Initiatives for a Professional System in the West

Horibe · **#81**

shapenaji wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:

There are Go Journalists out there who make a living playing go?

Lets focus on this:

Quote:

The first pros from China and Korea would NOT fit your model of a pro. By your argument, they should never have created a pro system because their players were 3 stones weaker than Japanese pros.

You have to start somewhere,

1) Funding, I have heard there's a sponsor, if not, this whole argument is moot, the AGA doesn't HAVE the funds to divert from educational programs. So we really don't need to worry about poor orphans not learning the game so that a few stronger players can take trips to Uncle Hanguk's Summer Camp.

2) Level of players, the Koreans want to train US players so that those players can develop a pro system here. It's pointless if they stay in Korea because Korea doesn't have a shortage. The KBA obviously wants there to be a larger market for baduk, and beating the horse over there is counterproductive. Yes, the players will not be as strong to begin with. Just as the Chinese and Koreans took years to be viable against Japanese pros.

But those Chinese and Korean players did not "go it alone", they had training, they had a drive to create a system like this. It didn't suddenly appear when they were strong enough.

Where did the Korean and Chinese pro systems come from if not from the Japanese?

Allright, I will focus on what you have above.

Intro - "You have to start somewhere" You do? I mean, don't you have to support this statement? I question whether we "have to start" at all, for several reasons. First, go is not popular enough in this country to support a pro system on its own. Second, I question the benefit to go in the US. What would it accomplish? We already have amatuer go players like Andy and Eric and Michael that people are interested in and follow. Third, we are, unfortunately, Americans, and we have two unfortunate tendencies. A. - We tend to think we are the best, and we do things like this and run the risk of looking foolish. B. We tend to only want to root for the best, and I wonder whether, in fact, an American pro system will create any interest. The US tries to have a professional soccer league - but all the real fans follow Europe, because we tend to only be interested in the best, and the same may happen here.

1. Funding. We agree that this is a no go without a sponsor. What money do you think the AGA is putting into educational programs? There is no money. But there is also a dearth of volunteers. This thing will not run itself, it will only benefit a few and it will be, or seem, a high profile cool thing to work on and take volunteer talent from other areas. Will calling a few top players who already have fans pros really create the kind of difference and enthusiasm that will offset the volunteer effort and manpower to support it?

2. Your final point is fine, I do not necessarily have a problem with it. I think your history is a bit flawed. My understanding is that the Japanese did the same thing for Korea and China that they have done here. They took promising folks to Japan and developed them as pros, and they sent pros overseas to teach and to play and support the spread of go. I am not sure the Japanese played the sort of seed money role you are suggesting Korea is going to play here. The fact of the matter is that China and Korea had the go population, interest and funding to support the players - and Japan played its part in helping to bring up the level of play.

In fact, we do NOT have to start somewhere. It may indeed be foolish to turn down Korea on its offer, but even that is not a win win. It can be argued that there was no reason not to take the Ing money, and for years that money did a lot of good. But did it also make us dependant on that money, stifled other areas of growth, made the AGA leadership lazy, and now the AGA is sinking and unable to find its footing?

shapenaji · **#82**

Horibe wrote:

Allright, I will focus on what you have above.

Intro - "You have to start somewhere" You do? I mean, don't you have to support this statement? I question whether we "have to start" at all, for several reasons. First, go is not popular enough in this country to support a pro system on its own. Second, I question the benefit to go in the US. What would it accomplish? We already have amatuer go players like Andy and Eric and Michael that people are interested in and follow. Third, we are, unfortunately, Americans, and we have two unfortunate tendencies. A. - We tend to think we are the best, and we do things like this and run the risk of looking foolish. B. We tend to only want to root for the best, and I wonder whether, in fact, an American pro system will create any interest. The US tries to have a professional soccer league - but all the real fans follow Europe, because we tend to only be interested in the best, and the same may happen here.

The reason why you have to start somewhere is that ultimately, go is a conversation, and currently there's a language barrier with the best countries in the world. That barrier exists because they have players whose career is to get better. We may get some talented amateurs, but without a professional training regime, history shows us that that's all they'll be. Our best players are at the limit of Amateurs sans pro-training.

Korea is offering training, the one thing our best players lack. And they are not requiring them to devote the rest of their life to living in Korea. It is the next step in our advancement.

It's funny that you bring up professional soccer, (I also don't know what you mean by "real fans", I think there's a stadium of LA Galaxy folks who would disagree with your statement that they are not real fans), How are those US Women doing again?

as far as your points:
A)We don't think we're the best, but we believe in our potential. Support of small professional organizations around the country for Soccer, Women's Basketball, Roller Derby, suggests that, while an American Pro organization might not bring home multi-million dollar contracts, it can certainly bag a few sponsors.

B)We watch interesting stories, the quality of the team doesn't matter quite as much. If you can suck people in with a good story, they'll even watch a LeBron-less Cleveland.

Quote:

1. Funding. We agree that this is a no go without a sponsor. What money do you think the AGA is putting into educational programs? There is no money. But there is also a dearth of volunteers. This thing will not run itself, it will only benefit a few and it will be, or seem, a high profile cool thing to work on and take volunteer talent from other areas. Will calling a few top players who already have fans pros really create the kind of difference and enthusiasm that will offset the volunteer effort and manpower to support it?

I think you're reaching to say that it will take volunteer talent from other areas, I think there's no evidence to support that.

As far as "Calling top players pros". That is not what is being suggested. It's about making top players into pros. It's about collecting that talent and managing the fanbase. And currently the AGA does not do this.

A pro organization would be tasked with having games between their pros and broadcasting those in a way that would improve viewership for their sponsors. There's an incentive there that the AGA doesn't have.

Quote:

2. Your final point is fine, I do not necessarily have a problem with it. I think your history is a bit flawed. My understanding is that the Japanese did the same thing for Korea and China that they have done here. They took promising folks to Japan and developed them as pros, and they sent pros overseas to teach and to play and support the spread of go. I am not sure the Japanese played the sort of seed money role you are suggesting Korea is going to play here. The fact of the matter is that China and Korea had the go population, interest and funding to support the players - and Japan played its part in helping to bring up the level of play.

Okay, somewhere along the way, someone injected "Korean funds" into this debate (and it was not me), that is not what is happening. The Koreans are offering training, but they want us to find a sponsor, according to sources, a sponsor has been found.

We also have a go population, a population that stands right now at about a few thousand fans. This isn't enough to snag Pepsi, but it's enough for a small start-up endowment.

You seem to be under the illusion that all professional systems need to be the NFL.

Quote:

In fact, we do NOT have to start somewhere. It may indeed be foolish to turn down Korea on its offer, but even that is not a win win. It can be argued that there was no reason not to take the Ing money, and for years that money did a lot of good. But did it also make us dependant on that money, stifled other areas of growth, made the AGA leadership lazy, and now the AGA is sinking and unable to find its footing?

Alright, we're talking about a new organization, funded by sponsors and beholden to those sponsors. This is a business we're talking about.

That's a lot of blame you're putting on Ing funding, I just don't think there's a causal link.

tetron · **#83**

Some interesting debate on here.

What makes most pro-games flourish is an audience. The question is does the US (Europe doesn't) have an exiting audience base that would be able to finance a professional league in the long-term.

Games with high luck can easily develop a pro-base because there is money to be made from the gambling mind set. So poker, backgammon, elimintation blackjack and Magic the Gathering have all taken off easily in the internet age. I can't really see there being many takers for $1000 against a 9P in an even game.

For games of high skill, you need the audience. It doesn't even matter if it is played at the top level as long as there is drama in the event. If you can't build a domestic audience you need to pump in enough money to attract the pro's from abroad. I can't see this happening.

If you hold open competitions that pay prizes down to 20th ~$1000. The pro scene will create itself through players being able to make a living. There will be greater drive for new players. I think go has enough of a latent audience for the events then to continue but there are lots of other games out there. The marketers have people believing poker is a game of high skill

It would be nice to see the game grow but I am not convinced sending players to train in Korea is the best approach. (Strong players may choose this for themselves). you could perhaps hire a pro as a national coach. The real danger with this system is you allow players to be chosen whereas to really improve takes competition and drive.

Horibe · **#84**

shapenaji wrote:

[The reason why you have to start somewhere is that ultimately, go is a conversation

What you seem to be saying is that we must be more competitive with the rest of the world and have stronger players. That is fine, but what I am saying is I am not sure that is (A) what are first goal should be right now, and (B) that a professional system would be the best way to serve that goal.

You simply say things like "it can certainly bag a few sponsors". Unless you can predict the future - you are certainly using heavy rhetoric.

Meanwhile, you say I am reaching by suggesting the effort might take volunteer talent from other areas - "there is no evidence to support that" Well, after your short stint as AGA Volunteer Coordinator I suppose I should defer to your expertise here. I am assuming you found a plethora of eager volunteers, filled all the needed slots and left after a job well done. If not, well, that might be some evidence that there is, in fact, not an unlimited number of volunteers.

You mistake my reference to "calling top players pros" as diminishing them. I am not. I am simply suggesting they already have fans, Curtis already trained in China, these guys are already accomplished (Eric finishing 3rd in the World Amatuers) the AGA should be able to find very interesting stories indeed about them. They will put in the work they will earn what they earn - but will the name change make enough of a difference to justify the program?

Yeah, LA Galaxy has some fans - substantially because of years of community level soccer programs, high school and college competition, Hispanic immigration and a couple of European Stars. The Womens Professional league is losing money, to answer that question. Sure, there are lots of Beckham jerseys sold, but look at the crowds, alot of folks are wearing Barcelona and Chelsea and ManUnited jerseys - and those are the teams people follow on TV, on the web and on their game boxes. My point is, even with MILLIONS of kids playing soccer, our best players go abroad to find success, and US fans are used to following the best in the world.

We do not have millions of players, we have thousands, and barely that. I did not blame ING - I asked a question - a relevant question. All you seem to be really saying is we have to start somewhere and now, the sponsors will come, it will not take any effort on our part and there will be great benefit.

I see nothing in your arguments that proves anything. We need to be teaching people go, getting go in the media and getting a better handle on the players we have. And please do not argue that ESPN is going to cover our new young pros triumphal return from Korea - it is not going to happen until enough people here care.

shapenaji · **#85**

Horibe wrote:

What you seem to be saying is that we must be more competitive with the rest of the world and have stronger players. That is fine, but what I am saying is I am not sure that is (A) what are first goal should be right now, and (B) that a professional system would be the best way to serve that goal.

And here we disagree, the AGA has trouble with funding, and its events are not easily sponsored, in the way that professional events are. A professional organization would take little away from the AGA, while serving to popularize the game. I certainly hope we're only focusing on one thing at a time as a community.

Quote:

You simply say things like "it can certainly bag a few sponsors". Unless you can predict the future - you are certainly using heavy rhetoric.

I DID NOT simply say that, I pointed out that small professional organizations get sponsors, despite not having millions of fans. Please try to address the points I made, not the ones you think I made.

Quote:

Meanwhile, you say I am reaching by suggesting the effort might take volunteer talent from other areas - "there is no evidence to support that" Well, after your short stint as AGA Volunteer Coordinator I suppose I should defer to your expertise here. I am assuming you found a plethora of eager volunteers, filled all the needed slots and left after a job well done. If not, well, that might be some evidence that there is, in fact, not an unlimited number of volunteers.

Thank you for the ad hominem attack, it will make it so much easier for me to respond in kind later.

What I found, was that people have a specific job in mind when they volunteer, they aren't widgets you can apply to anything. What is more likely is that more people would come forward to volunteer. Not that people would start leaving their posts.

Quote:

You mistake my reference to "calling top players pros" as diminishing them. I am not. I am simply suggesting they already have fans, Curtis already trained in China, these guys are already accomplished (Eric finishing 3rd in the World Amatuers) the AGA should be able to find very interesting stories indeed about them. They will put in the work they will earn what they earn - but will the name change make enough of a difference to justify the program?

No, I do not, your reference suggested that that was all we were doing, "CALLING" them pros. I made clear that there was, in fact, a state-change taking place, not a name change.

Quote:

Yeah, LA Galaxy has some fans - substantially because of years of community level soccer programs, high school and college competition, Hispanic immigration and a couple of European Stars. The Womens Professional league is losing money, to answer that question. Sure, there are lots of Beckham jerseys sold, but look at the crowds, alot of folks are wearing Barcelona and Chelsea and ManUnited jerseys - and those are the teams people follow on TV, on the web and on their game boxes. My point is, even with MILLIONS of kids playing soccer, our best players go abroad to find success, and US fans are used to following the best in the world.

I was pointing out that your definition of fans did not include the LA galaxy kids. The Women's professional system MAY be losing money, but it still has sponsors. Did it go under when I wasn't looking?

Can't you think of more than a few professional organizations in the US that are small and get by?

That's what we're talking about, not building massive stadiums.

Quote:

We do not have millions of players, we have thousands, and barely that. I did not blame ING - I asked a question - a relevant question. All you seem to be really saying is we have to start somewhere and now, the sponsors will come, it will not take any effort on our part and there will be great benefit.

We have thousands of players, which is enough for a small sponsor and a small pro organization with a few part-time players to start off with.

I did not say it would not take any effort, I said that there was ALREADY A SPONSOR.

Quote:

I see nothing in your arguments that proves anything. We need to be teaching people go, getting go in the media and getting a better handle on the players we have. And please do not argue that ESPN is going to cover our new young pros triumphal return from Korea - it is not going to happen until enough people here care.

I refuse to keep discussing with the willfully deaf.

Horibe · **#86**

shapenaji wrote:

I refuse to keep discussing with the willfully deaf.

One more try.

You said an American Pro Organization "can certainly bag a few sponsors" Certainly? You site several "small" pro organizations that fill stadiums, small and large, with more fans than your entire admitted go population of the US at prices that are more than we charge for a year's AGA membership. How can you be so certain?

Yet when I suggest that this would take volunteer support that could be used in other areas - you state "there is no evidence to support that." I would submit you could be right here, I cannot predict the future - but neither can you, for all your certainty.

I made no adhominen attack. I am sorry if you took offense. I did not say you did a bad job. I would suggest that the AGA is still in need of volunteers in crucial areas. My point is not that you are at fault, but that volunteers are hard to come by.

Now calling me willfully deaf...

For a third time - my point is not that this is simply a name change. I will accept, for purposes of argument, that this is "state changing" that this new pro will be transformed by his year away and will have benifitted greatly and be a respected pro. My point is one of focus. Can you explain how the AGA, or American Go in general, is going to derive greater benefit from this tranformed person, than it does from having Eric Lui finish third in the Worlds, or Jie Li defeating a pro in an invitational event?

I have always been skeptical of the create stars and the people will follow. And I think there is ample argument the the AGA has failed to leverage the stars that is has. But whether they are struggling amatuers or meaningfully tranformed pros - you still have to deal with the fact that only a couple thousand people care or know the difference - and that is simply not enough to "certainly" bag a few sponsors.

Javaness2 · **#87**

I would support a new pro system if I could feel it would have some chance of working. From what I see at the moment, top players are not prepared to travel around the country (USA) to play games. Will there be enough money to change that, or would they all just move to the same place?

There is still some talk of making a European pro system... nobody tells us any details though.

oren · **#88**

Javaness2 wrote:

I would support a new pro system if I could feel it would have some chance of working. From what I see at the moment, top players are not prepared to travel around the country (USA) to play games. Will there be enough money to change that, or would they all just move to the same place?

I would guess it could only exist online through most of the year with finals at US Open unless sponsorship is much larger than I'm thinking. We have strong players about as far apart as you could get in this country.

hailthorn011 · **#89**

gogameguru wrote:

I don't quite think they're going to listen. Someone always has to be right in the end. But I think you're right. Instead of bickering and looking for how it will fail, we should look for how it could succeed.

hyperpape · **#90**

When Horibe said "your short stint as Volunteer Coordinator" I thought "I'm not sure if that's meant to be snide, but it certainly will be heard that way." I'm willing to believe that wasn't your intent, Horibe, but I also wouldn't expect the person on the receiving end to think anything else.

Javaness2 · **#91**

hailthorn011 wrote:

I don't quite think they're going to listen. Someone always has to be right in the end. But I think you're right. Instead of bickering and looking for how it will fail, we should look for how it could succeed.

Well yes, lets not be too negative. A professional organisation needs to be able (in time) to have its own income stream. Can Go become popular enough to get media column inches in the USA(/Canada)? From what I can see they need to be at least as popular Chess to do this. Is that possible? Certainly don't see them reaching the current heights of poker.

hailthorn011 · **#92**

Javaness2 wrote:

hailthorn011 wrote:

I don't quite think they're going to listen. Someone always has to be right in the end. But I think you're right. Instead of bickering and looking for how it will fail, we should look for how it could succeed.

Well yes, lets not be too negative. A professional organisation needs to be able (in time) to have its own income stream. Can Go become popular enough to get media column inches in the USA(/Canada)? From what I can see they need to be at least as popular Chess to do this. Is that possible? Certainly don't see them reaching the current heights of poker.

Poker is a gambling game. Of course Go won't reach that level of popularity. And yes, while I know Go is also a popular gambling game, it depends on where you are.

And yes, I think Go can surpass Chess in popularity given time and growth. But of course I'd say that.

tetron · **#93**

hailthorn011 wrote:

Poker is a gambling game. Of course Go won't reach that level of popularity. And yes, while I know Go is also a popular gambling game, it depends on where you are.

And yes, I think Go can surpass Chess in popularity given time and growth. But of course I'd say that.

Go should succeed in becoming a successful flourishing game. it has lasted for 1000s of years and still has the complexity to last many 1000s more. (assuming the human race last that long). Although, people can bet on the game still isn't enough to make it a "gambling game".

Chess has been in decline since a computer beat the best human player in the world. Some of the decline is down to other factors such as the "end of the cold war" and changes in cultural attitudes.

Go has a great many things going for it terms of selling it to the non-playing public. The simplicity of the rules; the fact that humans still crush computers and it is easier to get a feel for who is winning. What is lacking are high profile televised events.

In the UK, poker was nowhere before there was a tv program called "late night poker". I knew several people who watched it regularly without even knowing the rules. Another, example of a huge success was Nigel Short vs Kasparov.

Go does have a problem in the length that a match takes to play and there maybe other newer games that work better with a Western Audience. The people who state that it has to start somewhere are correct. However, early sponsorship is no guarantee of long-term success. However, you want to start before the computer does to Go what it did to chess.

Horibe · **#94**

hyperpape wrote:

When Horibe said "your short stint as Volunteer Coordinator" I thought "I'm not sure if that's meant to be snide, but it certainly will be heard that way." I'm willing to believe that wasn't your intent, Horibe, but I also wouldn't expect the person on the receiving end to think anything else.

Whether I was being snide, or sarcastic, it was not an ad hominem attack. "An attack to negate the truth of a claim by attacking the person, not making an argument"

I was not saying his argument about volunteers makes no sense because he is a bad cook. I was NOT suggesting he did a bad job as Volunteer coordinator - I simply was arguing that dealing with volunteers is not easy and they are not inexhaustible - and surely he knows that, and trying to make clear that he has the experience to know that, yet he seems to deny it to suit his argument.

I believe the statement was on point - and I apologized already if he took offense - but I made no personal attack, I never said he did a bad job, at worst, I said he did a short one. But again - this is not surprising - volunteers are problematic. Which, again, was my point.

hailthorn011 · **#95**

tetron wrote:

hailthorn011 wrote:

Poker is a gambling game. Of course Go won't reach that level of popularity. And yes, while I know Go is also a popular gambling game, it depends on where you are.

And yes, I think Go can surpass Chess in popularity given time and growth. But of course I'd say that.

Go should succeed in becoming a successful flourishing game. it has lasted for 1000s of years and still has the complexity to last many 1000s more. (assuming the human race last that long). Although, people can bet on the game still isn't enough to make it a "gambling game".

Chess has been in decline since a computer beat the best human player in the world. Some of the decline is down to other factors such as the "end of the cold war" and changes in cultural attitudes.

Go has a great many things going for it terms of selling it to the non-playing public. The simplicity of the rules; the fact that humans still crush computers and it is easier to get a feel for who is winning. What is lacking are high profile televised events.

In the UK, poker was nowhere before there was a tv program called "late night poker". I knew several people who watched it regularly without even knowing the rules. Another, example of a huge success was Nigel Short vs Kasparov.

Go does have a problem in the length that a match takes to play and there maybe other newer games that work better with a Western Audience. The people who state that it has to start somewhere are correct. However, early sponsorship is no guarantee of long-term success. However, you want to start before the computer does to Go what it did to chess.

Is it really that important for humans to be able to be stronger than bots?

Javaness2 · **#96**

hailthorn011 wrote:

Is it really that important for humans to be able to be stronger than bots?

It adds a certain mystique to the game. When I started playing Go, they boasted to me about how complex it was, and that computers couldn't play it...

hailthorn011 · **#97**

Javaness2 wrote:

hailthorn011 wrote:

Is it really that important for humans to be able to be stronger than bots?

It adds a certain mystique to the game. When I started playing Go, they boasted to me about how complex it was, and that computers couldn't play it...

Yeah the same thing happened when I started playing the game. I'll admit, I thought it was awesome that bots weren't able to compete evenly with the best players.

But at the same time, I really don't see how that matters too much. While it's a cool "fun fact" whether I enjoy a game isn't really determined by whether bots can beat the strongest players.

I play video games a lot, and one of my all time favorites is Perfect Dark. And I think having Sims that can beat you is more beneficial than anything. By playing Bots on Perfect Dark, I was able to improve my reflexes, situational skills, ect. in the game.

But that doesn't seem to hold true for Go. I've heard bots can teach you all sorts of wacky stuff.

Anyway, this is a tad off topic, but I don't think the strength of bots influences the mindset of the common player that much.

Mef · **#98**

shapenaji wrote:

A pro organization would be tasked with having games between their pros and broadcasting those in a way that would improve viewership for their sponsors. There's an incentive there that the AGA doesn't have.

This line appears to have fallen by the wayside, but it really cuts to the heart of the matter and could really help cut down on what (in my opinion) is irrelevant chatter. Yes we all know it would be great to grow the go community, and yes it would be amazing to suddenly have popular youth programs....no one is disputing that. The issue at hand is if a professional organization can provide something to the community that is currently not there, and I think it can.

At it's core the purpose of a professional system is the spectacle. It is not to create the best players and it is not to create raise the game to new levels (though these two things are often side effects of a professional organization), it is to take the game and package it in such a way that people find it entertaining. Now, often competitive activities are more entertaining if the players are at the pinnacle of their abilities but this is by no means a requirement. The whole idea is to take the activity from something people want to do themselves and transform it into something they would rather watch others do. The reason a professional organization is more likely to attract sponsors is this:

-The goal of the AGA is (more or less) to improve things for the go player and the go community.

-The goal of a professional organization is to create a product people want to watch, read about, hear commentary on, etc.

If you are a sponsor, you would be looking for a high profile outlet and the professional organization is more likely to provide that. This isn't to say the two organizations shouldn't work together, but their ultimate goals are fundamentally different.

Someone made (what I interpreted to be) a half joke about the professional disc golf association. Honestly though, I think that's a GREAT example to look at. The PDGA has almost 10,000 people who compete each year in various tour events (which has $1.7 million in prize money), they have significant sponsorship, they organize over a thousand events every year (aside from their tour), and this is all for a sport that is less than 50 years old. We should be so lucky to end up with an organization like that!

tapir · **#99**

I don't believe time on go is wasted when one doesn't become professional (that is why we play as amateurs after all and the program will do some good for those players involved) and I don't even believe the initial strength of a professional system is decisive as long as it is close enough to allow for occasional wins of the new association professionals.

I am very skeptical, however, of all proposals that don't come along with a business plan. This skepticism - unfortunately, but unsurprisingly - proved right in case of the last European initiative. For the U.S. any "professional" system that can't even cover some travel expenses from east to west to south to middle (and occasionally to Korea when you are allowed to participate there) doesn't deserve the name - and I am not even talking about income but travel expenses. For an event that draws spectators (sponsors) you need more to see than your usual board on the server, also online play has no checks against cheating, which is a big disadvantage as soon as you talk about money and the willingness to put it on line as a sponsor. Also one main benefit of such a system would be more and better teaching across the country, if everyone has to stay at home (for lack of income to travel around), it will not occur. Imo Go is much more suited to newspaper coverage than television - but can we ever expect newspaper coverage when most associations virtualised even their own magazines?

Also, despite the name most PDGA (professional disc golf association) players aren't professionals, and even most of those classified as professionals need a day job. Please notice, that disc golf requires equipment (that doesn't last forever) so you have a number of equipment suppliers living from the community that are willing to give sth. back by sponsoring players. In Go you need a board, but the board may last for your lifetime. So there is naturally much less money / player in the system. Before taking lessons and buying some more books I spent a total of 30 Euro on board and stones + lend some books from other players and bought only 2 books for 40 Euros more. This was sufficient for quite some time and both books and board basically last forever. This spending habits only changed when I started taking lessons some years later. But before I spent way less than 50 Euro p.a. - if you calculate with such figures - many of us may spend more but as an average it may be an high estimate - the whole Go economy in the US / Europe, you instantly see why there is no professional system, and little prospect to establish one. It's the economy, stupid.

Horibe · **#100**

Mef wrote:

shapenaji wrote:

A pro organization would be tasked with having games between their pros and broadcasting those in a way that would improve viewership for their sponsors. There's an incentive there that the AGA doesn't have.

This line appears to have fallen by the wayside, but it really cuts to the heart of the matter and could really help cut down on what (in my opinion) is irrelevant chatter. Yes we all know it would be great to grow the go community, and yes it would be amazing to suddenly have popular youth programs....no one is disputing that. The issue at hand is if a professional organization can provide something to the community that is currently not there, and I think it can.

At it's core the purpose of a professional system is the spectacle. It is not to create the best players and it is not to create raise the game to new levels (though these two things are often side effects of a professional organization), it is to take the game and package it in such a way that people find it entertaining. Now, often competitive activities are more entertaining if the players are at the pinnacle of their abilities but this is by no means a requirement. The whole idea is to take the activity from something people want to do themselves and transform it into something they would rather watch others do. The reason a professional organization is more likely to attract sponsors is this:

-The goal of the AGA is (more or less) to improve things for the go player and the go community.

-The goal of a professional organization is to create a product people want to watch, read about, hear commentary on, etc.

If you are a sponsor, you would be looking for a high profile outlet and the professional organization is more likely to provide that. This isn't to say the two organizations shouldn't work together, but their ultimate goals are fundamentally different.

Someone made (what I interpreted to be) a half joke about the professional disc golf association. Honestly though, I think that's a GREAT example to look at. The PDGA has almost 10,000 people who compete each year in various tour events (which has $1.7 million in prize money), they have significant sponsorship, they organize over a thousand events every year (aside from their tour), and this is all for a sport that is less than 50 years old. We should be so lucky to end up with an organization like that!

This post sets out the argument nicely, and certainly the disc golf example is better than any of the ones thrashed around before.

I think I agree that the AGA, or if you like, American Go in general, should be using its strongest players to, as Mef states, create a product that, to simplify, increases interest in the game and packages that interest for sponsor purposes.

I still think getting this going will be a substantial effort, and I am not sure the difference in cache of a pro as envisioned in this system, and a US Open Champion, is a large enough one to make the effort worthwhile. I just do not see how a few pros going to Korea and hopefully winning a game or two makes any difference, and I am not sure small pro only competitions here would make much either - compared to events like the Cotsen and the US Open which are not only big - but justify the effort by giving playing opportunities to all.

And perhaps the time for face to face events is simply past, and we need to direct sponsors to the larger online presence of American Go Players. I certainly believe that the effort and interest it takes to attend events is what sponsors are actually looking for, but if so, our numbers are too low.

DETOUR - to better explain my point about Americans being used to watching the best - the best Baseball, Basketball, Football and Hockey. Last weekend, 1.67 million American soccer fans watched a repeat telecast of a regular season game between Chelsea and Liverpool. That is almost twice as many as watched the MLS Final Championship game between LA and Houston live.

I am not saying we should not take advantage of this offer. I simply think we are naive to think that somehow - presto - we are going to instantly be on ESPN along with the spelling bee kids - after all I think the scrabble people and the crossword folks are ahead of us, while the larger chess community curses its own lack of tv appeal.

I encourage the planners to make this system support face to face events, whether through competition or teaching - this could be a real an immediate benefit.

Initiatives for a Professional System in the West

Who is online