Hong Seulki, ex-insei:

Well.. That's really difficult problem.
I understand what their feel. Many of European they probably don't like a lot of Korean names on the top 10 list.
But on the other hand, Especially top european players they need a strong competition for improving their skills. Well, that must be hard challinging for them but also good motivation. And I expect finally they will overcome that situation near the future.
If you close the EGC for Asian, then that's just one of a normal tournament. They'll not able to decrease a gap to Asian. So even though they'll get bad result they should't stop competition with Asian. And That's also violate a spirit of Congress.

I understand you guys both of opinion. Therefore I suggest my compromise to EGC.
How about make two main tournament? Like current system but increase some more rounds and value in european championship. Even they can adjust prize money. And reduce some rounds in main tournament like 8 or less. I think that's still fine because
still there are a lot of side tournaments in EGC.
So they can make almost same vaule 2 tournaments. Then they'll keep compete with Asian and get enough prize money. Because They can take part both of tournaments.
And I really suggest that EGC publish about prize money soon. Please make clear, They always don't publish about it so many Korean expect more and take part. That's also good for their authority.

_________________
Go lessons: http://breakfast.go4go.net/
Russian Go news: https://vk.com/go_secrets/

Missing from these discussions (perhaps) are contributions from many Europeans who have studied Go in Korea - Daniela Trinks, Vit Brunner - no doubt many more and who probably have an insight into what the Koreans think.

That said, it seems that the Koreans are voting with their feet.

It seems so sad that we rely upon Asian players to help us learn - and then go out of our way to make them feel unwelcome here.

I'll be honest. I want to see Lee Sedol, Gu Li, and Kong Jie playing in European tournaments. I want the best quality Go we can possibly get in this continent, and that's my motivation for most of my contributions to these political discussions.

I do sympathise with wanting the "fairest" possible method of selecting the European Champion, but if we put off the strongest players we have at the EGC (and let's face it, with the exception of Dinerchtein, who else has won in the last 5 years?) I think there are some misplaced prioritised for European go as a whole.

In the UK (and I've read the same elsewhere) we have always believed that as dan players there is an obligation to make newcomers feel welcome and comfortable despite their lack in experience and skill, because they are the future of Go. Likewise, I want to see European Go flourish and go from strength to strength. In reality, we will learn from those more skilled than ourselves, and putting them off from attending European events will only harm European go potential in the long run.

So, what to do? I'd love to see why there is not that much enthusiasm for a separate title for European Champion, prize money low or not an issue - it's the prestige of European Champion people are fighting for anyway. This way the EGC can maintain its open status at the top end, have good prize money with the strongest people available attending, and we can still have a champion without upsetting the Koreans (and other strong players). I'm sure the lack of implementation of this is with justification, but there doesn't seem to be many arguments other than the additional organisation, administration, and logistical difficulties of attendance for the extra tournament?

Richard, surely Koreans are voting with their feet but on what? Maybe it is just that they don't like to visit a country far from the center of Europe (compare Ireland). Also the Europeans are voting with their feet but again on what? Presumably there are many factors.

topazg, the future of European Go first of all depends on the European players because they are here all the time in great numbers. You suggest low or cancelled prizes for the European (Closed) Championship. Do you even realize that such does harm the future of European Go? If top Europeans do not get prizes but loses travel expenses, then a greater percentage of them needs to stay at home earning money instead of playing more tournament go. This is so for both European and (big) national tournaments.

While an EC held at a different time and venue has the mentioned advantages, it also has the disadvantages mentioned earlier:

- quite some players cannot take the time to attend both congress and EC
- some players cannot afford the extra travel expenses
- prizes need to be generated differently (or a certain amount is taken from the congress fees)
- EC players do not meet many other players during the EC
- kibitzes will see only a fraction of those games broadcasted
- the AGM vote would need to be reverted
- the EC also needs to be organized

I seem to remember suggesting asking them. In fact, it looks like Alex has asked many of them, perhaps you should get the reasons from him rather than speculating?



Oh come on, Go is never going to earn you a living from playing. Top Europeans are almost entirely not in the running for the big prizes anyway, and those that are are almost exclusively Alex, Catalin or Svetlana, who are all professionals anyway. If top Europeans want to be able to get good chances of good prize money, they need to get stronger. Anything below a competitively strong 6 dan is dreaming if they expect to get their costs back.

Every national tournament I've ever been to has cost me money, and even if I entered as 4 dan to guarantee being above the bar and destroyed everyone, I'd win myself a bottle of wine or a box of chocolates. I haven't been to International tournaments because I can't afford the time with a young family primarily, but even if I did I would expect everything to be an expense even if I was intending on winning the tournament.

You speak in the other thread of people should not come if they view the tournament as a financial investment, and here you now talk about them needing to stay home and earn money. You are contradicting yourself.

The Congress gets a lot of entries. As Richard says, knock the entry fee up slightly and you create a lot of money. This can be paid to top players to teach (rather than expecting it for free) as side events, and can be part of the cash prize for the winner. As Alex controversially said, if the supergroup entrants pay a premium they are topping up their winning prize fund nicely - happy that it is a gamble because they believe in their ability enough to have a shot at winning it back. This doesn't even affect the weaker players' costs.



Then they don't attend. We discussed these people being selected by the national organisations, who could pay those expenses if they felt the tournament was important enough. This happens for WAGC already.



The prize is being European Champion. You claim this should have prestige, then that should be enough for people to enter.



So? It's a championship, not a social event. That's what the open congress is for.



Do they want to? I would rather see one of the top congress boards than any of the championship matches.



No, a new AGM vote can be taken. The purpose of the EGF is to support the European Go organisations, who are themselves trying to represent the players. The fact this is meeting with such controversy from players of all strengths should be enough to re-table a new motion taking all this input into account.



Agreed, although it is much easier to organise a small tournament than a 600+ participant one.

Maybe. It is however worth noting that Finland is much closer to Korea than almost any other European country, and there are almost daily direct flights from Seoul to Helsinki (Finnair flies that route six times each week, I don't know about other airlines), whereas I couldn't find any direct flights from Seoul to Dublin (and only a handful with one change of planes).

But, perhaps you are right, and Koreans prefer to be in the center of Europe more than e.g. easy (and shorter) travel.

_________________
Offending ad removed

If the EGF loses Ing money and other sponsorship, or if the EGC loses Oriental visitors, the Europeans have a duty to examine whether their own actions may have been at fault. It is stupid to hide your head in the sand and just assert there may have been other reasons. If it turns out that there were other reasons, all well and good, but that in no way obviates the duty to examine oneself first, especially when there is such as a strong prima facie case that, for example, opposition to Ing rules and equipment annoyed the Ing Foundation or that the constant talk against strong Orientals does filter through.

On the latter point, personally I'm disappointed that Dinerchtein wrote to the Koreans in the way he apparently did (it would be good to see the original letter), and in particular to Prof. Hahn. Although his motives were right, I fear the actual effect was that he may have unintentionally given the impression that large numbers of Europeans find the Korean presence unwelcome, when it is a mere handful. Prof. Hahn has a senior position in one of the amateur organisations. He does influence other amateurs. If he is offended, so others will be. Without going into details, I think there is a strong chance that he will have been offended (not by Alex, but by the people Alex indirectly reported on).

Regrettably I think damage has been done and European go has a rocky road ahead of it.

From someone who's just been looking at this from the sidelines, going to my first EGC this year... I agree.

Reading these and other forums, it seems to me that what is supposed to be a fun gathering of people playing a game we all love, has just turned into slander, politics and bickering between a MINORITY who then go ahead and send their messages into the world as if representing everyone; seemingly giving the Asians the message that the majority don't want them here. Result? 2 Registered Koreans this year, when Helsinki has Europes best connections to Asia pretty much.

The only games that interested me in the previous EGCs were the ones with the strong Koreans in them. I don't care about nationalities, I care about playing/seeing quality go.. Which I thought was the whole point. Apparently, it isn't.

Many of the Europeans?



I have been making my point for ALL top Europeans, not only for myself. Also my argument has not been a one-sided all or nothing but assumes a variation of percentage of income or else loss-minimization due to the noteworthy prizes.



And those prizes must exist!



I do not contradict myself. Work it out yourself why; I do not want to spend much time on meta-discussion. Hint: I was replying to your opinion.



Good alternative, provided access to the teaching slots is fair.



I would enter it for prestige only - (some) others would not.

There is more to the EC than only prestige. There should also be appreciation by the go community; if the prizes pale in comparison to other important European tournaments, then the amount of appreciation would be inappropriately small. Also, as mentioned before, there is the total travel money problem for top Europeans, who, if they want to play equally strong Europeans under ordinary playing conditions, need to travel a lot.



Some top Europeans have expressed their opinion that they also wish the championship to be part of a social event.



Even national championships (or yet smaller tournaments like city championships) get a good number of local and online kibitzes. So, yes, there are enough who want to watch.



Are you judging from this forum? It is not representative.

But the EGCongress does not lose Asian visitors in general. Attendance by Taiwanese and Chinese has been very low so far and is very slightly increasing on average. Japanese attend in great numbers every year; with regularly 60-70.

The only special case where a fear to lose Asian amateurs deserves more careful consideration is Korean 5d - 7d. Their participation is irregular; in some years there are none, in others some and in yet others quite some.



It is also stupid to let the European Championship becoming meaningless amidst a too dense field of non-Europeans and to have no clear advance announcement of prize moneys.



Several polls and countless private talks confirm that over 90% (probably significantly more) of the Europeans dislike (original) Ing rules and equipment, especially the speaking clocks. Therefore it is very good for European go when such material is discontinued.



Which talk against strong Orientals? Talk about, e.g., having a European European Championship is not talk against strong Orientals as persons but against their games' impact on the outcome of the European Championship.



Who? Is there even one? I think you confuse being welcome with (not) being allowed to play in the European Championship besides in the European Open Championship.

It is not the whole point; we do not replace the congress tournaments by an exhibition game between two teaching professionals, which likely would have higher quality go.

Not sure about this John. For one thing the Koreans probably knew already, there are enough Korean players in Europe to notice this kind of thing. Secondly, it does present a very valuable opinion for public consumption.

Well, I'm not among them. I am certainly happy to use Ing stones and I like the way that the result is determined at the end.

I think the truth is that many people are unfamiliar with Ing rules, but are happy to use them when they are explained (and I don't mean a treatise).

Personally I am very happy that the Ing foundation has seen fit to donate this equipment. We should be grateful for it.

Some may object to the clocks but they fulfil the purpose they were designed for and I think that other clocks with similar facilities are just as difficult to set up. I prefer the method of byoyomi they implement over Canadian byoyomi.

I cannot agree that discontinuing the use of Ing rules, or equipment will benefit European go.

Know what?

_________________
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.

I did add "playing" to that sentence to make it clear it's not just watching I was talking about.

The decisions taken at the AGM in relation to the European Championship was what I referred to.
Also, the ring fencing of some money in Pandanet Tour for European citizens was unmissable.

Among regular congress participants, most players know the basics of Ing rules.

Whether players prefer either scoring method is a different question.

What many players dislike about Ing rules are their ko rules, terminology, fill-in counting, necessity of exactly 180 stones, necessity for Ing bowls and stones, flaws.

Those few people liking Ing rules are not actually happy about Ing ko rules but either are unhappy about them or do not know them. Most of those few people actually like and imagine something like Simplified Ing Rules.

When original Ing rules were explained, I do not recall anyone liking their ko rules. Maybe a dozen said that they liked the intention behind their ko rules but would like to see a different and much simpler implementation of that intention.



Over 95%.



You miss the major criticism of Ing clocks:

- Not always seen opposing time.
- Hard to use buttons.
- Buttons that tend to malfunction easily.
- Bugs in the software.
- Annoying voice one cannot turn off.
- Ugly design.

Anyone who does not wish for the strongest possible opponent, who does not rejoice from the prospects of getting outlined one's own limits and flaws clearly and well to analyze, and who isn't excited about the chance of putting one's very own plans of assault and resistance to the ultimate test, must be playing something Go-like but certainly not Go.

(PS: I'm not intending to directly judge the tournament system by saying this, it's merely sort of how I feel about the game itself. Also, if you think you ARE playing Go and I'm out of my mind, I'll tolerate that too )

What I could never properly understand in this whole discussion is the notion that organizing a Closed European Championship (even at the cost of losing some top-players attendance at the Congress) automatically means that Europe does not welcome Asians or that there is some bias against strong Asian players. Neither does that mean that Europeans do not want to play strong Asians out of fear or greed or whatever.

Let me address a few issues here:

Point> Some European top players cannot afford to go both to the Congress and the Championship if they were separate.

Well, so what? I am pretty sure that most of the real top players already attend more than one international tournament a year, usually much more than one, and then can probably afford to go to another one if it looked attractive. In the worst case - they can skip some other tournament and still go to Both the EC's. And if they really can only possibly afford one tournament a year, well, tough. If they have no chance to place at the Championship, there is no reason for them to be there, and if they have a chance to place there - the money they can get can certainly help them attend more than one tournament.

Point> Lack of some of the top European players will scare off the strong Asian players and the won't attend the Congress.

I absolutely not buy that! For many reasons. One of them is the fact that most of the really top European players (Alex, Catalin, etc) the real contenders, would most likely find the time and resources to attend whichever tournament they wished. Same goes for most of the other top players, I would bet on that. Some second-rankers would probably skip the Championship, but so what? Even if they skip the Congress as well, I do not believe that those from the outside of the absolute elite are very attractive opponents for the strong Asians.

Point> The wish to have separate Championship means Europeans do not wish to play strong Asians.

I disagree. There should be a possibility to create a venue to have a closed tournament, and another to play strong outsiders. This is exactly how they handle it in Asia, and it works well it seems, so I absolutely cannot see any reason why Europeans should not be allowed to do the same. I don't understand why this should be taken as offensive by the Asians. I can however see why Asians trying to bully/blackmail the Europeans into not doing this can be seen offensive to the Europeans.

However, this is a loaded issue, and we need to tread softly here. We do derive a lot of benefit from the association with Asian Go communities and organizations, and unless we are ready to sever these ties, or at least some of them, we will always be open to such blackmail/bullying. It might be that we simply cannot afford to do that at this time, we have to dance to their tune. But then this should be clearly stated so that we know what the decision is REALLY about: they get upset when we do THAT and withdraw their support, and we cannot afford that, so don't matter what the morality of the situation they have us by the short-and-curlies. Same can be said about the point below.

Point> Organizing separate Championship send a message that Asians are not welcome.

It certainly does not! Asians themselves have many 'closed' tournaments, I am sure. It is very common to have both open and closed tournaments. I am not sure why the Asian take this stance, really. If they really do, or we just get their words filtered and then spun by people with Agendas. I would like to think that they are more reasonable than that. Or they try to bully/blackmail Europe into putting ALL available prize monies into the one event where the Asian can get it the easiest.

If this is the case, and it certainly looks like that sometimes, I am not sure if Europe should be just bowing down to that and bending over with a toothy smile. It is true that we learn a lot from the Asians, but if the relationship between these two cultures are ever going to be other than master/slave thing, Europeans need to learn to stand up for themselves even if that means getting shafted sometimes and incurring short-time losses. This is how you win respect, not by constantly bending over and taking it. Look at the history of the Go relationship between various Go countries in Asia. Even when one of them is clearly dominant, the others are not just subservient but fight for their rights.

Point> The main/only reasons strong Asians come to Congress is to play strong Europeans.

Well, this one I don't buy neither - or at least, not totally. Any other number of tournaments can be arranged to make this happen. I think it is 'nice' to the Asians to play all the European tops (and clobber them mostly) but my guess is that this is just the icing on the cake... Good price money to win, adventure of spending few weeks in a (for them) exotic country, maybe do some shopping for stuff which cannot be easily had where they came from, and oh... some cool games on top of that, perfect! Possibly in that order. If all the Asians want is to play strong opponents - they have more of that at home, much more, and better quality as well.

Point> Setting aside a portion of the prize monies for Europeans exclusively will scare off strong Asians.

Well, this might well be true. But it might be that not doing so will scare off some of the top Europeans. This comes back to the point from earlier - what is more important to us, cater to outsiders (bending over) or looking after our own (standing up for ourselves.) The two tasks do not have to be mutually exclusive - unless we put our whole efforts on the one side of the equation. Whichever side it is.

Point> This all somehow affect regular weak club players.

It does, to a degree, but I still am not convinced that this should somehow make it THEIR decision. And I am also not convinced that, in the long run, the benefits of this or that course of action are prevalent. In the short term, sure - if all of the above scares strong Asians and less of them will show up at Congress, weak Europeans have less top-level games to watch. I am not really sure if this is such a problem, though. There are plenty of top-level games available for admiration, and from my experience players usually concentrate more on their own games than on kibitzing. Also - for most of European players it makes absolutely no difference if the game they observe a game between Asian 7d and European 7d or between an European 7d and an European 6d. Both games are far above their level but still both have the same potential to be amusing or exciting.

In the long run? It is possible that investing more in European elite can produce better efforts than investing into pretty much bribing strong Asians to come and win top prizes. I suspect that whatever we do, there will always be contacts between Europe and Asia, there will always be games between top Europeans and strong Asians. The issue is one of deciding the most efficient way to invest the small amount of monies available for prizes, and it is not clear to me that one way should be so overwhelmingly better than the other. And there are certainly more than two possibilities.

PS>

Ideologically, both sides have logical arguments:
1) The more strong Asians we invite the better since this gives our top players the most opportunity to learn.
2) Top European players would like to have a more meaningful European Championship and possibly more access to prizes.

The groups which are the most affected by the choice we make are the European top players and the Asian top players. It seems these groups have opposite views. Question is - who do we listen to more, whose side should the EGF take in this dispute.

Sure, there are also all kinds of weak players taking part in the discussion, me included, but I consider us strictly minority players. We express our opinions, but I do not think we should have the decisive input into the decision.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Well, any bullying or blackmailing doesn't appear to just be coming from Asians, unless I am wrong about where Mr. Fairbairn is born.


Ahhhh..the many centuries of European slavery to Asians, while they were too scared to assert themselves. Let us all tremble in fear of our Asian masters.

_________________
Occupy Babel!