Very true. The top 5 in tennis and golf make a lot more money than the top 5 in ice skating and steeple chase.

In Japan in the mid-20th century the highest amateur rank (with a few exceptions) was 6 dan. The range of amateur 6 dan strength was wide, and definitely overlapped that of pros. Insei who did not become pros often became 5 dan amateurs.

Since then amateur ranks in Japan have inflated by a couple of stones, at least.

Edit: And as far as making a living at go is concerned, it was said that you needed to be at least 5 dan pro.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Just to make sure I understand it, because I tend to think of stones as strength and rank as "degree": you mean that for the same skill the declared level has increased a couple of steps?



I think I've read in a couple of places bits and bites that seem to imply that there IS a significant step between 4th and 5th dan. I think I did a chart some time ago with declared ranks of the Nihon Kiin, and there was a valley at 4th or 5th dan. It kinda felt that you were either good enough, and kept rising, or just not good enough, and you simply didn't reach that level. In fact, if you check the Kansai Kiin the rank with the lowest number of members is 5th dan. I mention that one because I can reach it fast[*]. And I think there were some tournaments that were for young AND below... 5th? dan. And this or that bit, that I can't seem to recall now, but the general feeling was indeed that there was a barrier [psychological?] at 5th dan.

Take care.

[*] I've mentioned before that I'm a bit of a Kansai fanboy. Only a bit, but...

_________________
一碁一会

Yes. You can see this reflected in some book titles. For instance, a book that originally was about becoming shodan is now about becoming 3 dan. But rank inflation has been going on for some time. In one of his books, written in the early in the 20th century, Segoe says that an amateur shodan takes 4 stones from a pro. And if you go back far enough in time, IIUC, an amateur shodan was of professional strength.



Interesting. It could be that the barrier is not so much psychological as cultural/economic. By a certain age, if you can't make a living at go, because you can't get students or open a go club or get books or articles published, you drop out. That could cause the gap, with 5 or 6 dan and above making a living and those below mostly being young pros who still have a chance.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Hi guys,

I put some research into this and here's my attempt at an answer.

As background, I've played chess since I was 7, just on and off, and I'm about a 1500 rating, and I've played go on and off (with some periods of heavy study) for the past 15-years, and I'm currently a 3k on OGS. So this topic has been of interest to me for a long time.

My intuition was that I've put more work into go than chess and therefore I'm stronger, and I think my research confirms that.

I looked at this from a couple different angles: first comparing OGS to chess.com, then comparing top pros in each, and then comparing OGS to USCF ratings.

My conclusion at the end.

Online servers: OGS compared to chess.com

Chess.com shows a small distribution next to your own rating:



It says the avg rating is 800

There's a distribution of the rankings on OGS (albeit unoficial): https://forums.online-go.com/t/unofficial-ogs-rank-histogram-2021/35705



Here the average rank is 9 kyu.

The problem with this comparison is that it's different populations. Chess is much more popular than go (about 800 million players compared to 40 million). And chess.com is way more popular than any go server. The population of chess.com is more "players who know how to play," where the population of OGS is closer to "players who actively play and study."

My own experience doesn't match this either. As a 10-year old, I knew the rules but not much else and I played around an 800 level at online chess, but it took me over a year of playing and some study to reach 9k in go.

Top player comparison

A better comparison would be to look at the progression of top players in each game and compare. The problem here is I couldn't find anything that showed the progression of top Asian go players, so I had to use EGF pros.

here's a great article on chess.com looking at the progression of several top GMs: [url]https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-grandmaster-hours
[/url]

Top GMs study about 4 hours/day, 5 days a week, for about 1,000 hours per year.

Here's my chart:



Here's the average of their progression:

Age Rating
7... 700
8... 1100
9... 1600
10... 1850
11... 2050
12... 2175
13... 2275
14... 2350
15... 2425
16... 2500
17... 2575
18... 2650

I then looked at several of the top EGF players and did my own analysis of their progression: https://drive.google.com/file/d/11oUpQrIRzYlEP90TEySb4XHonupCzLN9/view?usp=sharing

Average of their progression:
Age.... Go rank
6.... 20k
7.... 14k
8.... 16k
9.... 10k
10.... 5k
11.... 3k
12.... 1k
13.... 2d
14.... 2d
15.... 3d
16.... 4d
17.... 5d
18.... 5d
19.... 6d
20.... 6d
21.... 6d
22.... 6d
23.... 1p

Comparing the data yields this:
Age, Go Rank, Chess Rank

7	14k	700
8	16k	1100
9	10k	1600
10	5k	1850
11	3k	2050
12	1k	2175
13	2d	2275
14	2d	2350
15	3d	2425
16	4d	2500
17	5d	2575
18	5d	2650

Took the EGF players a little longer to reach pro than the GMs, but again, not an exact population match. The chess GMs above are top players, "super GMs," while the European Go players, no offense, are closer to average or below average Go professionals.

So I would say the chess ratings here are comparatively stronger than the go ratings for the same age.

Still, I think we're getting somewhere. Especiacially when you consider that "average" chess GMs reach GM level at about age 18: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/9891/what-is-the-average-age-to-become-a-grandmaster#:~:text=For%20players%20born%20after%201945,average%20is%2021%20years%20old

here's another good article discussing the GM progression in chess: https://coloradomasterchess.com/informant-ratings-and-expectations/

Magnus Carlsen Compared to Lee Sedol

When you look at two of the best ever at their game, in similar eras, I think it yields a good comparison. Problem is, I couldn't find data on Sedol below 1p.

But here's a summary:
Carlsen
- Age 14: Achieved GM (2500)
- 15: 2625
- 16: 2710
- 18: 2801
- 19: #1 rating in the world
- 23: World champion (probably could have been earlier)

Lee Sedol
- 12: 1p
- 15: 2p
- 17: 3p
- 20: 6p, LG Cup winner
- 20: 7p
- 20: 9p, won Fujitsu cup

Pretty similar arcs.

From this I think we can conclude 1p and GM (2500 rating) are pretty comparable, and it still takes many years for even the best to go from 1p/GM to world champion.

OGS compared to USCF ratings

Finally, I looked at a chart of rating distribution from the US Chess Federation: http://www.uschess.org/archive/ratings/ratedist.php

This data, to me, is the best comparison to the OGS data. I think the populations are closer: people who actively play and study. It also it lines up better with the conclusions from above and my own experience and intuition.

So, here's the final concise comparison I put together comparing OGS and USCF:

Percentile, Go rank, Chess rating

1%	35k	0
10%	25k	200
20%	20k	400
37%	15k	700
50%	12k	1000
60%	10k	1200
74%	7k	1450
82%	5k	1600
92%	2k	1800
96%	1d	2000
99%	3d	2200
100%	9d	2700

No perfect, but I think this is the best comparison I've seen.

Yes, I spent way too much time on this. No, I don't have anything better to do.

My attempt at comparing go ranks (EGF) with chess ratings (USCF)

EGF rank, USCF rating, USCF class

34k	500	H
27k	700	G
21k	900	F
15k	1100	E
10k	1300	D
6k	1500	C
2k	1700	B
1d	1900	A
3d	2100	expert
4d	2200	master

Note that (deep) DDK OGS ranks may be significantly softer than (deep) DDK EGF ranks, so my table may not contradict your table much in the (deep) DDK range.
Also see https://forums.online-go.com/t/go-ranks-vs-chess-ratings/41594/42

As for FIDE titles, I think:

EGF rank, FIDE rating, FIDE title

5d	2200	CM
6d	2300	FM
7d/1p	2400	IM
3p	2500	GM
9p	2700	super GM

Note that FIDE ratings seem to be a bit tougher than USCF ratings (like ~100 rating points).
Also see https://senseis.xmp.net/?FIDETitlesAndEGFGoRatings (table near the bottom of the page)

What is the purpose of these comparisons? If it is not only to find a reason to feel good about yourself then you should define the purpose first and proceed from there. When you just make "my attempt" or compare something arbitrary without a clear rational it is literally not supported by any evidence. It is contrived to to compare rank/age of EGF pros to the average rating/age of five arbitrary chess players, and it is especially contrived to compare EUROPEAN Go ratings with USA chess ratings. Unsimilar things can be compared meaningfully only if there is a clear rationale (and a method), for example you could compare apples and oranges by weight if this serves any purpose but not really by which is more fruit.

Consider the following statement:

X kyu Go player is higher in my table than a Y elo chess player.

What is this supposed to mean? Is it true only if enough people feel good about it or could you define precisely what this comparison means?

@Sharptack used 2 approaches, one by comparing level of mental abilities (using minimum age as an indicator), and one by comparing rank distribution in the communities.

I tried to compare merit/prestige (as percieved by the respective communities of each game).

None of these methods is very accurate ofcourse. Also, there are significant rating differences between different platforms and organisations, in chess and in go. And do we even agree on what defines a "beginner" in go or in chess? Much of this inherenty inaccurate, but I don't think that makes it impossible to make any comparison at all.

As to why one would want to make such comparisons, I would ask, why not? Some people are just curious about such matters, and they may not mind if comparison estimates are inaccurate and somewhat speculative.

If you're not interested in such comparisons, you are free to ignore it.

My apologies if I've written this before. My brain is mushy, right now.

I see an option. Find a KataGo/Leela Go network with strength equivalent to a certain human ELO. Train a chess robot with the same architecture. That's the equivalent rating.

It has its pitfalls, but it's relatively easy to quantify.

Take care.

_________________
一碁一会