45 mins. per player is still too fast for me.

Having said that, fast and slow are relative and it really depends on the individual.
To accurately diagnose whether someone is really playing too fast or too slow
(for their own good), I think we have to look at their games -- not just one game --
and look at how much time they spend on each move (and the move itself),
and go from there.

Around 10k, maybe it's OK to say 2 hours per person is too slow
and 3 second per move is too fast. But anything in between...?

I totally agree.

I love it when I meet "normal" people (non-computer/physics/scientific people), with just average IQ's who are really, really good at this game. Truck drivers, lawyers, artists, etc... little kids.

It is possible to not be mentally prepared for go: e.g., some people might not be able to do reading at all. If you can do this, then everything else (such as considering groups of stones as objects or strategy) is simpler.

Eh. Could we say that go is a huge, meaningless test of mental prowess? Would that satisfy everyone?

I'm unclear on the idea that the IT guy I call when pine isn't working correctly is less "normal" than the artist whose work I see in the Guggenheim. Surely the interest in go among computer people is connected to the status of go within AI research, and the interest in go among math people to its status within game theory.

His mention of IQs might make sense given that they usually measure the more traditional view of intelligence.

But disregarding that qualifier, I find it more interesting when I find Go players from less geeky fields. I think Portugal's case might be different from other cases in that for a long time, the best player is an artist and makes his living at that. He might still be the best player, but right now it's not so easy to tell.

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