Modern professionals. Underrated?

[Polama]

Absent any other evidence, we'd expect the best of a larger group to be better than the best of a smaller group (thanks normal distribution!). I'm not sure about the numbers, but I'm guessing the past has the upper hand, because we're talking about the best players of 2015 versus the best players of millenia.

If we take the best players of an arbitrary year, say 1650, I'd bet 2015 professionals would school them, again because there are more professionals (and people) today than in the past.

Probably the fairest competition would be a slow match. Give the ghost/zombie a couple years to adjust to modern go knowledge, and a couple years for the modern professional to adjust to day long matches.

I do suspect modern players have an upper hand in training, though. It's far simpler to obtain records and problems to study, and to obtain games from strong opponents. For every meijin era master discovered in a small town, how many had the potential but never saw strong enough opposition in their small social circle to reach great strengths?

[gowan]

The strong pros of today have had the benefit of all the ideas of the great players of the past. Those great players had to think of things on their own, without the benefit of modern resources. I vote for the historical great players, Shuei in particular.

I think it was Bill Spight who pointed out that the historical great players were pretty much flawless in the endgame. Modern players, especially with short time limits, often make endgame mistakes. I don't know who pointed this out, some Japanese pro player, that there is more complicated fighting in short time limit games, especially TV games, because the players can't read out the fights. I suspect that the modern style of chaotic fighting would not be successful in the old days with no time limits.

[shapenaji]

There's a lot that gets in the way of comparison.

The old games were filled with genius, but the time controls were also significantly longer. I think if you took Lee Sedol or Lee ChangHo in their prime and gave them 5x time, you'd see a similar/stronger calibre.

Champions are statistical outliers, the degree of their strength is largely based on the size of the player base. (It's also a major reason why women so rarely fill the champion spot. Lack of playing population).

The player base was smaller in the past, and while it's not impossible that the top players could go toe-to-toe after modern training. I think that on equal footing, the modern pros are probably favorites.

Pick a professional who is best in review sessions, that player would probably have crushed the long time controls of the past.

[tchan001]

Pick a professional who is best in review sessions, that player would probably have crushed the long time controls of the past.

Pick a stock commentator that gives the best reviews. Unfortunately it doesn't mean such a person can pick the best stock.
Likewise a good reviewer doesn't mean someone who can play the best moves while playing the game.
Such is the way of having the benefit of hindsight.

[Uberdude]

Transport them from the past, give them a year or two to assimilate modern go knowledge, and I'll bet that the 9 dans of yore could take White vs. most 9 dans of today.

When you say "most 9 dans of today" are you on purpose broadening the pool of modern players the OP mentioned like Lee Sedol, Lee Changho, Takemiya, Kobayashi etc to all those "weak" 9ps that no one has heard of because they never got to the top and won a big tournament (just randomly clicking through SL names) like Enda Hideki (actually I think he came to an EGC I attended so maybe I have heard of him) or Ishii Mamoru . Or Michael Redmond for that matter, though he is known for being American. Lee Sedol could take white or probably even give two stones or more against some no-name 65 year-old Japanese/Korean 9p). Yes there are 100s of 9ps now, but I understand the question to be about the top players in the world today (e.g. Lee Sedol, Park Junghwan, Shi Yue) or a few decades ago at their peak (Sakata, Kobayashi, Cho Hunhyun etc) versus top players of history (was Shusaku even called a 9d? I didn't think so...).

[DrStraw]

(was Shusaku even called a 9d? I didn't think so...).

No one was called 9dan except the Meijin until well after 1940.

[Bill Spight]

Transport them from the past, give them a year or two to assimilate modern go knowledge, and I'll bet that the 9 dans of yore could take White vs. most 9 dans of today.

When you say "most 9 dans of today" are you on purpose broadening the pool of modern players the OP mentioned like Lee Sedol, Lee Changho, Takemiya, Kobayashi etc to all those "weak" 9ps that no one has heard of because they never got to the top and won a big tournament (just randomly clicking through SL names) like Enda Hideki (actually I think he came to an EGC I attended so maybe I have heard of him) or Ishii Mamoru . Or Michael Redmond for that matter, though he is known for being American. Lee Sedol could take white or probably even give two stones or more against some no-name 65 year-old Japanese/Korean 9p). Yes there are 100s of 9ps now, but I understand the question to be about the top players in the world today (e.g. Lee Sedol, Park Junghwan, Shi Yue) or a few decades ago at their peak (Sakata, Kobayashi, Cho Hunhyun etc) versus top players of history (was Shusaku even called a 9d? I didn't think so...).

Well, I don't think that the original note was very specific. The thread is about modern professionals, not just the top players, and how they are rated. My point was that the 9 dan rating has been inflated. OTOH, I don't think that the pro shodan has been inflated. It may even have been deflated.

[gamesorry]

I come up with an analogy: Newton doesn't know various progress in math and physics (e.g. the theory of relativity) and might not be able to achieve a higher score than a math/physics student in college nowadays, but he is still a great physicist and mathematician (and regarded like a saint).

[Uberdude]

Well, I don't think that the original note was very specific. The thread is about modern professionals, not just the top players, and how they are rated. My point was that the 9 dan rating has been inflated. OTOH, I don't think that the pro shodan has been inflated. It may even have been deflated.

Ah, I think that's where our different interpretations come from. I read "underrated" in the thread title not to mean is their rating (9d) too low, but as in under appreciated for the level of their skill. (I don't think the OP is a native speaker).

[ez4u]

Well, I don't think that the original note was very specific. The thread is about modern professionals, not just the top players, and how they are rated. My point was that the 9 dan rating has been inflated. OTOH, I don't think that the pro shodan has been inflated. It may even have been deflated.

Ah, I think that's where our different interpretations come from. I read "underrated" in the thread title not to mean is their rating (9d) too low, but as in under appreciated for the level of their skill. (I don't think the OP is a native speaker).

Yes, I think Bill has taken the title of the thread rather than the content of the OP, which certainly was questioning the ability of top modern players to compete with the greats of the past.

[ez4u]

Cho Chikun published an essay "昔より現代が強い" (roughly: Compared to the past, modern [players] are strong). Although historical players were strong and worthy of study (Cho liked Shuwa's Go as a young student), they lacked sufficient high-level competition to push them to their limits. This idea of the smaller pool of players has already been mentioned by others in this thread. Cho wrote that this can be seen when studying their games, but I will have take his word on that.

[Bantari]

Transport them from the past, give them a year or two to assimilate modern go knowledge, and I'll bet that the 9 dans of yore could take White vs. most 9 dans of today.

Why? In the past the talent pool and knowledge spreading was significantly less. I would expect the current strongest players to be stronger than the legends of the past.

The larger size of the pool does not necessarily translates into a higher level of top performers. It might be that larger pool induced more top level players per generation, but can it account for the level of those few who rose to the top?

Remember, we are not talking here about the spread within a random sample of people, but about a highly selected and dedicated group.

What are the limiting factors for a top level player? Here is how I see it:

• Natural talent. Today it is probably easier for talent to be recognized, but there is no reason to believe that no top talen was ever recognized in the old days. So I would assume that the top players of the past were every bit as talented as the top players today. There might have been some talent that went unrecognized, but such is life.
• Human ability. I would assume this has not changed.
• Dedication and motivation. I would also assume this has not changed.
• Accessible knowledge. This has changed, so you might have a point. But this is why Bill stipulated to give the old-timers a year or two to catch up.
• Level of available competition. This too has changed. But this too might be balanced by a few years of catching up.

The only other factor I can see, all else being equal, is how early one started to seriously learn and train. This might make a difference, but it is hard to tell to what extent. Can one say that today's pros start playing substantially earlier than in the old days? Or, maybe better - can one see a correlation between how early one starts learning and what level one reaches among today's pros?

All in all, personally, I see no forcing reason to assume today's pros are substantially stronger than the past masters. Both groups raeched he abolute top of human abilities in the field, and since this ability probably did not change, the comparative level probably did not change neither. "Comparative" means taking into account and correcting for the difference in overall development of knowledge and general theory.

[Kirby]

The larger size of the pool does not necessarily translates into a higher level of top performers.

Actually, all other things being equal, I believe a larger size of pool translates into a higher level when you are talking about absolute numbers. To give a simple example of this, let's consider math ability. To be the best mathematician in my hometown might not be that hard - the population is small. But to be the best mathematician out of all of China is a different story. With so many people, there's a much greater chance that someone is better than you.

So generally speaking, if you are talking in absolute numbers (top 1 person, top 5 people, etc.), larger population translates to higher level.

Percentages are a different story. If you want to be in the top 10% of a distribution, it might be similar difficulty to be in the top 10% between populations of different sizes.

[gowan]

It has already been mentioned that Fujisawa Hideyuki had a high opinion of Shuei's go. Here's a quote from SL (and Go World):

"In Go World issue 24 (March-April 1981) Fujisawa Shuko stated that:

...[Shuei] was the strongest of the Meijins and Honinbos. There were many strong players, like Shusaku and Shusai, but I definitely think that he was stronger than those two.

and

He had superb positional judgement. There's nothing unnatural in the flow of his moves... I always have the feeling that I'd be no match for him... I'm far below his level, but I like his go. The brilliance of his play from the fuseki to the middle game is outstanding.

These appear to be Fujisawa's true feelings and not just modesty since after two more questions he also says that no Japanese player is currently a match for him and that his go is on a higher level than that of his potential challengers for the Kisei title."

In 1981 Fujisawa was in the middle of his domination of the Kisei title and could arguably have been the strongest player in the world, certainly in a class with the Korean Cho Hun Hyun and the strongest Chinese players at that time.

[Bantari]

The larger size of the pool does not necessarily translates into a higher level of top performers.

Actually, all other things being equal, I believe a larger size of pool translates into a higher level when you are talking about absolute numbers. To give a simple example of this, let's consider math ability. To be the best mathematician in my hometown might not be that hard - the population is small. But to be the best mathematician out of all of China is a different story. With so many people, there's a much greater chance that someone is better than you.

This only holds if the pool size is small enough to be the limited factor. I don't think this applies in this case. I think that the limiting factors are the ones I mentioned in my previous post - and I have explained why they do or do not matter in the present context.

____________________

Let me explain some more, if you are interested.

While you might be able to say what you just did, you cannot say, for example, that the best mathematician in your city today is better (in sense of talent, since knowledge grew independently, and we do not talk about that) than all the past mathematicians from your city, just because more kids go to school there. Just like you cannot say that there never was (or is) somebody in your city as talented as the most talented Chinese, in any field.

When you think about it, history is full of countrexamples to what you say... To give just a few:

- Albert Einstein was born in Ulm. Ulm is today bigger than when he was born. Do you think this translates that Ulm produced more and bether theoretical physicists since Einstein's birth?

- Has Vinci (in Florence, Italy) produced more and better geniuses than Leonardo DaVinci in the past few centuries since DaVinci's death? Has the whole Province of Florence? The population grew by many multiples. And so on...

Anyways... The pool size only translates into higher level of top performers if you assume that larger pool size affects including or not including the absolutely most talented people - because this is what we talk about, the tops of the tops. My assumption is that, over the years and even centuries, some of the most talented people simply must have made it into the pool of Go players.

In this sense, larger pool size only accounst for more of the top talents being included today (or less being missed), but not necessarily for the fact that the most talented players today are more talented than the most talented players in the past.

The only way what you say would be true is that throughout history the pool size was so small that *none* of the top talents learned Go, they were *all* missed because of the small pool size. If even *one* of the most talented people of the past became a Go player, your statement is wrong. For this reason I do not see how you can support such statement.

I hope my point is clear now.