How strong is it possible for most people to become?

Abyssinica · **#21**

Calvin Clark wrote:

Glad you're still with us.

And now my osu rank is falling from #910 worldwide. Currently almost 950. Can't have everything

daal · **#22**

Most people? Who are most people? Did they start playing go as children? Did they live among strong go players? Are they disciplined? Did their mother sing Mozart to them in the womb? Did their rabbit die? People are very different from one another. The factors that make it possible for someone to become a good go player are numerous and layered. There is no single answer.

As for me, I am convinced that starting go later in life has been a limiting factor. While being smart has something to do with go ability, I am sure that there are people who are as smart as I am but are much stronger or much weaker than me. I have been playing at 5k for a few years. Is this the highest level possible for me? Maybe. Maybe not.

Fedya · **#23**

I still haven't reached 4 kyu. :mad:

fishesandcats · **#24**

often wrote:

clearly you're posting on reddit and here.

i put a response up there but i'll put an abridged version up here.

Most people will never become a dan.
At most some of those might become 1d.
With a lot of work, maybe 3d.
Afterwards the ceiling is 6d.

The simple evidence is provided by the people who show up to Go Congress and how often the people distribution "changes".

Can you elaborate? On reddit you said that these were the finish lines based on amount of effort and pro help - here you seem to be saying that most people are incapable of getting to these goals regardless of amount of effott. Can you elaborate on the evidence from Go Congress and distribution? How does one know which tier one is in?

DrStraw · **#25**

I think there are at least two factors at play, and possibly a third. The first two probably approximate a normal distribution, the third probably is a Poisson distribution.

The first is ability: some people have it, others don't. Most people are close to average. Only those who have it will reach the higher ranks.

The second is effort. Within each ability rank there is still an issue of how much effort one is willing to make. Only those with the most effort will reach the upper range for the ability.

The third is age at which ones starts playing. Clearly the later one starts the more effort per year is required to reach the higher levels.

I am sure all this could be analyzed if enough statistics were gathered but the conclusion is fairly simple.

Most people do not have the ability to reach a high level and so will become mired in the middle. Of those who do have the ability few will make the effort and so progress is further impeded. And of those who have the ability and make an effort, many learn too late to progress to far.

I am afraid I fall into the last category. I think I have the ability and I certainly made the effort, but I started too late.

Anyone interested in doing a research project to analyze all of this?

fishesandcats · **#26**

DrStraw wrote:

The first is ability: some people have it, others don't. Most people are close to average. Only those who have it will reach the higher ranks.

Can you elaborate on what constitutes "ability"? Is this a function of intelligence?

How high can most people, with average ability, get?

Quote:

The third is age at which ones starts playing. Clearly the later one starts the more effort per year is required to reach the higher levels.

That's not at all clear to me, and I am skeptical that early exposure makes much of a difference.
Research on learning languages, for instance, has found that when adults are put in the same conditions as infants (totally immersive environment, strong motivation to learn the language, not afraid of making mistakes) they actually learn faster than infants.

Quote:

I am afraid I fall into the last category. I think I have the ability and I certainly made the effort, but I started too late.

What makes you think that? When did you start and how high do you think you could get now?

DrStraw · **#27**

fishesandcats wrote:

What makes you think that? When did you start and how high do you think you could get now?

The previous questions have no clear answer. This one is simple to answer. I started at age 21, I am now 63 and there is no way I will every regain the maximum I reached. I topped out at very close to AGA 6d (rating 5.96) about 20 years ago. I have not played a tournament in about 10 years and was (I think) 5.24 after it. I doubt I could maintain 5d if I were to play now for the simple reason that my effort is now zero. I play for fun and enjoyment only.

often · **#28**

Quote:

L19 Abridged version
reddit
Most people will never become a dan.
With no real effort put in, maybe 3k AGA
At most some of those might become 1d.
With some effort put in, eventually 1d AGA.
With a lot of work, maybe 3d.
With a lot of effort put in and possibly some teacher assistance, 3d AGA.
Afterwards the ceiling is 6d.
With major effort put in and definite teacher assistance, 6d AGA.

Like I said, it's abridged. I didn't feel like saying everything I did all over again, but the idea is there.

Quote:

Can you elaborate on the evidence from Go Congress and distribution? How does one know which tier one is in?

This will be hard to demonstrate without extensive work. It's easier to see just from year to year at the Congress. Simply put, if you pay attention to the movement of people in their ranks from year to year, you realize where the tiers are.

First, the strong players room. Nobody there is ever anybody "new" that rose up through the ranks, other than the random asian kid.

Then, the 4-6d, You'll get some new comers occasionally, but most are a lock and have been there forever. Rarely will you ever see somebody new that is rising through the ranks. If they had a teacher it was when they were younger and had it for awhile. If they still have a teacher they're young.

4d is a semi transitional rank, it fits in between the 5-6d and the 1-3d tiers.

1-3d, these are the people that have probably at some point had a teacher, but they are probably staying at this rank and haven't been able to improve. and probably haven't had a teacher for a long time. You'll see a bunch of newcomers here, either kids that are rising up, people who think they deserve a dan rank but don't, or just people who have been getting stronger.

1k-4k, these are a bunch of self taughts, some have teachers but probably not for long. They're probably entrenched and have been there for awhile. If there are newcomers here they are young, the old guard has been here for awhile.

5k-10, a bunch of newbies, and old guards. not much else to say.

fishesandcats · **#29**

often wrote:

This will be hard to demonstrate without extensive work. It's easier to see just from year to year at the Congress. Simply put, if you pay attention to the movement of people in their ranks from year to year, you realize where the tiers are.

First, the strong players room. Nobody there is ever anybody "new" that rose up through the ranks, other than the random asian kid.

Then, the 4-6d, You'll get some new comers occasionally, but most are a lock and have been there forever. Rarely will you ever see somebody new that is rising through the ranks. If they had a teacher it was when they were younger and had it for awhile. If they still have a teacher they're young.

4d is a semi transitional rank, it fits in between the 5-6d and the 1-3d tiers.

1-3d, these are the people that have probably at some point had a teacher, but they are probably staying at this rank and haven't been able to improve. and probably haven't had a teacher for a long time. You'll see a bunch of newcomers here, either kids that are rising up, people who think they deserve a dan rank but don't, or just people who have been getting stronger.

1k-4k, these are a bunch of self taughts, some have teachers but probably not for long. They're probably entrenched and have been there for awhile. If there are newcomers here they are young, the old guard has been here for awhile.

5k-10, a bunch of newbies, and old guards. not much else to say.

Thanks for this - it was exactly what I was looking for.

Have you seen the research on go barriers?

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~barryp/barriers.htm

http://senseis.xmp.net/?BottleneckTheories

People seem to get stuck at certain places, 1 dan and 3 dan in particular.

So why is it that these tiers exist? What determines who can make it to the 4-6 dan tier or beyond? Why is it some people can't get past 1 dan or 3 dan? What's the typical rate of progress?

Thanks again - interested in your insights.

often · **#30**

Quote:

So why is it that these tiers exist? What determines who can make it to the 4-6 dan tier or beyond? Why is it some people can't get past 1 dan or 3 dan? What's the typical rate of progress?

There's no typical rate of progress. Some people it makes sense, some people it doesn't. Some people pick it up faster, some people don't.

However, if you put work into it, you will progress.

but.

any time you can't get any further in Go, it is because of a "deficiency" in fundamentals. as a pro once told me "if the foundation is good, you can build as high as you want".

so why can't people get past 1d or 3d AGA? pretty much that. there are other reasons that can be extremely caustic that i will not mention here. but at the very base level, it is a lack of fundamentals.

BTW, i say 1d/3d AGA because that same bottle neck occurs at different ranks else where (KGS for example).

As for "What determines who can make it to the 4-6 dan tier or beyond?" It's just simply the amount of work and effort put in. Ask any 4-6d AGA how much work they put in to get there and compare it to a 1-3d AGA. you'll definitely see a difference.

Abyssinica · **#31**

But perhaps there are common fundamentals that everyone needs to learn to get passed these barriers?

I wonder what they are

ericf · **#32**

It think this has parallels in chess, where the claim is that anyone can be a master (2200 rating), with the proper training. (I think it was Capablanca who claimed that he could train anyone to be a master in a year -- which I've seen happen with several friends who had the time and money to do it. However, most club players never make it due to weak fundamentals and lack of time to study opening theory.) The climb to "senior master" (2400) is much harder and I think probably less than 20% of those who seriously try to make it succeed. Then, the climb to grandmaster winnows it even more as even extremely motivated senior masters rarely make it to grandmaster (or even international master).

(This is based on memory from discussions and I think an academic paper, but it was a few years ago so this might not be totally accurate

)

DrStraw · **#33**

ericf wrote:

It think this has parallels in chess, where the claim is that anyone can be a master (2200 rating), with the proper training. (I think it was Capablanca who claimed that he could train anyone to be a master in a year -- which I've seen happen with several friends who had the time and money to do it. However, most club players never make it due to weak fundamentals and lack of time to study opening theory.) The climb to "senior master" (2400) is much harder and I think probably less than 20% of those who seriously try to make it succeed. Then, the climb to grandmaster winnows it even more as even extremely motivated senior masters rarely make it to grandmaster (or even international master).

(This is based on memory from discussions and I think an academic paper, but it was a few years ago so this might not be totally accurate

)

I know nothing about chess ranks. I don't even know anything about chess except for how the pieces move. But I am curious. What is the hierarchhy of ranks and what are the corresponsing numbers. You mentioned master (2200) and senior master (2400), but what else?

fishesandcats · **#34**

Abyssinica wrote:

But perhaps there are common fundamentals that everyone needs to learn to get passed these barriers?

I wonder what they are

Check out http://senseis.xmp.net/?RankAndWhatYouKnow

ericf · **#35**

Quote:

I know nothing about chess ranks. I don't even know anything about chess except for how the pieces move. But I am curious. What is the hierarchhy of ranks and what are the corresponsing numbers. You mentioned master (2200) and senior master (2400), but what else?

In chess it's mostly ratings -- except for international titles like international master IM and Grandmaster GM. Here's my quick, slightly tongue in cheek, survey
600 -- your uncle who can beat all of your relatives at chess
1000 -- 12 year old who has been training for a year at the kids chess club and camps
1400-1600 -- typical club players
1800 -- serious local club player
2000 -- local champ, quite serious (to reach this level and above you need to keep up to date on opening theory which changes monthly)
2200 -- local master, for example this about the rating of the is the top non-pro player at a typical chess club (or a retired pro who's not keeping up with opening theory.
2400 -- International master (likely a pro)
2600 -- grandmaster (elite pro)
3200-3300 -- top chess computers on strong PCs ( a bit different from go!)
I've avoided lots of complications such as FIDE vs USCF etc. If you want more details wikipedia has a nice discussion. Perhaps more relevant is the comparison to go ratings in an old thread:http://lifein19x19.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=11234&p=187335&hilit=chess+ranks#p187335 (is there a nicer way to internally link?)

fishesandcats · **#36**

often wrote:

Quote:

So why is it that these tiers exist? What determines who can make it to the 4-6 dan tier or beyond? Why is it some people can't get past 1 dan or 3 dan? What's the typical rate of progress?

There's no typical rate of progress. Some people it makes sense, some people it doesn't. Some people pick it up faster, some people don't.

However, if you put work into it, you will progress.

but.

any time you can't get any further in Go, it is because of a "deficiency" in fundamentals. as a pro once told me "if the foundation is good, you can build as high as you want".

so why can't people get past 1d or 3d AGA? pretty much that. there are other reasons that can be extremely caustic that i will not mention here. but at the very base level, it is a lack of fundamentals.

BTW, i say 1d/3d AGA because that same bottle neck occurs at different ranks else where (KGS for example).

As for "What determines who can make it to the 4-6 dan tier or beyond?" It's just simply the amount of work and effort put in. Ask any 4-6d AGA how much work they put in to get there and compare it to a 1-3d AGA. you'll definitely see a difference.

I'm very interested in the "extremely caustic" reasons. Can you PM me? Do you mean some people just lack the intelligence? Do you mean you need early exposure?

What kind of lack of fundamentals do you mean? What fundamentals can be shaky at dan level?

Can you quantify the difference in the amount of work it takes to get to the different tiers?

Thanks for taking the time to write your thoughts on this!

Jujube · **#37**

DrStraw wrote:

I know nothing about chess ranks. I don't even know anything about chess except for how the pieces move. But I am curious. What is the hierarchhy of ranks and what are the corresponsing numbers. You mentioned master (2200) and senior master (2400), but what else?

Names and rating boundaries change depending on the association and what system they use for ratings. Generally for an association using ELO it will be something like this:

Candidate Master (or National Master) - 2200
FIDE Master - 2300
International Master - 2400
International Grandmaster - 2500
Super GM - 2700

So, Master grades start at 2200. Personally I've not really seen the term Senior Master used.

Uberdude · **#38**

often wrote:

Quote:

Can you elaborate on the evidence from Go Congress and distribution? How does one know which tier one is in?

This will be hard to demonstrate without extensive work. It's easier to see just from year to year at the Congress. Simply put, if you pay attention to the movement of people in their ranks from year to year, you realize where the tiers are.

First, the strong players room. Nobody there is ever anybody "new" that rose up through the ranks, other than the random asian kid.

Then, the 4-6d, You'll get some new comers occasionally, but most are a lock and have been there forever. Rarely will you ever see somebody new that is rising through the ranks. If they had a teacher it was when they were younger and had it for awhile. If they still have a teacher they're young.

Perhaps this is a difference between American Go, in which the vast majority of the top players are of Asian origin (though quite a few born/raised in the USA), and Europe in which few of the top players are of Asian origin. If you take a look at, for example Pavol Lisy's rating graph at http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/Pl ... y=12686597 you will see him moving up through the ranks. At the 2009 EGC he was a fast improving "1d". A year before that an unremarkable 1k in the European Youth Championship (which was won by a then 4d Artem Kachanovskyj, and many other of the now 6-7d top young European players were then mid-dans like Ali Jabarin, Thomas Debarre, Dusan/Nikola Mitic, Mateusz Surma, Andrej Kravec etc etc). But even in the USA there are the occasional non-Asian rising top players like Ben Lockhart (though he studied in Asia).

EdLee · **#39**

Uberdude wrote:

Perhaps this is a difference between American Go, in which the vast majority of the top players are of Asian origin (though quite a few born/raised in the USA), and Europe in which few of the top players are of Asian origin.

Yes.

SoDesuNe · **#40**

fishesandcats wrote:

I'm just curious about people's perspectives about this. Do you think there is a limit on how strong you can get?

No.

fishesandcats wrote:

Obviously time is a factor.

In my opinion (changes over time) THE limiting factor is enviroment. You don't have any Go schools here, most clubs don't have enough active players and/or stronger players to learn from. Second comes motivation.

fishesandcats wrote:

Do you think there are factors like "talent," [...] that limit how strong you can get?

No. Starting young does help, time-wise. But without the right enviroment or motivation it does not really change anything.

fishesandcats wrote:

What's your personal limit [...]?

I don't believe in intrinsic limits. Not having a good learning enviroment will limit you. Not having sufficient motivation will limit you. Time will limit you eventually but until then it's only decided by how you spend your time.

OT: By writing in this forum, you already made the first step in the wrong direction. I'd be interested to know, whether any member in this forum made any real improvements reaching higher Dan-ranks while being active?

How strong is it possible for most people to become?

Who is online