Why no World Championship?

[Javaness2]

That might be more down to the fact that FIDE broke the world championship. Somebody like Botvinnik was not the strongest player in tournaments, but he still had a higher status in history due to his multiple titles. In the present moment, people point at numbers, but over time I do not believe that the number is regarded as the same achievement as a title.

[hyperpape]

I think Carlsen is definitely regarded as the strongest player, and this chess fans therefore expected that he would be able to challenge Anand. A few years ago, there were obstacles (I think he said he wouldn't participate in the candidates tournament), and it was widely regarded as a bad thing for chess--not a disaster, but not the way things should go.

I'd like a similar world championship for Go, but obviously there are functional sports such as tennis with no similar system.

[SmoothOper]

While the casual consumer of Go trivia may not appreciate them, I think there are substantial differences between the counting systems, timing systems and tournament formats, that just don't exist in Chess. IE you don't have ten games at eight hours apiece on one end and one game two hour sudden death matches on the other in Chess. It's more like saying let's see who the worlds fastest runner is.

[Bantari]

While the casual consumer of Go trivia may not appreciate them, I think there are substantial differences between the counting systems, timing systems and tournament formats, that just don't exist in Chess. IE you don't have ten games at eight hours apiece on one end and one game two hour sudden death matches on the other in Chess. It's more like saying let's see who the worlds fastest runner is.

Chess has its own extremes.
Considering that chess game is, on average, 30-40 moves long, these extremes are quite different from Go extremes.

For example - you don't really have 5-min-sudden-death in Go, do you?
At least - nobody sane does. In chess, this is not uncommon.

[emeraldemon]

I think the comparison to tennis is interesting, because tennis is probably the most popular single-player sport in the world. Maybe it makes sense to look to pro tennis as a model for international competition.

[SmoothOper]

While the casual consumer of Go trivia may not appreciate them, I think there are substantial differences between the counting systems, timing systems and tournament formats, that just don't exist in Chess. IE you don't have ten games at eight hours apiece on one end and one game two hour sudden death matches on the other in Chess. It's more like saying let's see who the worlds fastest runner is.

Chess has its own extremes.
Considering that chess game is, on average, 30-40 moves long, these extremes are quite different from Go extremes.

For example - you don't really have 5-min-sudden-death in Go, do you?
At least - nobody sane does. In chess, this is not uncommon.

That doesn't make sense, usually in 5 minute chess world championships, they play at least two or three games.

[paK0]

I think the comparison to tennis is interesting, because tennis is probably the most popular single-player sport in the world. Maybe it makes sense to look to pro tennis as a model for international competition.

Tennis is also a viewer-sport, Go is not and will likely never be.

But I'd definetely love to see some more international competition.

[oren]

Tennis is also a viewer-sport, Go is not and will likely never be.

It is absolutely a viewer-game. Newspapers, television companies, and various other sponsors are paying for rights and the prize money for players. Without viewers, that activity would be pointless.

[paK0]

I'm not saying it has no viewers, or that noone is interested in the title matches but rather that you don't have a lot of pure viewers (as in people who don't play but watch), which essentially limits the audience.

Also are these things really televised? I can't imagine people viewing up to 2x8 hours per game and titles have multiple of those.

I also recall that they broadcasted a title match over some streaming service a few months ago(don't remember which it was) and when I tuned in it had barely over thousand viewers, which is not a lot.

I might be wrong, would be nice if someone who is a little more connected with the asian world could provide some insight.

[gowan]

Watching a long-time-limit game on TV would have very little interest for viewers who know almost nothing about the game. I enjoy watching Japanese title games on a server when the game might take all day, though I don't usually watch for more than two or three hours. I like to think about where I would move next and, if the player is taking a long time to decide the next move, I like to think about what the issues are that require such a long time. People who don't know much about a game may enjoy watching it if there is a lot of action, which is not the case with go. Most of the televised games are fast games, such as the NHK tournament in Japan, which I have watched many times. The game is video-recorded in a studio and there is a commentator, usually a well-known pro, who does a "real time" commentary on the game which is also taped in the studio. The game is not broadcast as it is being played but rather a week or two later. Even with 10 minutes free thinking time and 30 second byo yomi, the game can last longer than the allotted TV time. In that case the showing of the game is edited and the announcer rapidly plays through as many as 20 or 30 moves to get to a point in the endgame where the last moves are shown with the commentary. I can't imagine a sponsor willing to pay for hours of TV time to broadcast one game. On the other hand the "production cost" is low for internet broadcast so that would be the way to do it.

P.S. Even players on an internet go server aren't "with it" when it comes to watching a long-time-limit game, as evidenced by observers' comments as to why the players are taking so long.

[oren]

Also are these things really televised? I can't imagine people viewing up to 2x8 hours per game and titles have multiple of those.

For the 2 day games you picked, NHK BS shows about 3 hours or so with commentary and at the nihon kiin and kansai kiin as well as the onsite location, they will gather an audience with pro commentary. For the the two day major tournaments, they've started airing the entire thing on Niconico with the onsite pro commentary mixed in.

The shorter tournaments have all been geared aimed directly at TV. In Japan, NHK and Ryusei have time limits made to fit in 90 min slots (much editing is done still) and in Korea, you can see many of their major tournaments live on Baduk TV either through baduk tv itself or gogameguru's baduk tv live streaming.

You have to look for "live:" here but it will give you some idea.
http://gogameguru.com/baduk-tv-guide/

I don't know as much about Chinese scene but Weiqi tv online has started up recently and looks interesting.

[Knotwilg]

In Tennis, you have the Masters as an unofficial world championship, but the tradition of the grand slam is superior. Becoming world n°1 without winning a grand slam is possible, but it hasn't happened often in the past.

There are a few sports where the world champion is decided in one event and I think it is a stupid idea. In cycling for example, the rainbow jersey does give some aura to the winner of last year's WC but still the winner of Tour de France is considered more of a n°1. There's a ranking system too and though not disregarded it is more of a numeric confirmation of a feeling that fans have about the sport.

Wherever you look, you'll find that tradition prevails. Even if there comes a big event for World Champion, with big prize money, fans will look at LG cup, Ing, Samsung ... And these companies will put their prize money at level, so the struggle continues.

[daal]

I don't know as much about Chinese scene but Weiqi tv online has started up recently and looks interesting.

Are you referring to www.weiqitv.com ?

[oren]

Are you referring to http://www.weiqitv.com ?

Yes

[happysocks]

The main problems is that unlike chess there isn't a precise international rating system that all countries follow for organizing tournaments. Back when the first two international events started in 1988 -- the Fujitsu Cup and Ing Cup -- the results were widely reported as "So-and-so has won the Go World Championship so can now be declared the World Champion." But as more international events popped up and more winners appeared this way of talking went away. There was a short time when we had world championships and champions, but the terms became vacuous and were put into disuse.

Other issues exist, but they again stem from the lack of a precise international rating system. For example, one problem is the sponsorship of the event. Some sponsors fill the field with the majority of their countrymen, making the results questionable. This way of inviting happens when there's a lack of international standards to objectively say who should and shouldn't be invited. Therefore, the organizers ultimately choose whoever they want.

A more interesting question is: Why has such a international rating system not been established? That gets into politics, nature of go and regional tensions.

Interesting, thanks for posting this. Was surprised to learn that the first two international tournaments happened only as recently as 1988. Maybe we'll see developments in international go evolve as more time passes.


The question who is the best is one that is good for sport and one that we've seen help boost their popularity in significant ways repeatedly (for example when the world takes note of some new charismatic or otherwise interesting hero who's recently risen to the top of their discipline or an old one showing us they can still find ways to stay there). A World Championship is a nice thing to have but a world ranking system is probably more useful. The example of tennis has already already served us well here. Chess provides us with a pretty good illustration of this for exactly the reasons already cited. Am sure many chess fans have considered Carlsen to be their world champ long before he took the actual title from Anand recently. That he did it so convincingly isn't remarkably surprising when we look at the two champions world rankings and tournament activity over the most recent years. With the top go players in the world being this evenly matched for strength as we are seeing today a world ranking would be a really cool thing for us to have.




Eddy "the cannibal" Merckx

525 Victories

5 Tour de France
5 Giro
1 Vuelta
3 World championships
1 Amateur world championship
7 Milan-San Remo
2 Tour of Flanders
3 Paris-Roubaix
5 Liège-Bastogne-Liège
2 Amstel Gold races
2 Tour of Lombardy
2 Het Volk
3 Ghent-Wevelgem
3 Flèche-Wallonne
1 Paris-Brussels