I think there is no doubt that most high dan pros, especially title contenders, can give handicaps to most top European amateurs, even 6d or 7d. The fact is that top pros can give handicaps to average 1p players (average, not exceptionally strong 1p's). The question was not whether there is a gap between top amateurs and top pros but whether there is a gap between top amateurs and everyday, low rank, pros and I think that there is no such gap.

Just today (at KGS: "eurogotv3") D. Surin, a 6dKGS, did beat A.Dinerchtein, a 3p. It emphasizes that the best amateurs are on the same level with average pro's. Only the top pro's might be two full stones stronger. I am a 1d at KGS and I think that I could beat Lee Sedol with HC9, e.g. in 10 serious games I might win at least 1-2 games.

What is your definition of "average pro"?

_________________
be immersed

= pro's not Lee Sedol, LeeChangHo, Gu Li (and pro's that are considered as about good as them).

Not to belittle Dinerchtein's achievements, but I'm not sure if KGS 6d beating him says anything about the difference between best amateurs and average pros.

I do think it's generally pretty widely accepted that top Chinese and Korean amateurs are pretty much average pro strength though.

Yes, you can look at Dinerchtein's record and rating and see that he's not as strong as he was when he came home from Korea. I also believe that he said he simply wasn't as strong as the Korean players who gained pro status while he was in training (here's one source: http://breakfast.go4go.net/?About_me).

In the same vein, you might note how well Antti Tormanen is currently doing in Europe. He performed respectably while in Japan, but never reached the top level of Japanese insei. Maybe he could have if he had more time for his results to level out, but that's speculation.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Right, from teaching and playing amateurs all day and not being much involved in his pro matches Alexandre's really regressed. It's a shared phenomenon I've heard from other modern pros who end up teaching or playing weaker players for awhile. Also, Alexandre received his professional ranking through special recommendation, not by winning it through yeongusaeng competition.

Surin isn't KGS 6d, according to the relayer he doesn't even play on KGS. He's EGF 6d. And breakfast is EGF 7d.

Regarding pros, there is nothing typical or average about A. Dinerchtein, so he isn't really relevant to the discussion. When D. Surin starts beating active Asian 3-6 dans, let's talk.

Seriously, isn't the strongest player in Europe a former insei, not even a 1P?

On your last point, I doubt that I, another KGS 1D, could beat Lee Sedol with nine handicap stones, but I hope someday one of us gets the opportunity to try.

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

I mostly agree, but 9 stones is a lot. At some level, amateurs might be able to beat God with 9 stones...

_________________
be immersed

Sorry, like leichtlöslich said I confused Surin as a 6D-KGS when he's an EGF 6d (no idea if there's a significant difference). Even if Alex Dinerchtein is not the pro he once was it still might show that weak pro's are beatable by strong amateurs and I don't think Surin is the best amateur in the world.

Again, let make a tournament where the champs of the known Western Go countries play out their world champ and let this guy play against any pro that is not considered "special" in a best of 7 and I bet it won't 0-4, more like 2-4 or 3-4.

But then I am just speculating for fun, maybe I am way off .

I think this is a completely reasonable expectation. The very strongest amateurs are pro strength, if not 9P strength. The Venn diagram does intersect. But just a little. And the strongest amateurs aren't yet in the West. But we ARE getting closer.

_________________
- Brady
Want to see videos of low-dan mistakes and what to learn from them? Brady's Blunders

Look at the results of LG and Bailing preliminary tournaments http://igokisen.web.fc2.com/news.html. Amateurs are colored in blue.

One trick with the Korean professional tournaments that have open qualifiers is that many of the amateur competitors are actually yeonguseng (insei). So often you'll read that an amateur has qualified for the main tournament or upset some big name, only to find out that they've qualified as a professional six months later.

It's still impressive, but it's not much different from "1p qualifies for main tournament" or "1p upsets big name" for our purposes. It's just obvious that the best current professional trainees are going to be about as strong as new professionals. The interesting question is how amateur players who are not currently studying to go pro (or whose studies are somehow "non-traditional") might do.

The case we're interested in is more like the case of Cho Insun, who was too old to qualify for professional status through ordinary channels, but won enough games in professional tournaments to go pro.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

It is because Dan rankings are honorary ones. They are not stating how strong you are, but how strong you were, and maybe still you are.

For strength measurements there are ELO points and other metric systems.
Losing Dan ranking is common in amateur's world. In Pro world is very very rare and only occured in Japan when player from different than Tokyo branch were included to the latter.

_________________
Tsumego/Tesuji apps for iPad, iPhone & Android devices:http://www.lifein19x19.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=7511

There we go!

The pros that can be beaten by amateurs are mostly those who received their pro rank as a honorary title or who are not actively competing anymore. The amateurs that can beat pros are mostly those who are trying or have tried to become professionals and are still very much involved in high level competitions, amateur, mixed or pro examn. This is where the world of pros touches the world of amateurs. In all other cases, i.e. an active professional against casual amateur, even the best among those amateurs don't stand a chance.

The group of amateurs in Korea and China that can beat pros may be surprisingly large because there is a fierce competition to become pro and the seats are greatly outnumbered by candidates. This makes for a yearly lot of frustrated, hypercompetitive, skilled top amateurs who can beat a freshman pro in 45% of the games. But very soon these amateurs need to find a living and resolve to internet play, where they can meet anyone, while the pros can study 9 to 5 (or more) and have plenty of good competition in professional circumstances. This skewed situation is bound to pay.

In the Western world, the likes of Antti Tormanen started Go too late and in too dire conditions to ever exploit their talent. Sure he has been competitive in Japan, but you can sense from his stories that he would never have made pro. Now that he's returned to Europe, he may be among the strongest here, while he is already losing the strength he built in Asia.

So, how would the best Westerner, active on KGS and playing the odd live tournament, fare against an anonymous pro who is active in competition without reaching the top? Well, with 2 stones, and prize money involved, I'll still bet on the pro. With 1 stone, not a chance.

Knotwilg, I think it is better to speak in rough probabilities. It's clear enough that the best western amateurs can beat ordinary active professionals in even games. But it does seem to be substantially less than 50-50.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

For the record, just last month Antti was still considering to become an insei again: http://gooften.net/2013/10/03/hans-piet ... -1-review/

Unlike players who stayed for a longer time and reached a peak (sometimes surprisingly low) and failed or don't qualified for the exams, Antti had just risen to the second league before he left without figuring out how far he could possibly go (and how much he may still learn while there). That's time limits for you. We would know more, if he had actually taken the exams, I hope he will try and see where he stands.