game. On that same note, casual players should focus on middle game techniques. I've heard commented game videos are best for this, so live streams of go matches could focus making go appealing to those with only a casual interest in the game.

From what I can tell, teaching the basics of the endgame is best on a 9x9 board, as it comes up early and is simpler. Likewise, teaching double digit kyu players the basics of middle game is best on a 13x13 board. And proper opening study can start single digit kyu on the 19x19 board. I jokingly think of the 9x9 as a duel board, because it makes sense to promote it bit like the TCG's, complete with beautiful designs (someone versed in design will know if this is true, but from what I've seen, simple is best). And the 13x13 board as a 'family' board because it's simple enough to play as if it were a family board game. The 19x19 board can be left alone as normal. These may be cringeworthy suggestions, but maybe go has a special power over any other classical board game, in that the three different board sizes can be promoted as three different games (in a way they are).

By putting simpler alternatives in the popular imagination, and focusing on free expression in the opening, people may see go less as a difficult game that is no fun and see it as a cultural phenomenon of east Asia. The reaction should be, 'thank goodness this game was invented'. So, 'A few simple rules, limitless possibilities ...'

Type 1, east Asian phenomenon.

Type 2, Hobby, Cap and Base— Classes C, B and A:
Normal tournaments.

I think most of the active go population fall into class B, so maybe this is as simple as thinking of general improvements to tournaments. Someone who already plays go as a casual player may the be encouraged to improve by learning about the depth and complexity of the game. it would be another interpretation of 'A few simple rules, limitless possibilities ...'

Type 2, the deepest art.

Type 3, Advanced, Base— Classes B, A and P:
Major tournaments.

This is the advanced training camps, sending European players to asia, and other high-level events.
Type 3, play with Asian pros.

Maybe it makes sense to put an equal amount of resources into each type of event.
An event like the EGC is a combination of all three types of event.

Part three: Matrix

Getting parents engaged first is good. After that, try to encourage children.
Get lonely millennials and older people to interact with each other through go. I think this will provide many benefits!

Sometimes I think of perception as yang(m?) shining on all the possible plays you can make and aiding creativity, and verification as ying(f?), the ability to read deep into variations and aiding competence. And sometimes I evaluate them separately in my games .