Future projects/goals of the AGA

[vash3g]

What would everyone like to see the AGA do over the next three to five years?

I do not know if the President or Board of Directors have a future plan of what they would like to happen. Maybe we can give them and all of us some ideas for what we would like to see.

[rubin427]

Before I give that question serious consideration, let me ask a question of my own.

What is considered essential reading to get a person up to speed on the AGA orginization, current goals, and so on?

I am going to take a shot at answering my own question and say most of the info posted here:

http://www.usgo.org/org/information.html

in particular national assembly minutes and annual reports?

[vash3g]

I think we'll assume there is no future plan at this point. But those minutes should be interesting reading anyways.

[pwaldron]

It might be useful to put out some general categories:

* Tournaments
* Web
* Ratings
* Membership
* Chapter Services

On the ratings front, I'll highlight a few goals that are on the "wouldn't-it-be-nice" list, which will get done assuming I stay and as I get time

* Web form for immediate calculation of provisional ratings for tournament submissions--this one is under active (but slow) development
* Evaluate whether to rate online games--right now the question is about championship level events played online. That one requires data entry.
* Evaluate other rating systems--everyone talks about whole-history ratings, but that system has issues of its own so it is something to look at very carefully. There are a few potentially interesting systems out there.

[HKA]

]

* Evaluate whether to rate online games--right now the question is about championship level events played online. That one requires data entry.
[/list]

Phil - I recognize that this is simply evaluating the question of whether to do it or not. I have no problem with the AGA sanctioning an "online rating" with regard to games that meet certain qualifications. However, I hope these games are NOT melded into the face to face tournament ratings. Putting aside issues of identity and cheating - which I regard as minimal - I really think online play is different, and some folks are clearly better at one versus the other. This effect is probably smallest among the very, very strong and the very very weak, but it is palpable in the middle.

As someone who runs a "major" tournament, I would also hope that this idea is not an effort to end run the minimum 10 rated games requirement. I know some of the strong players hate that rule, but whether folks agree with it or not, the only reason to have it is to support tournaments by giving strong players a reason to attend, or to organize them themselves.

[pwaldron]

Phil - I recognize that this is simply evaluating the question of whether to do it or not. I have no problem with the AGA sanctioning an "online rating" with regard to games that meet certain qualifications. However, I hope these games are NOT melded into the face to face tournament ratings. Putting aside issues of identity and cheating - which I regard as minimal - I really think online play is different, and some folks are clearly better at one versus the other. This effect is probably smallest among the very, very strong and the very very weak, but it is palpable in the middle.

At this stage the only question before me is whether there is a statistical difference between people playing online games vs. face-to-face. Further discussion can only begin once that question is answered. Annecdotally it appears that upsets happen more often than they should in online play, but it's tough be sure. Tournament reports from online events are necessary, and I have very few of those.

As someone who runs a "major" tournament, I would also hope that this idea is not an effort to end run the minimum 10 rated games requirement.

I would hope not either. One of the legacies of my tenure as tournament coordinator was language in the policy requiring that those 10 rated games be face-to-face. It would be a policy decision to allow online games to count, but it wouldn't be one that I would support.

[Redbeard]

* Evaluate whether to rate online games--right now the question is about championship level events played online. That one requires data entry.

As someone who runs a "major" tournament, I would also hope that this idea is not an effort to end run the minimum 10 rated games requirement. I know some of the strong players hate that rule, but whether folks agree with it or not, the only reason to have it is to support tournaments by giving strong players a reason to attend, or to organize them themselves.

I don't know about this. I don't play on-line much, so I may not be qualified to give an opinion, but I think that if the AGA is going to grow they need to embrace the on-line world. They should encourage Internet based chapters and allow those chapters to have AGA approved on-line ratings tournaments that count toward players AGA rank and qualify for AGA events. If you want the AGA to stay as a face-to-face exclusive organization you are limiting it's potential membership.

[HKA]

I don't know about this. I don't play on-line much, so I may not be qualified to give an opinion, but I think that if the AGA is going to grow they need to embrace the on-line world. They should encourage Internet based chapters and allow those chapters to have AGA approved on-line ratings tournaments that count toward players AGA rank and qualify for AGA events. If you want the AGA to stay as a face-to-face exclusive organization you are limiting it's potential membership.

Well you may be right in your conclusion, failure to completly embrace the online world will be limiting. But I still maintain that turning our backs on face to face go will completly marginalize the AGA.

I welcome an exploration of the value of an AGA "online rating" based on Chapter, whether online or landbased, or AGA sanctioned events. This could be a way of bringing folks in. Something akin to a postal rating in chess.

I am just totally against the ratings being merged with face to face offical tournament ratings.

[rubin427]

What would everyone like to see the AGA do over the next three to five years?

1) I'd like to see long term preparations begin, so that we are ready when the world mind sport games come to the USA.

[Redbeard]

I don't know about this. I don't play on-line much, so I may not be qualified to give an opinion, but I think that if the AGA is going to grow they need to embrace the on-line world. They should encourage Internet based chapters and allow those chapters to have AGA approved on-line ratings tournaments that count toward players AGA rank and qualify for AGA events. If you want the AGA to stay as a face-to-face exclusive organization you are limiting it's potential membership.

Well you may be right in your conclusion, failure to completly embrace the online world will be limiting. But I still maintain that turning our backs on face to face go will completly marginalize the AGA.

I welcome an exploration of the value of an AGA "online rating" based on Chapter, whether online or landbased, or AGA sanctioned events. This could be a way of bringing folks in. Something akin to a postal rating in chess.

I am just totally against the ratings being merged with face to face offical tournament ratings.

I don't see the harm with on-line ratings being merged with face to face results. It's true that on-line playing is different than face to face, but right now, some event qualifiers are played on-line and some are played face to face. Who gets the advantage in these games? In the case where an on-line rank is inflated, the player will still need to prove his worth in a face to face match at the US Open or other tournament. Please understand, I am not talking about merging KGS ratings with the AGA. I'm talking about holding specific ratings tournaments with AGA rules, hosted on-line.

[mdobbins]

[quote=".... Please understand, I am not talking about merging KGS ratings with the AGA. I'm talking about holding specific ratings tournaments with AGA rules, hosted on-line.[/quote]

Yes, I would object to KGS rating being merged, but we can setup conditions where online games are appropriate to be merged with face to face games for ratings. I even posted a proposal a year ago for a set of tools to manage an online tournament which would help satisfy those additional the requirments.

[John Fairbairn]

These are not projects or goals, except indirectly, but...

1. I was astonished to see a longish run of Hikaru no Go in English in one of the Barnes & Nobles at the main railway station in either Philadelphia or Washington (I think the latter) a couple of weeks back. Is this due to AGA efforts, or if not is it something the AGA can capitalise on? Assuming Washington, it may even be connected with the Obama go board gift.

2. I've heard a few non-Americans (not me - I'm a last-minuter) say they would like to visit the US Congress but that they find the very late announcements of dates and venues (not to mention frequent last-minute changes) make planning and getting cheap advance flights very awkward. There is a stark contrast with the European Congress where you can book a year in advance. Earlier decisions on dates and venues would probably also benefit Americans, I'd guess.

3. Would two congresses - one in the east and one int he west - instead of one attract a bigger attendance, on the principle of lower travelling costs? If held at the same time there could be some sort of electronic tie-up.

[gowan]

These are not projects or goals, except indirectly, but...

1. I was astonished to see a longish run of Hikaru no Go in English in one of the Barnes & Nobles at the main railway station in either Philadelphia or Washington (I think the latter) a couple of weeks back. Is this due to AGA efforts, or if not is it something the AGA can capitalise on? Assuming Washington, it may even be connected with the Obama go board gift.

2. I've heard a few non-Americans (not me - I'm a last-minuter) say they would like to visit the US Congress but that they find the very late announcements of dates and venues (not to mention frequent last-minute changes) make planning and getting cheap advance flights very awkward. There is a stark contrast with the European Congress where you can book a year in advance. Earlier decisions on dates and venues would probably also benefit Americans, I'd guess.

3. Would two congresses - one in the east and one int he west - instead of one attract a bigger attendance, on the principle of lower travelling costs? If held at the same time there could be some sort of electronic tie-up.

I don't see any insurmountable reason why it wouldn't be possible to plan Congresses two years in advance. That would solve some of the problems of people from overseas who need advance notice. The main difficulty seems to be getting people to commit to running the congress.

I don't think having East and West coast congresses at the same time is a good idea. One of the big attractions for congress attendees is the pro events and I doubt whether the oriental organizations would send twice as many pros. Also, the congress is the site of the US Open tournament. With two congresses would there have to be Eastern Open and Western Open and then a playoff to determine the US Open Champion? Years ago, before there were US Go Congresses the US Championship used to be done that way, tournaments in the East and the West and a playoff, but I don't think it would be popular now. In particular it seems likely that there would be different field strengths.

[oren]

I don't like splitting up the Congress either.

What about bringing back the something similar to the east and west Oza competitions? I know there is no more funding for it, but it would be nice to have large attractive weekend tournaments in the winter.

As far as making Congress possible to go to, I can't commit to going until later. If I want to participate, I will have to pay $425. That's a large number to make on top of travel, food, and lodging which I would probably get outside of Congress. I can understand encouraging early sign up, but this will probably make it unreasonable for me to go.

[ross]

I'd like to suggest a different set of "categories" that I think are more player-centric. As with any organization, the interesting question is, "How do I benefit from being a part of this organization?" Here's my list:

* How do I find people my level to play against?
* How do I find stronger players so I can improve?
* How can I measure my progress? (e.g. ratings and rankings)
* How can I help spread Go in my area?
* How can I participate in Go-related events? (e.g. tournaments and workshops)

I think AGA projects should be measured against these goals, ensuring that everything the organization does has a direct benefit to its members in these ways. That, I think, will help increase participation, and help increase the feeling of a solid direction that individual players can join and continue to build even stronger.