The US team is made up of:
Jie Li, 7d
Andy Liu, 7d
Mingjiu Jiang, 7p
Ke Huang, 7d
Yun Feng (F), 9p
Yun Feng and Jie Li will play pair go.

The EU team is made up of:
Catalin Taranu, 5p
Christian Pop, 7d
Cornel Burzo, 6d
Ilya Shikshin (EU guest), 7d
Vanessa Wong (F), 6d
Vanessa and Catalin will play pair go.

The event will be held December 8-17, 2011 in Beijing. The US and EU teams will meet in the team tournament. My prediction: US wins, 4-1.

If they play in the order above, then my prediction is:

Jie Li - Catalin Taranu 0:1
Andy Liu - Christian Pop ?:?
Mingjiu Jiang - Cornel Burzo 1:0
Ke Huang - Ilya Shikshin 0:1
Yun Feng - Vanessa Wong 1:0

Jie Li has had some iffy results since he was in law school, I'm not sure if his progression into actually practicing law has left him more time to practice....

But, If he's IN practice though, both Mingjiu and Feng Yun have a very difficult time with him, I'd change the 1-0 there to ?-?

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

Just by chance, I saw a few of the games of the European qualification because they were relayed on KGS. It would be nice if these sorts of events - those broadcast live on some server - could be announced here on L19 in advance by those privy to the schedules.

The results by the way, and some of the SGFs are availible here.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

You know, I have the same impression, but it really just seems that he had one bad result in 2006 and then slightly less amazing results since then. http://agagd.usgo.org/Player_Card.php?key=9229

But his game and Andy Liu's do seem like the most interesting and unpredictable.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

All teams have now been formed:

China:

Gu Li, 9p
Kong Jie, 9p
Piao Wenyao, 9p
Xie He, 7p
Li He (F), 3p

Japan:
Yamashita Keigo, 9p
Yamashiro Hiroshi, 9p
Ogata Masaki, 9p
Sakai Hideaki, 8p
Mukai Chiaki (F), 4p

Korea:
Lee Sedol, 9p
Choi Cheolhan, 9p
Park Junghwan, 9p
Lee Yeongkyu, 8p
Kim Hyemin (F), 6p

Chinese Taipei:
Zhou Junxun, 9p
Chen Shiyuan, 9p
Xiao Zhenghao, 7p
Wang Yuanjun, 4p
Hei Jiajia (F), 5p

Notably absent among the male players are Lee Changho, Iyama Yuta, Hane Naoki, and the gold medalist of the First WMSG, Kang Dongyun; among the female, Xie Yimin and Rui Naiwei. An interesting addition is Wang Yuanjun: he is only 15 but has recently won against some of the top Taiwanese players.

(Edit note: added Chinese team)
(Edit note 2: Zhang Xu [Cho U] will not play and is replaced by Wang Yuanjun)

I must admit i am fairly angry at this tournament. First of all its not US team, but Americas.

Second of all, how representative are these players to America, specially the professional players. Why can't Mingjiu Jiang and Yun Feng play in the chinese team instead?

I think the debate of immigrant players is a delicate and difficult one, and its hard to draw the line. It happened to the EGF with Koreans sweeping up all the prizes, and as far as i know there isn't much effort by the AGA to differenciate locals for foreigners. I believe this is an issue that really discourages american players to become strong, because its actually impossible to get stronger than any of these on any study regime in the west.

But it didnt affect me personally in anyway until this tournament. For some reason, and i assume because a team like this one would be made , the whole representation for the Americas was USA and Canada, and south-america was left without a chance to fight(not invited to play the america elimination), even though we have a player that has beaten professionals in tournaments and i'm at par with him.

This is something that goes to the core meaning of the tournament. If the goal of the tournament would be to pick the strongest players in the world period, then there is no need to invite the Americas or Europe, as top 40 in China Korea or Japan would be stronger than any team America or Europe can build.

But if you want to make each continent have a team, then the participants should be representative of the correspondent Go community. Signing up in the tournament as "7p from the chinese association" gives a bad ring to it. It actually gives me a bad ring on Taranu too, although he has the advantage of nationalization, he may not be able to participate in the Japanese elimination.

The consequence of immigrants that have been trained in Asian countries representing like this is obvious: for 20 or more years at least(until a change of scenery happens), there wont be any born/raised/trained in America player in the tournament.

In conclusion, i don't like the fact that south-america couldn't participate, and even if we had had a participation i wouldn't have been happy to fight representing america against any professional.

I don't know exactly when he came to the U.S, but it seems to me that Mingjiu is as American as apple pie or General Tso's chicken by now.

You are not from the USA, so perhaps you don't understand this, but there is no way that we would ever not let these players represent us. And if we're told otherwise, especially by someone who is not even one of us, we're gonna tell them where to shove it. I mean, the bleeping gall of you, whoever the bleep you are trying to call doubt on our decisions about who can represent us is appalling. We have decided that these people are fit to represent us, and that decision was not some whim.

What are you doing, standing up for the poor oppressed native American* players? The same ones who have basically never raised this issue or complained about it, even while listening to all the whining from across the Atlantic? The only time I ever hear comments about Asian players in US championships is from kibbitzers on KGS, and every time, they are told where they can shove it. To reiterate: it's not like we just noticed that we have players who came from Asia representing us. We've noticed that, and we're ok with it. In fact, we're proud of them.

Mingjiu, Feng Yun, and Jie Li are all permanent residents, in the literal sense. Although I am not a mindreader, I doubt that any of them will ever live outside of the US again. I am not sure which of them are citizens, though I believe Jie was seeking citizenship. I believe Andy Liu has lived a substantial majority of his life in the US, and it's where he got strong (he played as a 9kyu in the 2000 Congress http://agagd.usgo.org/Player_Card.php?key=9229).

This sounds like it could be a reasonable complaint, and I'd like to hear what Mr. Hsiang can tell us about player selection. Shame that it was hitched to such ignorance.

* That is, players from the US. I don't typically call the US "America", for all the reasons that term is obnoxious to everyone else in this hemisphere. But we just don't have another adjective.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

First of all, it is not Americas' team, it is US team. SportAccord wanted six national teams, and IGF tried very hard to advocate the formation of an Americas' team, an European team, and an Asian-Pacific team to balance with C-J-K. This was denied on the technical difficulty of requiring one flag and one anthem for each team. If you have any clever ideas to get around that, I sure would like to know. EU was finally accepted by SportAccord, because there is an EU anthem and an EU flag. The guest players (Canadians in the US selection tournament, and other non-EU players in the EU tournament) all had to agree they would play under the US flag or the EU flag if selected.

On your second point, please note that representations are based on nationality, not birth place. Jiang and Feng are US citizens, why should they play for Chinese team? Are you suggesting we discriminate some nationals because they were not born in their citizenship countries? I know at least one very strong Japanese player who was born in Taiwan. So he cannot represent Japan by your logic?

I guess SportAccord is sponsoring the "world" mind games, so it's of course ultimately up to them, but that indeed seems a trivial and regrettable objection.

Was this option not offered to the South Americans?

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Really? They decide an issue like this on mere technicalities? Make a flag up, choose a song. (Side note: EU has a flag and an anthem, but neither Russia, Ukraine or Israel are members, but all those federations are EGF members and did compete. And the team could have ended w/ a majority of non-EU players just as well.)

It's all very well to say nationality is the basis, but that doesn't of itself produce transparency. Here, we have a player who could be classed as an immigrant to Japan playing for his country of birth (Cho U for Taiwan), a player born in Australia but playing for Taiwan (Joanne Missingham), and of course both are playing for a country that the host country (China) strictly doesn't believe even exists.

We just don't know every player's nationality, and there are some countries that allow dual nationality and some that don't. That makes it hard to judge fairness.

In fact, political nationalism is a curse. There would be no technical difficulty about flags amd anthems if you just ignored them. Non-political national pride can be fine, but I still found hyperpape's jingoistic defence of US non-nationalistic attitudes to immigrants rather eye-popping (and couldn't help wondering, if it was really like that, what the Obama birth issue is all about, why California needed Chavez, and why some Americans worry about having a name that ends in a vowel).

I do not know if the option was offered to South Americans. AGA and EGF decided on whom to invite to the selection tournaments; not IGF. But the IGF Director from South America certainly was well aware of all negotiations with SportAccord.

EU flag and anthem somehow symbolize the EU but they do not function in a state-like manner, especially after Great Britain had objected in 2004. As a result, flag and anthem did not make it into the Lisbon Treaty. The spirit of the German Federal Constitutional Court decision on that treaty also emphasised that the EU was not and (unless the peoples of the member states do it) might not have the status and structure of a state.

Therefore SportsAccords's criteria are a weak excuse for a very doubtful political decision of theirs (some continent represented continent-wide, other continents not and some even ignored entirely).

i didn't noticed this before, but it is pretty unfortunate decision from organisers to invite EU and US team instead of European and American. in Europe it apparently worked ok, but i can understand why South Americans are angry about it

ad who to qualify: if they have citizenship, i think no one can argue, same rules apply for all sports. but i have to admit that for some reason i feel somewhat satisfied that Europe is represented by born Europeans


i am not sure i get this, Catalin Taranu is without doubt European (has citizenship, was born in Europe, resides in Europe, etc.), only he studied in Japan, became professional there and achieved his 5 dan. i see no reason for objections (or even for negative feelings)

_________________
Spilling gasoline feels good.

I might be wrong, but probably not.

First of all, i made my opinion with utmost respect and all the delicacy i could bring it, politeness you have not showed back in your intolerant answer, for which i believe i deserve an apology from you.

Second, i have said that the issue is delicate and difficult and im not advocate of having the solution. I am merely recognizing that the current situation has bad consequences.

Your criteria, or the AGA's criteria does not necesarily match that one that is best, which is what im looking for. If you cannot conceive the idea that there might be better options, your inclusion in the discussion is pointless. I believe something better can be achieved.

Regarding raising concerns, i am raising them right now, and have done so with the IGF when this tournament came to light. Im not a member of the AGA and i dont have a stake in whatever happens there, hence no voice nor vote. This is purely an international affair, that matters to the IGF the most.

Let me give you an example, figure the following scenario. Figure that because of this scenario, Argentina decides to change its rules so it can allow for other korean players to represent it. So we ask the next top 5 korean professionals to represent us, and compete with USA and CAnada for the position in the Sports accord.

So these top 5 koreans, wear the argentinian t-shirt, dont speak spanish and never even visited south america, and they take the place out of all Canadians and US'ers. would you be fine with that? I am sure i wouldn't, and I'm sure many places wouldn't either, as national championships and other tournaments have nationality rules, which i believe is not the perfect way to select players.

(i.e.US had this debate with Michael Redmond: as far as i know he is more representative for Japan than America. Regardless of his nationality, ethnicity or passport, his Go is not representative of the United states. The US ended up sending him instead of some other chinese immigrant professional, which i was told caused reasonable upsets.)

Above all, you have to see the consequences of the decisions that are made. You can pick the top 50 players from USA and you will rarely see a born/raised/trained player from the United states, and considering the number of players it has it should be. Countries with much much smaller populations have produced professionals and semi-professionals alike (Rumania, Hungary, Argentina with aguilar and i("semi-pros"), germany, etc etc).

Specially with the pros, you must see the strategic balance of power that is decided. If china suddently had no professional players, then Ming jiu and Feng Yun would probably represent that country because they surely can. They are in a position to decide where to participate and hence pick where there is no competition. It's only logical. Just look at their title. They present themselves as chinese professionals, not as AGA players.



I did not know all that anthem ordeal. The information i always got was "the Americas". But however, why would that have been a problem in including the south american team? i wasnt given the option to play under US flag. I might have said no to that option only to make a stand but why would Canada be more likely to say yes?

As i said right at the beginning, its very difficult to define a single representational criteria. I can give you a hard example of why any consideration fails.

If you have no restrictions at all, things like the example i gave above (of allowing other pros to rep ur country) would happen, and i would expect the majority to agree that is a bad thing.

I think birth-place is not useful at all. You have examples like Andy liu and michael redmond. Andy is better rep than Michael. So name, ethnics and birth place dont really matter.

But im still not satisfied with nationality. Someone without nationality could have learnt go in your country. Say i had gone to college in the US without knowing Go at all. In college i learn, and play tournaments there and become strong. I still dont have a nationality, but i would be representative of the US (all my go comes from there!).
On the other hand, i could get a job today on the USA (a real option for me) and get a visa, and stay there, and eventually get a nationality as i have relatives living up there. Its possible. And i think i wouldnt be representative of the US, i would still represent Argentina.

But because its difficult to make a decision, that doesnt mean we have to make a bad one. The question is, what does representation actually mean?

As i repeat this is not an AGA thing, AGA can choose racoons to represent them if they want. This is an international level representation and has to be looked with those eyes. If the AGA had the power to decide if south-america was given a chance, then i have to doubt Sports Accords decision of giving that power.

On the contrary, we believe this actually encourages our players to become stronger -- and in fact we now have several young players who have been consistently beating our local pros.

Both Mingjiu Jiang and Feng Yun (and others) have dedicated themselves to not only promoting Go in the West, but also for teaching our youth to become stronger.

A few thoughts:

1. I think there is an important place for commentary that identifies ideals of a particular country, and criticizes current attitudes or policies in light of them. You have to see comments like "The United States is a nation of laws" in that same light. We have had many presidential shenanigans, and the law hasn't already won out. But it is still true that the rule of law has been an important ideal, as well as an important feature of American politics. So you say "this is a nation of laws" to remind people of what they normally believe and hold them to it in a particular case where they would like to do otherwise (that's not a partisan point).

2. Still, I think even contemporary American attitudes are, whatever I wish they were, still relatively immigrant friendly compared to many places in the world. The attitudes of a vocal minority are present, but I still do not think that they represent the mainstream of American opinion. On that point, we might also note that the native born requirement for the presidency is unique in American law and culture. Also one might note that under different circumstances, members of the American right talked about abolishing it for the sake of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

For all the talk about illegal immigration, there are still very many immigrants who come to the US through official channels, and that is just an accepted reality for the vast majority of Americans. For that reason, I really do think that most Americans would find it goofy to say these players can't represent us. And perhaps someone from another country might not understand how weird that idea would sound to us. Hence saying "you're not from the US."

We might also look to history and the fact that some things are easily seen in hindsight. No one thinks "Irish need not apply" was a high-point of our nation. Perhaps that's related to the point about ideals.

3. I do think I expressed myself intemperately, but let me say that I do think there's a big difference between jingoism and thinking that an affirmative decision that "this person represents our country" is not really open to criticism by outsiders. If I say "this man is my brother", that really is something that I am entitled to say without outside interference.

4. Even if you think I'm deluded about what the US is like, I'm not deluded about the US go community. This really has been a nonissue for us, at least for the past several years.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I beg to differ. I raised my voice and you didn't. I responded intemperately, which is unwise, and for which I apologize. I think that my anger was far beyond what was proper.

However, let me be clear: I think that your opinion was the intolerant one--no amount of politeness can change the content of what is said. It ignored the clear opinion of the go community here in the US, tried to tell us who we can count as one of our own, and it is offensive to particular people who have given a tremendous amount to go in the US. If I shouldn't have responded the way I did, I still should have told you that you were wrong and offensive. I don't intend to give an inch on that.

Half of what you say is a strawman, the other half is false.

Of course non-nationals should be residents of the countries they represent. Or more informally, they should have made a commitment to their country, when it comes to these international competitions. But Mingjiu and Feng Yun and Jie Li have all done so. They are not tourists, taking advantage of the US.

As for players who were trained since young ages in the US, surely you have to add Eric Lui, Zhaonian (Michael) Chen, Calvin Sun and Curtis Tang to Andy Liu. Those are just the players who I can name off the top of my head. That's not "rare", even if it's not a majority.

Not that I think it matters. I feel a certain pride to know that players who have learned Go in the US are as strong as those players, but I do not think that they represent us better than players like Mingjiu.

_________________
Occupy Babel!