I'm going to go out on a limb and state anyone who is not deemed to be a profession of China, Japan, Korea, or Taiwan go organizations.

Look at you! Riding the salty wave of reckless uncertainty and the bald headed eagle of presumptuousness!

_________________
North Lecale

If you'd like, we could arrange for someone to tell you that you're prohibited from playing.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I am not asking for a lex Robert Jasiek but for a general definition. From "member of at least one professional player association" via "earning rather than losing money (alternatively: having most income) by attending go tournaments" to "earning at least some (alternatively: most) money from any kind of go-related activity" everything is possible and affects different groups of players.

The most stupid thing would be not to provide a definition, let players be nominated, then tell them during the event: "Sorry for having travel expenses, but you are not eligible because you misinterpreted 'amateur player'!".

It would have been brilliant to set the bar and other tournament system details before the national nominations could start so that potential participants can better decide whether they want to participate. Knowing / not knowing to be in the top bar makes a very great difference for players wishing to win a tournament.

An event putting itself in relation to the Olympics should set model standards rather than of late announcements. (I know, there have been financial troubles etc. But now there is no more excuse, and I hope that the tournament details will be announced soon.)



Would be nice and provide a quality appropriate for the tournament.



Things like the seeding to a KO are not minor but are major details.

Possible, I suppose. But only one of those definitions is realistic.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I don't understand how you can correctly guess what the bar should be in advance of the tournament starting (well, registration closing).

_________________
North Lecale

1) One can set (or can use previously set) general guidelines for that. Guidelines so that, after r rounds, necessarily the number of players with finally more MMS than the remaining field is at most x (better: exactly 4). (Let me again mention the advantage of a DYNAMIC number of rounds and / or a seeding of more and more of the 4 players after a dynamic number of rounds so that tiebreakers for the McMahon to KO seeding could be avoided entirely.)

2) In an olympics-like or WAGC-like tournament, it is also heavily (if not even mostly) a political decision. E.g., it can even make sense to select some of all participating 6d+ if the number of rounds is too small.

Somebody pointed this out to me, I thought that it might be of some interest http://www.worldbridge.org/tourn/Lille. ... tm#Entries
Take a look at the entry fee and contrast with that of Go

You can also see Draughts http://wmsgfmjd.org/?p=232#more-232

_________________
North Lecale

Oh, does Draughts have discrimination?

"[prizes of] 20.000 euro for man and 10.000 euro for women will be divided as follows: 4.000 (2.500 for women) [...]"

Robert, on the same basis Go has discrimination too.

I'm getting the impression that there won't be a Chess event.
Reading through the international poker fed's blog, seems possible that they won't be there either.
Not a positive sign...

_________________
North Lecale

The same tournament with different prizes depending on sex? Which go tournaments do you mean?

Any professional Go tournaments?
Probably most amateur Go tournaments in Europe as well.
It's really a topic for another thread though

_________________
North Lecale

After having mentioned my professional activity as go author / publisher / teacher, I have just got this explanation from the WMSG organisers:

Professional go players are being meant. I am an "amateur". Catalin is "not an amateur".

So it seems that, for the WMSG 2012, the implied definition of "amateur" is "not being member of any professional go association".

However, I cannot be sure because I do not know if Catalin earns his living from prize moneys; this would still allow an alternative definition. Now, it is clear though that professional activity unrelated to professional membership / professional rank / living from prize money does not prevent participation of the WMSG 2012.

Accommodation expenses are prohibitive though... Is there any reasonably priced accommodation in Lille?

No.
Robert, as you are familiar with the events KPMC and WAGC, I find it silly that you email somebody to ask what amateur means.

_________________
North Lecale

The definition of "professional" hasn't changed in decades. Whatever gave you the idea that it had changed now?

Professional ignorance?

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

As silly as your failure to sponsor wasted travel expenses and missing income etc. of potential participants possibly denied entrance because of a different interpretation?

"amateur" versus "professional" player are not terms whose meaning is necessarily clear, as I have explained earlier.

Each of the KPMC, WAGC or WMSG event organisations or background organisations works independently from each other and can, in principle, come up with different definitions, even from year to year. You see such happening with rules of play or with changes to lists of prohibited doping substances.

And no - I did NOT ask SOMEBODY, but I asked the relevant people.

Tell me how much, e.g., Guo Juan is a "professional player". Does she play professional games, more specifically does she do so to earn most of her money?

What is being silly in this whole issue is the organisers' failure to express clearly what they mean. If they mean "players without professional rank", then why can't they say so? It would easily make it clear for everybody.

Apparently, ranks are still very much a political issue and simple clarity is not desired. The same can be seen for a rules question for the EGC 2012. To prevent 6d sandbaggers, some rule is necessary. Months have passed and a rule has still not been set. There will be an entire commission during the congress to deal with such ranking problems, but we do not know yet the criterions they will apply. Hidden treatment to compete hidden treatment?

There is no official definition. The existence of organisations does not equal exclusive right to set definitions.



Rather you miss the point: Circumstances have changed. Professional organisations are not the holy grail any longer but nowadays there are also other players earning money from playing go and yet others earning money from teaching go.

For a very long time, it has been said that most so called professional players cannot earn their living from playing professionally but need to earn (most of) it by teaching. There is no difference to those a) ex-professional players now living in Western countries and presumably earning part or all of their living from teaching and b) Western players with amateur ranks earning part or all of their living from teaching. The only difference is a status symbol: the rank issued by a guild. Are we still in the Middle Ages? Maybe not - the advantage seems to be NOT to possess the status symbol.

Sorry, but what income? Did you think that you would be paid for providing commentary


If I had a concern, it would be about a lack of a proper website for the games. That and FIDE not participating. That and Duplicate Poker not being present.

_________________
North Lecale