Life In 19x19

Why should it be any different for go than for sports? If you want to compete in the European championships of a sport, you have to have a nationality of one of the countries that is considered part of Europe (though that list of countries seems to be a bit fluid depending on the sport).

That other sports "do not know" what Europe is does not imply that Go would have to be equally illiterate.

freegame wrote:This discussion is already going in the wrong direction. Let’s try again:

It made me think of this threat started by Harleqin.
Let’s try to use that approach and look at the problem/question and not go to the solution immediately.

Question: Who qualifies as European?
Answer: Depends on the definition of European.

Question: What is the definition of European?
Answer: a native or inhabitant of Europe. (just look in the dictionary)

Actually, this already raises a pretty important issue. Many of these Koreans are inhabitants of Europe - i.e. they live there without immediate plans on not doing so. They may not have lived there for long enough to warrant dual nationality etc, but by the definition you have given, they are European.

Therefore, either a) this is not a valid definition for the purposes of the EC, or b) it is valid, and we have less of a problem as many of the top players where there could be debate (Cho Seok-Bin, Hwang In-Seong, Fan Hui, Jai Dunfu, Guo Juan) can consider themselves European and are therefore eligible.

Of all the suggestions I'v seen, I seem to prefer the French approach from the original post: a minimum of two years of residence in a European country. I really don't understand the problem with that. To be honest, I'm baffled by all the debate that I see on this subject. Do people not want to have lots of high-level players taking part in the European go community?

The requirement for participation in a certain number of tournaments seems unfair -- why do we not require the same thing for existing European players?

topazg wrote:...Guo Juan...

Note that Guo Juan holds a Dutch passport, and is therefore eligible to be European Champion regardless (she was in fact European Champion four times, in 1994-1997, when she was still actively participating).

I think that an X year residency requirement is reasonable. Personally, I think 2 years is enough.

I don't like an "active in European Go" requirement much, because I think you should either apply something like that to all players or you should not apply it at all. And if you apply it to all players you suddenly exclude, for example, European players that decide to study in Asia for a few years.

HermanHiddema wrote:I think that an X year residency requirement is reasonable. Personally, I think 2 years is enough.

Why not nationality, as is the case in (I'm pretty sure) every professional sport.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how chess and bridge handle such things?

What is the advantage of preventing anyone from take part in EGC?

Personally I would not care at all about the europeans champion's nationality or place of residence or whether his name is Hans or Hong.

But the only question should be whether this rule of prohibiting the non-EGF people contributes to the european go or not? The answer may be not obvious but I think it does not contribute.

If you see it as a kind of art and you know that there are other people asia who are more developed in that art, you need a very good justification for preventing european players from learning from the high level competition.

entropi wrote:What is the advantage of preventing anyone from take part in EGC?

Personally I would not care at all about the europeans champion's nationality or place of residence or whether his name is Hans or Hong.

But the only question should be whether this rule of prohibiting the non-EGF people contributes to the european go or not? The answer may be not obvious but I think it does not contribute.

If you see it as a kind of art and you know that there are other people asia who are more developed in that art, you need a very good justification for preventing european players from learning from the high level competition.

I think it's just logical that if you're calling someone a "European Champion" then they must be European. Otherwise, change the denomination. (Again, look at any sport; you can't compete if you're not a citizen.)

tealeaf wrote:a minimum of two years of residence in a European country. I really don't understand the problem with that.

The problem is to convince the politicians. While I think that every value from at least 2 to 10 years makes some sense (with different intentions and 5 being my favourite), Jana Hricova (EGF vice-president) supports a strict passport holders only view. You need to convince the delegates!

entropi wrote:What is the advantage of preventing anyone from take part in EGC?

Nobody is trying to limit the participation to EGC (European Go Congress).

The discussion concerns EC (European Champion) and Open EC (Open European Champion) titles and the tournaments which are used to grant those titles.

kirkmc wrote:

HermanHiddema wrote:I think that an X year residency requirement is reasonable. Personally, I think 2 years is enough.

Why not nationality, as is the case in (I'm pretty sure) every professional sport.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how chess and bridge handle such things?

I think nationality is also a reasonable criterion. That is, indeed, the common practice in all professional sports (in fact, some sports require a residency period in addition to the nationality.

I don't think changing the definition of European should be very high on the agenda. Very little is gained by it.

RobertJasiek wrote:

tealeaf wrote:a minimum of two years of residence in a European country. I really don't understand the problem with that.

The problem is to convince the politicians. While I think that every value from at least 2 to 10 years makes some sense (with different intentions and 5 being my favourite), Jana Hricova (EGF vice-president) supports a strict passport holders only view. You need to convince the delegates!

Ah, well I think that the UK delegate(s) are taking a relatively reasonable line on this. Do you have any advice for which countries need a bit of lobbying? You might find a useful audience here.

entropi wrote:What is the advantage of preventing anyone from take part in EGC?

(Your question makes sense only if you mean European [Closed] Championship and "anyone else".)

- So that one can determine the currently tournament-strongest European.
- So that one can celebrate the European family level of international go community.

you need a very good justification for preventing european players from learning from the high level competition.

"Preventing"?:)

tealeaf wrote:Do you have any advice for which countries need a bit of lobbying?

Why? All, of course:)

Diabolic wrote:Nobody is trying to limit the participation to EGC (European Go Congress).

The discussion concerns EC (European Champion) and Open EC (Open European Champion) titles and the tournaments which are used to grant those titles.

I didn't mean Congress, I meant Championship.

RobertJasiek wrote:
(Your question makes sense only if you mean European [Closed] Championship and "anyone else".)

- So that one can determine the currently tournament-strongest European.
- So that one can celebrate the European family level of international go community.

You will anyway determine the strongest european player even if the first 10 places are occupied by koreans

About "celebrating", I am not sure I would prefer it to promoting the top-level competition. I may be the only one but I would not feel the pride of having a "champion" if I have doubts whther he is 2 stones weaker than an asian player living in europe but not allowed to participate in the championship because of his/her nationality.