Cool, thanks.
I this case - it is certainly worth promoting!

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

They get a professional status from the Korean Organization and live/play there for at least a year. They've given foreigners professional certificates before, and they seem to be acknowledged by others.

I believe that the list of competitors for the qualifier is finalized now--they had to wait until the last qualifiers were finished.

At the moment (for the FY 2013 budget), the pros will not receive a stipend, but they will be able to play in Korean tournaments and fully recognized by the KBA, and there is some money set aside to help with their transportation and expenses while in Korea if they choose to train there after becoming pro (although they will need to pay for much of their own room and board).

Although there are not AGA-Pro tournaments or AGA-hosted international Pro tournaments set for the next year, that is in part because those tournaments would only be of little use with only two AGA-minted pros. As the system expands, things are set to change.

I'd be happy to answer any other questions to the best of my ability (I tried to touch on the major topics), as a person close to but not involved in the creation of our Pro System.

Lisa

What's the format of the qualifier tournament, and where do we check for updates as the event progresses? How do the groupies get their fix?

Will America award its own (pro) dan ranks, or will the players just have KBA ranks?

I share some of the frustrations concerning a lack of detail about what is going on. Please understand that this effort has been made on a compressed time fuse and has involved a lot of complexities,

The field for next week is set, all players have accepted and we have at least one alternate in case of a late drop. The field is very strong, and does justice to the hopes of the AGA for this effort.

These will be AGA Pros, not Korean Pros. This effort is supported by our wonderful sponsor, TYGEM, and is sanctioned and supported by Korean professional organizations. Currently, the AGA has no specific plans in regards to duties or compensation, but the hope is that we will create opportunities for teaching and demonstrations that will be member and sponsor supported and provide financial support. A system will need to be developed regarding rank promotion.

The players will be recognized as AGA Pros in Korea, and will have the opportunity to play in events there. Some travel money has been budgeted to support players taking advantage of this opportunity. Efforts with regard to other professional associations are ongoing, but it is premature to comment upon them.

There are ongoing efforts to attract sponsors for a US Pro event or events. Obviously, it would not be a two player event, and whether such events will include representatives from foreign go associations, American resident pros or amateurs will depend on sponsor wishes and generosity.

I must confess I was one of the most skeptical in the planning group for this effort, but so far, we have managed to reach the more optimistic range of my expectations. Personally, I am quite excited and hope we can start doing a better job of sharing the excitement with the go world at large as the event begins.

_________________
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle

That sounds very exciting, HKA. I'm irrationally pleased that everyone who qualified is competing. Thank you for the update.

Personally, I think the AGA should consider using uchikomi to determine handicaps and ranks where it is purely AGA players who concerned.

Please more details about the final tournaments. Such as: how many rounds in total? how many rounds per day and when? Thanks

http://www.usgo.org/aga-professional-system

Details? we dont need no stinkin details!

_________________
Decisions are made by those who show up.
and possibly those willing to attend secret meetings in ancient basements

Thanks vash3g. The link works well.

It is a suprise that they use double-elimination and apply 3 rounds of best-of-three. Very complicate schedule but questionable.

4 players are out after only two games?
One fortunated (or unfortunate?) winner has to play 13 games (worst case) to reach the finish line?

With limited players (16) and plenty of rounds (9 -11 rounds), the Swiss-system might be a better choice.

In addition, due to the nature of this tournament, few player wants to drop even if he plays bad at the beginning of the tournament.

two more points:

The first winner only plays with four players. That is kind of inadequate.
Two players might have to play with each other in six games. That is boring.

Erm. The only type of tournament that would, according to you, be neither "inadequate" nor "boring" is a round robin. But you just proposed they play swiss. Can't we just say that no tournament system is perfect and move on, rather than wrapping ourselves in antinomies?

Just because no system is perfect doesn't mean any fancy system can be applied in such an important tournament.

My post does not mean to criticize the AGA but rahter serves as a comment and suggestion for future tournaments. There will be future Pro-exam tournaments, right?

Talking about round-robin, it is by far the fairest system even though there are some disadvantages. The question is: is AGA ready for a 15-round tourny?

How about 12 candidates and a 11-round tourny?

I am not familiar with the Japanese system. According to Hikaro No GO, they use the round-robin. (Not a reliable reference, lol).
The Chinese system uses a 2-stage Swiss system, with plenty of rounds, like n+6.

I never heard a double elimination tournament described as "very complicated" or "fancy" before.

IMO I prefer double elimination to round robin since it avoids ties.

Actually, if there's one thing a knockout tournament is good at, it is producing a justifiable first place. In this case it's a knockout after a best of 3, I think it is reasonable to say that the first place player will have been sufficiently vetted (they will have either beaten everyone, or beaten someone who beat them). The same could be said about the winner of the loser's bracket as far as earning second place. Given that the ultimate goal of this tournament is to separate the top two players from the rest of the field, I would say the format is well suited.

Well said. We should also remember that only a handful of the sixteen players in the tournament have a realistic shot at winning. A player with a 7.0 rating may get into this tournament, but he isn't going to win. The number of players that actually have to be distinguished is few enough that the tournament format is entirely suitable.

Simple double-elimination is not a complicate or fancy system.

I mentioned 'fancy' because it applies three rounds of best-of-three matches in a total of 4-round tournament. That is very interesting because even most international championship tourneys only apply two rounds of best-of-three (or five) matches.

I mentioned 'inadequate' because the first winner only plays with four other players and the second winner only plays with five (or four) other players. They are not well exposed to many other players. This system equivalents to single elimination albeit the two winners have to defeat some of their opponents twice.

Again, I am not criticizing the AGA in this post. (that will be a new thread). It is just a technical disscussion on the format of this tournament.

I beg to differ. There are differences in their strength. However, they are supposed to be at the same level and treated equally in this tournament by organizers.

1. We should really have a sticky thread of arguments about the best tournament formats (or a senseis page, or a white paper summarizing scholarly research...).

2. In some sense, the fairest thing would be to give Andy a pro spot, without playing, and then fight it out for second. Not very sporting, though.

3. Like others point out, single/double elimination picks first and second really well. Any system has some probability of failing (that's probability and statistics for you) but it at least delivers a clear verdict.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

The problem with your argument is this: If you failed to play either of the final qualifiers in direct competition, that means there were at least two other competitors in the field you have lost to. If you have already lost to two other competitors in the field before challenging the two players who have (thus far) proved to be strongest, it is very hard to make a legitimate claim you were one of the top two competitors in the tournament. One could perhaps reasonably argue that there is not enough information to distinguish the "1st place" qualifier (winner of the winners bracket] from the "2nd place" qualifier (winner of the loser's bracket), because there is a chance the 1 loss could occur to an opponent not faced by the champion...but that's not really the goal of this tournament. This tournament is meant to divide 1&2 from 3-16...and that's what it does.