What makes a 9-dan...well, a 9-dan? Of course, to compile a list of characteristics of a 9-dan could be endless - but let's restrict ourselves to key and not-so-intuitive ones. There are some "obvious" ones, such as:

1) They can read with incredible depth and width.
2) The have a massive joseki database in their minds.
3) They can remember games they played eons ago.*

But I also feel that these also characterize a 9-dan, which may not be immediately obvious:

4) They can adapt to various time settings and utilize it efficiently (since not all pro tournaments have the same, or even similar, time settings). I will elaborate more on this later.
5) This is especially noticeable among the top-class pros: They do research on their opponents' games to mold their own game to counter against how they tend to play. This is especially crucial when they know they will have to play such opponents in major upcoming games.
6) On a more humorous note, have you ever seen two professional games cleaning up the board after they're finished? Some pros can filter the stones by color and have everything back in the bowl at an incredible speed.

Anything else to add?

* When I was in the Go'n'Games trip a few summers ago, I was going over a game with Pete Liu 2p in an analysis session. We were going over a game that Wang Yang 5p played in a league game over 5 years ago, when Wang Yang himself walked in. He took one quick glance at the board position (it was in the middle game) and instantly recognized it, chuckling and briefly talking with Pete before walking out again.

They're pretty smart AND they work hard.

You can get to a certain level with one or the other, but for 9-dan, I really think it takes both. After all, you are competing. If you're just smart, there will be someone who will be smart and work hard and beat you every time. The reverse is also true.

Actually, the bottom line is that the Nihon-Kiin or other relevant body makes a 9-dan. And as far as the Nihon-Kiin is concerned all it requires are certain tournament results. Whether there is a set of attributes beyond the basics which is common to all is doubtful.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

I think #3 comes from #1 to a degree. If I spend a lot of time reading in a game (more than a minute a move, generally) it's far, far easier to remember it later, and my reading is pitiful compared to a pro's.

I bet all of these characteristics are true of 1-dan pros as well.

It would probably take an actual professional to tell us what really distinguishes 9ps from 5ps or 1ps.

But would we understand it?

_________________
So you've got an eye?
That don't impress me much

The feeling I get when I read Kageyama is what Gresil expressed above: The difference is so big, that it it's not easy to translate it to kyu amateurs(I know most dans recommend Fundamentals).

_________________
a1h1 [1d]: You just need to curse the gods and defend.
Good Go = Shape.
Associação Portuguesa de Go

What makes a 9-dan... playing on KGS last April 1.

In all seriousness though I first assumed you meant 9-dan online strength, but a lot of the responses have been about pro rank.

Which did you mean?

The original poster's list is of characteristics most pros have regardless of rank. What distinguishes high-rank pros from low-rank pros, in my opinion, is not so much to do with reading ability or joseki knowledge but rather experience in general and stamina, perseverance, and patience in particular.

...However Kageyama, who I feel goes out of his way to point out that he isn't brilliant, managed 7p, which tbh isn't bad

_________________
Revisiting Go - Study Journal
My Programming Blog - About the evolution of my go bot.

I sincerely believe it's hard work and determination. The only factor talent plays is how fast/slow they progress to that rank or to any rank for that matter. You can have all the talent for this game in the world, but it won't get you anywhere without those first two things.

_________________
I know nothing.

I believe Guo Juan said the real difference between a good go-pro and a "not-that-good" pro is not reading ability or something but the judgement. Both can read incredible deep, but the good pro has a clearer view of what is good for him and what isnt.

I think talent is essential. Like any other subject where one becomes a professional (be it a sport, creative activity, etc.). Natural talent is the first prerequisite. Naturally, hard work is essential after that, but without talent, you're not going far.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

Leaving aside the definition of talent and the fact that the original post referred specifically to 9-dan, the last part of this statement is not really true, and that is one of the more interesting things about go (and shogi).

There have been very many instances in pre-modern times of professional expertise being passed on to children as a craft. Sometimes the child is of the same blood, but often it is an adopted child (adopted even before learning go), so that genetics is clearly not an overriding factor. Nor is gender. Economics appears to have been the main consideration - a player builds up a school and passing this on to his children is the main way he can pass on an inheritance. It is fairly common in this scenario for the child to end up a little weaker than the parent, and this might best be explained by the assumption that the parent enjoyed go whereas the child is doing it only out of economic necessity (or inertia). However there are also cases where the child does exceedingly well.

Children in this scenario may not rise to the level of Meijin, but then very few do even with talent. And in case they can - witness Ito Sokan.

The modern scene is somewhat different because the economic model is different, but there are still many, many cases of professional level skill being passed on in families, or being shared amongst a brood of children. Even where a professional's children do not reach pro level, you very often find that they have reached very strong amateur level - examples of very strong players who decided not to be go professionals include the children of Kitani Minoru, Go Seigen, Rin Kaiho and so on. Examples of broods reaching pro level are the Honda sisters, the Mukai sisters, the Kobayashi children, the Sakai brothers, the Go/Wu brother, etc. For a more complex example look at the Fujisawa line of four generations, with many offshoots. Korea and China of course have some similar cases, though without the long history of Japan.

I think we are conditioned in the west to view certain activities such a music and maths as depending hugely on talent, perhaps because we focus too much on celebrities who do have talent. Chess seems to have long been in this category. But as the Polgar experiment, which was essentially about re-creating the Japanese experience, has shown, professional chess levels can be achieved by treating it as a teachable craft.

As far as I know, there are no cases of a professional level being reached without very hard work. Probably allied to that is the fact that it seems necessary also to start young.

A very interesting question, though a rather different one, is: how far can you go if you start late? I have a fairly well grounded impression that 6-dan amateur is a rare but possible limit but does require hard work, whereas 4-dan is very reachable by many people, even in some cases without excessive work. But it seems that the nature of the skill of such amateurs is not the same as for future professionals - perhaps in the way that a pop singer gifted with a pleasant and strong voice is quite different from a trained opera singer.

As to how far such "non-professional amateurs" are from the top in go, I'm sure it is at least four stones. I find it laughable to hear so many westerners claim they can match a top pro on four stones in serious games. One or two may be able to do so but even then I have doubts. I have been looking recently at a series in Kido from the 1960s when Rin Kaiho played a long series of amateur champions over a couple of years. These were serious, paid-for games with decent time limits (2 hours each) and no shaving off of handicap stones as in simultaneous displays. These games were billed as the Meijin versus top amateurs and so Rin had the status of the title to preserve. I didn't actually keep a list, but I think Rin won every game, never giving less than three stones but usually more, against people who were in every case players used to winning in amateur go contests. Some, though not all, were 6-dan, but 6-dan then was more like 7-dan now.

Even more telling, in my view, was a comparison with similar handicap games in the same issues where a top pro played a young amateur who, we now know, was destined to become a pro. First, in the latter case the pro world clearly has a way of (yes, I suppose) "talent" spotting, but youth and/or hard work are nearly always mentioned in the write-up, as is, very often, getting guidance from a pro. Second, the commentaries seem strongly to indicate that the mistakes of those who are mere or late-blooming amateurs (Rin's usual opponents) are rather different from those who are still weak only because they are still young. Third - this is just my impression but is based on a lot of examples - the young players who go on to be successful have a distinctive go style, which is based strongly on making safe groups and pre-empting attacks - invasions and overplays by them are relatively rare, whereas they are relatively common (normal, in fact) in the play of the late-blooming amateurs. Again speculation, but I wonder if this is because very young children are naturally cautious. If so, does this mean the cautious style of play they then naturally continue with is the one to be copied? Of course they may change style in later life, and indeed the pro guidance just mentioned often seems to be to try a new stye. Often, also, the pro commentary on a future pro will be along the lines of a more efficient way of doing something - in other words, you've got the basic idea OK but here's a way to refine it. The commentaries on the perpetual amateur games, however, much more often seem to along the lines of "That doesn't work - you need to try this instead." In other words, they still haven't mastered the basics.

Discuss. All essays must be in by 9 p.m.

I intentionally made it a bit vague to keep the discussion as open as possible :p.

Okay, if there are "many, many cases of professional skill being passed on," then how many cases are there of that skill being taught but not sticking? Come on, John, anecdotes like what you say don't prove anything. At best, it means that the talented ones manage to do well; how many fail?

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

In regard to the "talent" vs. "hard work" debate, I think it's best to just assume that it's completely "hard work". Of course, talent may play a role, but if you focus on this too much, it just becomes an excuse: "I don't have the talent, so I can never reach level X of awesomeness".

In my opinion, we cannot realize our own potential of working hard. It may be the case that, even after working hard, we cannot reach a certain level... But it is impossible to know this at the onset, so why not simply believe in your ability to reach any level?

A lot of "impossible" things can be done with hard work. Maybe your goal is too hard for your ability, but don't let yourself know that.

You have two options when faced with a goal that seems impossible:

1.) Say you don't have the talent and give up on it. This route automatically leads to failure.

2.) Believe that hard work will make up for your "lack" of talent. This route could lead to failure, but there is the chance it could lead to success.

I am an advocate of the second route. I believe that hard work can overcome talent in any scenario... Even when I'm wrong about it. Because there's still a chance that I'm right about it.

_________________
be immersed

Speaking of Western tendencies to think in certain ways, we also tend to adulate the idea that hard work is the sine qua non for everything. We also tend to selectively apply this narrative retrospectively. Hard work has never disadvantaged someone, but it also doesn't provide for the myriad of successes in the ways we would like to believe. As john suggests, the resources one starts out with make a huge (the) difference.

_________________
"This is a game that rewards patience and balance. You must think like a man of action and act like a man of thought."
-Jonas Skarssen

The thing that bugs me about this hard work vs. talent thing is the common conception that if someone is successful, it's always because of the talent, and if someone is not successful, it was obviously not enough hard work.

It basically boils down to jealousy. Someone else is better? Well, that's talent. You can't do anything about talent, so we just have to accept it. We just can't admit that we haven't worked hard enough. And for sure we can't acknowledge someone else's hard work.

A good example of the point I was making.

_________________
"This is a game that rewards patience and balance. You must think like a man of action and act like a man of thought."
-Jonas Skarssen