Life In 19x19

Magicwand wrote:Robert is famous?? for what??

E.g., for having become German Pairgo Champion a few weeks ago although that tournament had a record participation and I had never played pairgo before?:)

can he beat any strong korean amatures who are strong as professional?? not in a million years!
i am pretty sure they can give him 3 stones and win easily.

A risky guess since I win most 3 stone games against high dan professionals visiting Europe etc. (When in 2006 all (ca. 15?)professionals were running around 100+ boards, we played with a handicap reduced by 2, and my game's handicap was 1, I won after starting at 9-7, later killing a huge center group and none of the professionals could bring it to life again.)

cyclops wrote:I like your reactions even less.

Oh, you want examples as evidence? There are players needing (at least) 9 stones more against me than the rank or rating difference suggests. Like a certain 10 kyu whom I first in games with 10 min for him and 5 min for me thinking time sudden death and with dynamic handicap beat to 23 stones before he gave up the series of losses and then - since he could not believe - did alike in games with regular thinking time. Judging from rating probability, such is simply impossible but it does happen! (It also happens to dan players in lightning games: I beat some to 9 stones more than the rank difference suggests. Cho Chikun as insei was not the only victim, I think he lost equally badly against Inshida Yoshio.)

BTW, the trick of winning excessive handicap games is to always play them in series of dynamic handicap games. This dynamic nature attacks Black's psychology while White happily applies the just learned Black weaknesses and plays more and more aggressively and hamete-style game after game.

RobertJasiek wrote:A risky guess since I win most 3 stone games against high dan professionals visiting Europe etc. (When in 2006 all (ca. 15?)professionals were running around 100+ boards, we played with a handicap reduced by 2, and my game's handicap was 1, I won after starting at 9-7, later killing a huge center group and none of the professionals could bring it to life again.)

Do you call it Go, Robert? I saw that event. 100+ boards, 15+ pros playing on all (!) boards. With average 1-5 sec per move. This event was for fun only.

And all kind of simultaneous has no relation to real handicap. Even if you can beat someone in even game in simultaneous, we cannot say for sure that you can beat him on 4-5 handi, if you play 1-1 game for money.

I remember that Yurij Plyusch, Ukrainian 4-5d beat Muraoka 9p once in simultaneous (with no komi). It was not a miracle. Professionals have no reason to try hard and beat you.
It's the main reason why we have prizes in Insei League. Teachers can get them too, so they play better.

This thread is not about how strong robert is, but about who should be allowed to become the (closed) european champion.

Magicwand wrote:Robert is famous?? for what??
can he beat any strong korean amatures who are strong as professional?? not in a million years!
i am pretty sure they can give him 3 stones and win easily.
i have seen them playing for money against strongest player in my go club (jong moon lee) in NY with 2 stones.
professional didnt even think and beat him. later he said "if the money goes up 3 stones is correct handycap"
Professional's name is Jimmy Cha.
and now strong korean amatures are stronger than Jimmy Cha.
and Jong Moon Lee is probably stronger than Robert.

from this deduction..i conclude robert can not even handle 3 stones.

This may be cultural (are you Korean, in fact?), but I find your above comments to be very aggressive. In other words, what I read above, translated into concise English, is "he sucks." Perhaps not the most polite tone to have here...

kirkmc wrote:This may be cultural (are you Korean, in fact?), but I find your above comments to be very aggressive. In other words, what I read above, translated into concise English, is "he sucks." Perhaps not the most polite tone to have here...

you hit them right on the nail about my comment. tone i have is tone i have. i dont think i will change myself for you kirk.

way you repy to some other post is far from polite and you are trying to preach me? get real Kirk.

what is being koean got to do with this discussion???

Magicwand wrote:

kirkmc wrote:This may be cultural (are you Korean, in fact?), but I find your above comments to be very aggressive. In other words, what I read above, translated into concise English, is "he sucks." Perhaps not the most polite tone to have here...

you hit them right on the nail about my comment. tone i have is tone i have. i dont think i will change myself for you kirk.

way you repy to some other post is far from polite and you are trying to preach me? get real Kirk.

what is being koean got to do with this discussion???

It just clears up some of the things you said about Korean players. Nothing else intended.

I'm not trying to preach to you; but you're comment to Robert was at best aggressive, and perhaps was not called for.

Magicwand wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:I don't think limiting prize money to strong players is constructive. 90% of players will never be strong enough to win a tournament. It is good to have prize money for weaker players also, it motivates them to win their division, or do their best to score a significant result.

Recognition for good play is important also if you're not the strongest player in the world. I organize tournaments regularly, and we always have prizes for people with at least a 4/5 score. And it doesn't matter who these people are, whether they're a 10k that's been stuck there for years or a 1k that's improving rapidly, they are always happy and proud to be called to the front and receive their prize and applause.

if that is what you are after..do not use geograhpical restriction to accomplish that.
just make a 2-3 dan, 4-5 dan, 5-6 dan, and open rank. i am only 4d in kgs but every big tournament i enter in A league. i lost all but 1 game and i am happy to play and learn.

This is also commonly done in tournaments. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see why it is ok to divide players by gender, age, playing strength, etc, but not by region.

IMO, the best way to promote go is to create communities, to play together and work together. The EGC and European go in general are some of the greatest examples of international cooperation in go ever. To say that that is wrong, that it is wrong for people to want to share a common identity of "European", I can't understand.

I think it is good that you can strive to be the best player in your city, to strive to be the best in your state, in your country, on your continent, in the world. All such regions provide a common identity to a group of players, and give more players a chance to shine inside such a community. Why should we say "If you are not the best player in the world, you are weak". There are thousands of players out there who enjoy to hear "Wow, you are really strong!", even if they are only strong within the context of their club, city, state or country. It motivates people, why take that away?

if you are weak german 5dan then dont even try to win because you are probably 3 stone weaker than the strong players. just be happy that you had few games against the top ranked playes.

if you want your tournament to be successful you need some strong and famous player to participate. if you restrict them you are only hurting yourself and go community's growth.

I have organized plenty of successful tournaments that did not have any particularly strong or famous players. People showed up, they played, they talked, they had fun. The next year they came back and more people showed up because they heard it was fun. If that is not success, then I don't know what is.

Gentlemen,

Speaking as an admin, I ask that you remember the rules for posting in this forum. First among them is
Remember the Golden Rule: do to others what you would like to be done to you. Trolling, flaming, bashing, or otherwise verbally attacking anyone is not allowed. When writing about a move that a member made, ensure all criticism is directed towards the member's move rather than the member.

About half of the comments made in this thread in the last day or two seem to be in violation of this. I'm inclined to start deleting such posts or locking the thread if it continues.

JB

if you want your tournament to be successful you need some strong and famous player to participate. if you restrict them you are only hurting yourself and go community's growth.

I have organized plenty of successful tournaments that did not have any particularly strong or famous players. People showed up, they played, they talked, they had fun. The next year they came back and more people showed up because they heard it was fun. If that is not success, then I don't know what is.

Please continue to do so, but let us not sabotage the most successful event of them all.

(After the EGC the next most successful tournament is the Paris tournament over Easter. I think it is the second strongest European tournament. Maybe there is some correlation between attendance of the masses and strong Asian participation. Personally, if I am undecided as to whether to attend a tournament I will look at the preregistered list - if there are lots of strong players it is a positive sign. My money goes to those organisers who appear to be intent, by their actions, on attracting a large crowd).

Has anyone considered the importance of the dates in the year? Maybe this has an effect on their attendance?

topazg wrote:Has anyone considered the importance of the dates in the year? Maybe this has an effect on their attendance?

The EGC is always held in two weeks that contain July 31 and August 1.

Harleqin wrote:

topazg wrote:Has anyone considered the importance of the dates in the year? Maybe this has an effect on their attendance?

The EGC is always held in two weeks that contain July 31 and August 1.

According to the rules, it should, but in 2007 it was actually July 14-28 (due to venue availability).

I don't think the date will have any major impact on Korean attendance.

We had quite some cancellations from Japan in 2009, partly due to the swine flu epidemic, partly due to the financial crisis. There's always external factors outside your control, and you might not even realize what they are

BTW, AFAIK Kang Kyeong-nang was planning to play Tampere, so that would make three.

topazg wrote:Has anyone considered the importance of the dates in the year? Maybe this has an effect on their attendance?

Of course, some factors are outside the control of the organisers.

The question for me is should I attend the London Open - or should I go to the Dutch Wintergo ? They are, I believe, at the same time. I have heard that the latter offers the opportunity to play go in front of a log fire.

Read the description http://wintergo.octalo.com/?q=en/node/30 , look at the participants and tell me that it doesn't have the potential to put the London Open out of business - and the response from the BGA minutes to low turnout at the London Open is to look at the costs of the trophies ? I hope that privately they are examining other ideas also.

richardamullens wrote:Please continue to do so, but let us not sabotage the most successful event of them all.

I don't understand why this argument keeps popping up like a broken record.

The question of creating a separate Closed European Championship has very little, if anything, to do with the Congress. Other than maybe possibly potentially being organized concurrently. I think we have already decided that strong Asians come to the Congress for the prizes, so if the prizes are the same, their attendance will be the same. Where is the sabotage? You keep repeating that, Richard, but I really don't see it.

Bantari wrote:

richardamullens wrote:Please continue to do so, but let us not sabotage the most successful event of them all.

I don't understand why this argument keeps popping up like a broken record.

The question of creating a separate Closed European Championship has very little, if anything, to do with the Congress. Other than maybe possibly potentially being organized concurrently. I think we have already decided that strong Asians come to the Congress for the prizes, so if the prizes are the same, their attendance will be the same. Where is the sabotage? You keep repeating that, Richard, but I really don't see it.

Partly because the creation of a separate closed tournament to the congress has no momentum at the moment. Instead, the proposals seem to be adjusting the nature of the congress itself to try and be a genuine open at the same time as a closed tournament for Europeans...