Ranking...

[amnal]

Have you put effort into creating such a set of lessons? If not, I think that explains why there aren't any

I knew there was a reason I was having trouble finding airplanes, programming languages and cancer treatments!

The first is a tremendously profitable venture. For the second, programming languages may be created for many reasons, but one is indeed people deciding to make one. If you're one of very few people who think something is a good idea (as the OP appears to be), not doing it yourself is a good reason for your programming language to not exist. I'm not sure about the economics of cancer treatments, but I suspect massive profit is a current driving force.

I don't think massive profit is something we can realistically hope for in creating go lessons.

[hyperpape]

There are disanalogies, but the original poster asked for standards that stretch all the way up to high dan. Maybe quantumf could create some for lower kyus, though I think even there you'd want a truly strong player's input. But he definitely can't do dan grades, anymore than he can make better airplanes or cancer treatments* (I imagine several people on the board could design programming languages, though who knows if they could design truly good ones).

* Imagine my shock when it turns out that quantumf is the world's only aerospace engineering and cancer research polymath.

[quantumf]

I don't think massive profit is something we can realistically hope for in creating go lessons.

Really? Quite the converse. If they're done by me, or Guo Juan, then I agree with you. However, if the lessons are presented in the same way as martial arts are currently presented, i.e. with schools and accredited teachers, all belonging to a brand (e.g. Learn Go The Takemiya Way), then there absolutely is the opportunity for making money from the lessons. Admittedly its comparitively easy to progress at go without formal lessons, compared to Karate or Judo, but even so, I for one would have paid for lessons that took me from beginner to dan, especially if it was at that particular school I just imagined.

[BobC]

adding more..

The problem Go is not that there is too little material... it is that there is too much and a lot of conflicting advice about what is important.

A good teacher will structure their teaching by digesting material and presenting it in a logical, prioritised sequence. This is often built around a syllabus. How a teacher delivers on the syllabus is up to them. But at least there are clear short term goals that can be realised and tested.

The whole point of a syllabus is that it imposes order and structure and then efficiency on the learning process. Most syllabi's (pardon my greek) usually need testing at the end.

This things are not set in stone.. they should be reviewed to remove inefficiencies and to bring new ideas into the arena.

The learning curve for go currently... is out of hell...I spent three weeks thinking that exploiting "thickness" meant seeking out weaker players... this learning curve, I think, needs to be eased.

The application to higher Dans is a red herring I think. At that level perhaps an autonomous approach might be favoured.

Organisation of this really should fall under the remit of the IGF. I doubt this would work if it was done using goodwill. It would need resource - but there is clearly plenty of that knocking around in Korea, China and Japan.. a skilled diplomat could probably pull something off

[BobC]

I don't think massive profit is something we can realistically hope for in creating go lessons.

Really? Quite the converse. If they're done by me, or Guo Juan, then I agree with you. However, if the lessons are presented in the same way as martial arts are currently presented, i.e. with schools and accredited teachers, all belonging to a brand (e.g. Learn Go The Takemiya Way), then there absolutely is the opportunity for making money from the lessons. Admittedly its comparitively easy to progress at go without formal lessons, compared to Karate or Judo, but even so, I for one would have paid for lessons that took me from beginner to dan, especially if it was at that particular school I just imagined.

good points...

[amnal]

I don't think massive profit is something we can realistically hope for in creating go lessons.

Really? Quite the converse. If they're done by me, or Guo Juan, then I agree with you. However, if the lessons are presented in the same way as martial arts are currently presented, i.e. with schools and accredited teachers, all belonging to a brand (e.g. Learn Go The Takemiya Way), then there absolutely is the opportunity for making money from the lessons. Admittedly its comparitively easy to progress at go without formal lessons, compared to Karate or Judo, but even so, I for one would have paid for lessons that took me from beginner to dan, especially if it was at that particular school I just imagined.

I think that you are overoptimistic, but perhaps I am being over-pessimistic.

I accept that money can be made, but I stand by my belief that there is not scope for massive profit, for various reasons. For a start, as you say, formal teaching isn't necessary as it is in physical martial arts - results-based rank is itself an accreditation of skill, which anyone can gain in Go by playing online with the many free resources available (even if these paid-for lessons are themselves very good). You cannot practice karate online. Another problem is (I think) that Go is a more niche activity than the more popular martial arts - though that's less inherent and could potentially change, even if I don't think it will.

[Laman]

it is true that there is not much free available nor at all written syllabus, about what order of importance a player should study in. sounds like an interesting project to try

but once we talk about spending money, you can pay a teacher (and there are plenty of them available) and i am sure he will say you what to study, if you can't figure it out yourself

i feel that i still didn't really get what is so ground-breaking about this idea, sorry

[Marcus]

This conversation isn't all that clear to me ... what is the OP looking to formalize? There are a number of possibilities ...

- teaching structure ("This is the lesson plan from 30k to 10k, etc.")
- practical ranking structure ("My play displays aspects A to F, therefore I am 3k. My friend has aspects C-K down really well, but because he's missing A and B he's only ranked 5k.")
- theoretical ranking structure ("Through tournament play I have achieved a rank of 6k. However, I have obtained a certificate in Go Theory Grade 8.")

What gap in the Go experience are we attempting to fill? Why are we comparing Go to so many things that Go is not?

[BobC]

it is true that there is not much free available nor at all written syllabus, about what order of importance a player should study in. sounds like an interesting project to try

but once we talk about spending money, you can pay a teacher (and there are plenty of them available) and i am sure he will say you what to study, if you can't figure it out yourself

i feel that i still didn't really get what is so ground-breaking about this idea, sorry

It was not meant to be ground breaking... but.. look at this:

http://www.britishjudo.org.uk/technical ... llabus.pdf

at lower kyu levels in Go the learning is disorganised, confusing for the novice and presents little quality control. If a bunch of oiks in pyjamas can cobble together a logical syllabus.. then why can't the Go community

Look at this:

http://senseis.xmp.net/?RankWorldwideComparison

come on.. the internet has for the first time meant that players through the world can compete on a nightly basis. on Tygem I see 20000 players a night.. across Japan, Korea and China (and me from the UK). Unstructured learning of an intellectual activity seems very odd...

[Mef]

I think the real problem is that your original suggestion is inconsistent:

The question.. has there been any move by, for example the IGF to define global ranks.
...
In say, martial arts, your rank is usually determined by a combination of tournament performance and underlying knowledge e.g Kata. This latter feature seems to be missing in Go

Many have stated the practical problems related to "unifying" the global ranking systems (play between groups, different algorithms, tournament vs. casual vs. turn-based)...A rank for the amateur systems being discussed is not a measure of competency. It is not like a driver's license, a doctor's degree, or even a martial arts rank. It is not something one acquires through demonstration of skills. It is more like a batting average, a statistic based on your results in play. You can't have a standardized set of tests for a batting average ("If you can hit X number of balls in a batting cage") because that's not what is being measured.

If you wanted to have a series of tests to earn some sort of award, that could be fine...but it would also be a poor metric for tournaments (Just like how using only martial arts ranks is a poor metric for who will win in a fight). It's unlikely your new system would or could replace current rank systems.

[Mef]

It was not meant to be ground breaking... but.. look at this:

http://www.britishjudo.org.uk/technical ... llabus.pdf

at lower kyu levels in Go the learning is disorganised, confusing for the novice and presents little quality control. If a bunch of oiks in pyjamas can cobble together a logical syllabus.. then why can't the Go community

The comparison to Judo is poor because Judo is not meant to be a day-in/day-out direct competition event. It is meant to be the teaching of competencies. I would imagine several members of this forum could whip up a decent math syllabus in no time flat (actually, thinking about it now, we probably have some math teachers here who have already made some...). Advancing through their math syllabi though would not necessarily be a good indicator of how people may perform in direct head to head "Math competition" (however you may want to structure that). It's ok though because that's not the goal of most math or judo instruction (you don't plan on your judo class going out and fighting random strangers for hours every weekend). Go however isn't like that. It is a directly competitive event and the ranks measure results, not book knowledge. Likewise the ranks in go are useful insomuch as they predict the results of games, not predict who will know more obscure lines of joseki.

[BobC]

there is some merit in reading this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_ranks_and_ratings

differences do occur, exams do appear part of Dan ranking with some bodies.

It does seem that calculators/computers have "metricised" the whole process...

It is interesting that that document draws a distinction between rating and ranking....

[palapiku]

The real reason ranking and education for kyus are disorganized is that you're supposed to blaze through those ranks before you're a teenager, getting to dan ranks without much thought or study. Educating kyus is just not a concern anywhere where go is popular.

[BobC]

actually I disagree with you on Judo.. Most classes end up in "fights" (as practice for tournaments). They are short lived.. they can hurt.. and like tournaments, require an umpire.. Kyu grading is vital to safety amongst other things.

[BobC]

The real reason ranking and education for kyus are disorganized is that you're supposed to blaze through those ranks before you're a teenager, getting to dan ranks without much thought or study. Educating kyus is just not a concern anywhere where go is popular.

actually I have noticed this. My increasing number of Chinese collegues who I have found out play Go, look at me with some disdain when I hint that I'm at kyu level. The working assumption seems to be that Dan level is something you win in kindergarten