IMO,

level of players have gotten stroner over the years.

I don't think that modern players are stronger.
It is just that they are playing different game. The talent is absolute and cannot be compared in any way. Japanese go plays longer game and other country are playing shorter game. Shorter game looks very exciting and appeal to audience. But playing shorter game is detrimental to game itself. Just my 2 cents.

Then again, is Shusaku only (mostly) praised as one of the strongest players in history because of Hikaru no Go or is there something more solid, which would back that up?

i can not understand why people think japanese will do well if the game is 2day game.
it is a fact that they are weaker than Korean and Chinese players.
more time will not help them win the game.

Regardless of who would be stronger in a slower game, it's unfortunate that so many games are played so quickly these days.

It's difficult to argue that it doesn't reduce the quality of the game and it would be nice to see top players take their time and create real masterpieces more often.

Going back to players rather than games, with the exception of Takemiya, I can't think of any modern player who can be said to have re-defined go theory in some significant way, whereas names like O-Senchi, Shuho, Shuei, Shusai and Go Seigen leap out.

Going back to players rather than games, with the exception of Takemiya, I can't think of any modern player who can be said to have re-defined go theory in some significant way, whereas names like O-Senchi, Shuho, Shuei, Shusai and Go Seigen leap out.

Forgive my ignorance, but could you tell me what innovations Shuho, Shuei and Shusai came up with? I know Shusai wrote a famous book of life and death problems and Shuei's games were said to be like flowing water, but nothing more about them. O-Senchi's name rings a bell, and I'm sure I've heard/read what he invented, but it's not coming to my mind at the moment either.

I think it stands to reason that the quality of a game depends on you definition of quality. To some, this could mean optimal play. To others, there is something fascinating - skillful - maybe finesseful (?) about having the skill to play well under time pressure.

Consider the field of AI. Many machine learning algorithms are not deterministic. The use probability to infer likely best decisions given a set of incomplete information. Some such algorithms can do amazing things, from detecting stuff in images, to predicting stock trends, to even playing go under time constraints. If I were to measure the quality and intelligence of such algorithms compared to a brute-force algorithm that they teach in a high school math class, the non-deterministic algorithm is often much more complex, elegant, and impressive to me.

In the same way, I am not impressed if someone can brute force the solution to 5x5 tic-tac-toe in 5 days. I am impressed if someone can show the aptitude to make probabalistic decisions in the face of uncertainty under tight time constraints playing the same game.

I won't claim that crappy fast play is impressive. But near-optimal play under fast time constraints is. It shows intuition, skill, and quick thonking more than slow games often do.

If a computer can brute force go by calculating for 1000 years, that's impressive. But if there's a 5d algorithm that can decide moves in under 5 seconds - well, that's more pressive to me. It shows true skill and aptitude in the underlying algorithm - something more than basic, run-of-the-mill brute force.

Japanese go plays longer game and other country are playing shorter game.

... Fast play just suits the short attention spans of modern tv audiences better. Not much of a recommendation.

It's a little snarky to say so, but I also can't help but wonder if fans of slow playing pros that lose against faster playing opponents use time limits as an excuse for the loss.