Korea has a go population officially estimated at 7.7 million out of a population of 49 million. It can probably claim to be the most go-obsessed place on earth. But what sort of people are these go players? An official survey (sample size 1510) has recently shed some light on the adults.

The figures below show "People who can play go" on the left, as a percentage. Then follows the category. The percentage on the right is simply the matching figure of "people who do not know how to play go". Of course "can play go" is not the same as "does play go", but it does indicate a pool of go fans who probably take some interest in news reports or advertising involving go.

OVERALL
20.5 Total 79.5
BY SEX
36.4 Male 63.6
5.1 Female 94.9
BY AGE
12.7 20s 87.3
18.3 30s 81.7
25.7 40s 74.3
23.5 50s+ 76.5
BY EDUCATION
14.5 Middle school or less 85.5
23.1 High school or college 76.9
21.3 University+ 78.7
BY INCOME
18.3 Below 2 million/month 81.7
20.2 200 to 400 million won/month 79.8
24.7 Over 400 million won 75.3
BY LOCATION
20.9 Big cities 79.1
21.1 Smaller cities and towns 78.9
15.0 Countryside 85.0

In the age bracket, 845 were 40 or over, and the vast majority (920) were in the middle income bracket, so it looks safe to say that go in Korea is very similar to go in Japan: mostly an old man's game played in the cities by people of average education who are neither specially rich nor poor.

Unfortunately the survey did not ask for views on Mickey Mouse (or Mortimer Mouse for the real oldies).

This is a fairly coarse measurement. It looks like the age group figur starts to go down after middle age. That would indicate that perhaps the go (or baduk) playing population will be declining before too long. I thought I had read that sponsorship of pro events is declining. Maybe that fits with the demographics.

If Korean demographics look anything like American demographics, I suspect the connection of go-playing to "average education" is purely an artifact of higher levels of educational attainment among the younger cohorts.

It'd be interesting to see the worldwide shape of Go. My question is: Do y'all think Go is on the decline since it appears the main demographic is the older generation? I know Hikaru no Go was a major boon for the popularization of Go with a lot of the younger generation. Perhaps we need something like HnG again.

_________________
Slava Ukraini!

Who is this addressed to?

_________________
We don't know who we are; we don't know where we are.
Each of us woke up one moment and here we were in the darkness.
We're nameless things with no memory; no knowledge of what went before,
No understanding of what is now, no knowledge of what will be.

Nobody, I guess. I'm just kind of upset.

_________________
be immersed

Well, I guess baduk players in Korea are older than golfers in the U.S....

Looking at the stats, increasing popularity among the youth would help, and everyone talks about how to do that.

However, increasing popularity with women would help much more, and few have solutions there...

The problem is: How do you convince the youth that a board game is more fun/exciting than video games? I'm an avid player of both, so I can see arguments to both sides. I suppose one could argue that you don't necessarily have to say one is more exciting than the other. But I think a child would pick a video game over a board game 9 times out of 10.

I'm not sure what to say about the female demographic, but the fact that it's low doesn't surprise me.

_________________
Slava Ukraini!

As a huge starcraft fan myself (and I think that when we talk about Korea, we can call starcraft the number 1 video game), I definitely see your point. However, there are more similarities between the two than first meets the eye. I'm thinking of a pro scene, with pro games being studied by amateur players, the way opening strategies transition into middle game fighting and essentialy define the sort of game you're going to play, etc. Actually, as someone who was indulged in starcraft to such a degree it became quite alarming (and have therefore stopped playing it completely), I can see why a transition to go later in life would not seem at all improbable. It features many of the same aspects that made starcraft so attractive in the first place.

Hm, interesting. Of course things like this can also be applied to my favorite genre of video games: RPGs. RPGs take an immense amount of patience, grinding, and overall understanding of how elements can work together. Such as, this spell will be stronger with this equipment. Or this equipment will be more suited for this character.

Sure it's slightly different concepts, but when you get right down to it, the basis of any game that involves strategy is to be properly prepared for the end. And while not as strategic as say a strategy RPG, traditional RPGs offer this same ideology.

However, that's not the issue I was trying to bring up. Video games satisfy the instant gratification generation, whereas Go does not. You can pick up a controller and have a far better chance at being superb right out of the gates with a video game than you can with Go.

My thought process is that the beginning challenge is too tough for a lot of youngsters who expect to win immediately. And to be honest, this is why I quit Go back in 2006. Of course I didn't know about KGS or forums like this then. Plus I played on Yahoo! and their rating system doesn't work too well.

However, from what I've learned of Go, the challenge of learning makes the rewards all that much sweeter. When I finally reached SDK, I was so pleased with myself. It was definitely a great accomplishment for me, even though I can hardly say I dedicate enough time to Go.

Anyway, how do you teach this to beginners? How can you teach them the concept of losing to win? Just yesterday I considered quitting for probably the billionth time because I was in the midst of a 6-7 game losing streak (albeit to stronger players). It gets frustrating. And I know to beginners the challenge can often seem insurmountable. I've learned this from educating my girlfriend, and she seems to have this exact opinion.

Video games, in my opinion, offer an instant gratification you don't get with head-to-head games. But the reward for Go is far greater in a lot of cases.

An idea that just came to my head is this: Why not combine both? We live in an age where online multi-player games are at an all time high in popularity. From what I've heard, Go books on things like the iPad have been extremely well received by players, so I think having a polished Go game on the home consoles would be immensely popular.

And I'm more or less suggesting we put KGS on the home consoles. It would be awesome on the Wii U with its high definition 6 inch touch screen that's built into the controller. And you could also toss in lessons on how to play.

Okay, I think I've said enough for now. I'm probably just rambling now! But let me know what y'all think!

_________________
Slava Ukraini!

This survey measured people who can play go, not who are actively playing go, so you cannot make that assumption. The longer you live, the higher the chances that you have learned to play go at some time during your life.

If the percentage of young people who know go would exceed the percentage of old people who know go, that would mean that go population is on the rise. But you cannot make the converse deduction (at least from this poll).

While this might be the case for some genres of games (I think RPG's fall under this category), it certainly isn't true for the RTS (realtime strategy) genre, and starcraft in particular. There are no better items to be found, or different spells or setups to start out with. You each have the same, and through better mechanics and better insight in the fundamentals of the game you get ahead and win. In fact, if you've ever played starcraft online for longer than half an hour, you'll find that you get crushed, mercilessly, over and over again. Some of the greatest amateur players in North America (I'm thinking of Day[9] here) have specifically said one should play to work on a specific aspect of your game, and even given hour-long lessons on how to deal with losing, and learn from it. It's exactly this environment which translates well to go, I believe.There is one for the xbox 360, I even bought it. It's called the path of go, and it's absolutely horrible. The authors created a flimsy storyline about a student and a teacher (didn't see that one coming), the strongest version of the bot can't manage to keep a single stone alive on the board and there's never ever anyone online to play with. I don't think things will be much different for wii or ps3. Besides, I'd rather play on KGS on my pc, so that when I'm teaching or reviewing I can quickly check sensei's library or my pro game database.

There's also the point that Baduk has a reputation for being a game of older folks, I imagine that when folks get older, they'll feel more comfortable playing.

And as far as this survey being those who "Know how to play go", I imagine that's a loaded question in Korea no? I thought I heard somewhere that no one would claim to play go unless they had played for a while... Their "I don't know how to play", is a bit more like our "I play very rarely"

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

Has there been another world go census in the past few years? The last one was very interesting, but over ten years ago.

_________________
"Those who calculate greatly will win; those who calculate only a little will lose, but what of those who don't make any calculations at all!? This is why everything must be calculated, in order to foresee victory and defeat."-The Art of War

Shapenaji: This was an official study in Korea. Without reading it, I would not assume that the questioners were oblivious to the phrasing issues you mention. You never know, but I don't think it's a reason to assume the results are inaccurate.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I'm sure that the questioners were careful about the phrasing of the questions, but I think that Shapenaji has a point.

Namely, when you make a classification (this person is tall, short, fat, skinny, bald, hairy, etc.), it is always relative to some basis that you have in mind.

If I say that you are a tall person, that's because I have an image of what a "standard" person is in my head, and I believe that you are taller than it.

Likewise, if I say that I am a go player, that's because I have an image of what a "standard" person is in my head, and I believe that I am a go player considering that standard.

To give an example, think of American football. If somebody asked me if I were a football (American football) player, I'd definitely say no. I mean, I've played the game - what male from an American high school hasn't? But, I'd say that probably 70% of the male population in the USA (girls sometimes play too, of course) has played the game more than I have. How, then, can I claim to be a(n American) football player?

But think of a country that doesn't play American football in high school. It may be the case that nearly nobody there played the game. If I went to that country, I could call myself an American football player, perhaps, because compared to most everybody else, I have played more.

This phenomenon actually occurred when I studied in Japan. I'm originally from Michigan, so it's not uncommon to go skiing in the winter. But so many people ski in Michigan, that I don't consider myself a "skier". But I went on a field trip with many from various countries that had never tried skiing before, and I was like a pro in comparison. People complimented me on my skill and "expertise". But I am no good at skiing. I just happen to have done it more than the others that I was being compared to.

I think the same is true for go: in a population where playing go is really common, you probably don't classify yourself as a "go player" unless you think that you play go an above-average amount. It's much easier to get to an "above-average amount" of playing go in a country where many people don't even know what the game is.

So I don't think the issue is with phrasing. It's simply what people think of themselves when compared to others in their environment.

---

As a side note, to your comment, this doesn't mean that the results are "inaccurate". They're just results from a different population sample.

_________________
be immersed

The numerical results seem consistent with other information such as a decrease in the number of go schools for young people and increase in the popularity of video games.

I'd be interested in more information relating to popularity of go and country-wide social, economic or political conditions. I could be very much misinformed but it seems to me that go in Japan peaked around the 1970 to 1980 decade just when Japan was at its economic peak and there was increasing social freedom. Baduk in Korea may have peaked when the Korean economy also reached a high point. Go, Baduk, or Weichi basically depend on merit for advancement. You might be able to buy a rank diploma but it doesn't help you win tournaments. When there is social rigidity people may escape into the meritocratic activity of the game, where it doesn't matter what company you work for, where you went to school or whether you are a good party member. As social freedoms increase there is less need to escape the social rigidity. I know of a pro go player in Japan who graduated from a top university and was on the track for a cushy job in a big bank who abandoned that social and economic fast track for professional go.

That's kind of interesting. Which pro go player was that?

_________________
be immersed

Ishikura Noboru, he became a pro in 1980 and reached 9dan in 2000. There is an article about him in Go World number 49.

Best wishes.

_________________
No aji, keshi, kifu or kikashi has been harmed in the compiling of this post.
http://www.gogod.co.uk

Thanks, TMark. Graduated from Tokyo University it seems, eh? Sounds like a smart guy.

_________________
be immersed