On a side note, I think that the treatment of pro ratings is a bit naive. The idea that 3 ranks normally means 1 stone is something that seems to have handed down from folklore, and bears scant resemblance to reality.

The resetting of new 1ps at 2700 when they are not 2700 strength seems potentially more important, but still rather minor.

I think the professional Go must behave professional, i.e. trying to go for the money. One way is to build up an image, a brand...and one important aspect is clothing. No top venture would sponsor guys that look like trivial students. Go tournaments and go players must be treated very closely to what composers and musicians in a classic orchestra are treated like. There must be a smell of elitarity around them and that starts with a dress and behaviour code. The next step has to be to choose only elitarian hotels for the top tournaments, even if that means less tournaments, continued by an constant push for publicity by trying to offer articles to big newspapers and to cover main matches through the Internet constantly. And then of course EGF has to use the advantage of the chaotic asian market and establish a simple world champ system very closely to what chess did till 1995.

I know that sounds bold and compromises a lot of inherent go values - it would destroy the loveliness of the small go community in the western world - but if you think professionally, if you want someone to "show you the money" you gotta act accordingly.

Circa 1700 a difference of 2 pro ranks was equivalent to one handicap stone. It was common for pros to alternate between, say, giving the weaker pro 2 stones or 3 stones. By 1900 and earlier, pro ranks had tightened, so that a difference of 3 pro ranks was equivalent to one handicap stone. By 1980 or so, it seems like pro ranks had tightened even more, partly by having weaker 9 dans, and partly by having stronger shodans. Ing equated a difference of 4 pro ranks to one handicap stone. Pros don't seem to give handicaps to pros anymore, so who knows?