Life in 19x19. Go, Weiqi, Baduk... Thats the life.
https://www.lifein19x19.com/
)I know nothing about chess ranks. I don't even know anything about chess except for how the pieces move. But I am curious. What is the hierarchhy of ranks and what are the corresponsing numbers. You mentioned master (2200) and senior master (2400), but what else?ericf wrote:It think this has parallels in chess, where the claim is that anyone can be a master (2200 rating), with the proper training. (I think it was Capablanca who claimed that he could train anyone to be a master in a year -- which I've seen happen with several friends who had the time and money to do it. However, most club players never make it due to weak fundamentals and lack of time to study opening theory.) The climb to "senior master" (2400) is much harder and I think probably less than 20% of those who seriously try to make it succeed. Then, the climb to grandmaster winnows it even more as even extremely motivated senior masters rarely make it to grandmaster (or even international master).
(This is based on memory from discussions and I think an academic paper, but it was a few years ago so this might not be totally accurate
Check out http://senseis.xmp.net/?RankAndWhatYouKnowAbyssinica wrote:But perhaps there are common fundamentals that everyone needs to learn to get passed these barriers?
I wonder what they are
In chess it's mostly ratings -- except for international titles like international master IM and Grandmaster GM. Here's my quick, slightly tongue in cheek, surveyI know nothing about chess ranks. I don't even know anything about chess except for how the pieces move. But I am curious. What is the hierarchhy of ranks and what are the corresponsing numbers. You mentioned master (2200) and senior master (2400), but what else?
I'm very interested in the "extremely caustic" reasons. Can you PM me? Do you mean some people just lack the intelligence? Do you mean you need early exposure?often wrote:There's no typical rate of progress. Some people it makes sense, some people it doesn't. Some people pick it up faster, some people don't.So why is it that these tiers exist? What determines who can make it to the 4-6 dan tier or beyond? Why is it some people can't get past 1 dan or 3 dan? What's the typical rate of progress?
However, if you put work into it, you will progress.
but.
any time you can't get any further in Go, it is because of a "deficiency" in fundamentals. as a pro once told me "if the foundation is good, you can build as high as you want".
so why can't people get past 1d or 3d AGA? pretty much that. there are other reasons that can be extremely caustic that i will not mention here. but at the very base level, it is a lack of fundamentals.
BTW, i say 1d/3d AGA because that same bottle neck occurs at different ranks else where (KGS for example).
As for "What determines who can make it to the 4-6 dan tier or beyond?" It's just simply the amount of work and effort put in. Ask any 4-6d AGA how much work they put in to get there and compare it to a 1-3d AGA. you'll definitely see a difference.
Names and rating boundaries change depending on the association and what system they use for ratings. Generally for an association using ELO it will be something like this:DrStraw wrote:I know nothing about chess ranks. I don't even know anything about chess except for how the pieces move. But I am curious. What is the hierarchhy of ranks and what are the corresponsing numbers. You mentioned master (2200) and senior master (2400), but what else?
Perhaps this is a difference between American Go, in which the vast majority of the top players are of Asian origin (though quite a few born/raised in the USA), and Europe in which few of the top players are of Asian origin. If you take a look at, for example Pavol Lisy's rating graph at http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/Pl ... y=12686597 you will see him moving up through the ranks. At the 2009 EGC he was a fast improving "1d". A year before that an unremarkable 1k in the European Youth Championship (which was won by a then 4d Artem Kachanovskyj, and many other of the now 6-7d top young European players were then mid-dans like Ali Jabarin, Thomas Debarre, Dusan/Nikola Mitic, Mateusz Surma, Andrej Kravec etc etc). But even in the USA there are the occasional non-Asian rising top players like Ben Lockhart (though he studied in Asia).often wrote:This will be hard to demonstrate without extensive work. It's easier to see just from year to year at the Congress. Simply put, if you pay attention to the movement of people in their ranks from year to year, you realize where the tiers are.Can you elaborate on the evidence from Go Congress and distribution? How does one know which tier one is in?
First, the strong players room. Nobody there is ever anybody "new" that rose up through the ranks, other than the random asian kid.
Then, the 4-6d, You'll get some new comers occasionally, but most are a lock and have been there forever. Rarely will you ever see somebody new that is rising through the ranks. If they had a teacher it was when they were younger and had it for awhile. If they still have a teacher they're young.
Yes.Uberdude wrote:Perhaps this is a difference between American Go, in which the vast majority of the top players are of Asian origin (though quite a few born/raised in the USA), and Europe in which few of the top players are of Asian origin.
No.fishesandcats wrote:I'm just curious about people's perspectives about this. Do you think there is a limit on how strong you can get?
In my opinion (changes over time) THE limiting factor is enviroment. You don't have any Go schools here, most clubs don't have enough active players and/or stronger players to learn from. Second comes motivation.fishesandcats wrote:Obviously time is a factor.
No. Starting young does help, time-wise. But without the right enviroment or motivation it does not really change anything.fishesandcats wrote:Do you think there are factors like "talent," [...] that limit how strong you can get?
I don't believe in intrinsic limits. Not having a good learning enviroment will limit you. Not having sufficient motivation will limit you. Time will limit you eventually but until then it's only decided by how you spend your time.fishesandcats wrote:What's your personal limit [...]?
I've gone from 3d to 4d in the 4 years since joining! (I improved from beginner to 2d in my first 2 years, and from 2d to 3d in the next 4). Regarding my limit, I think I could get to EGF 6d if I worked harder and did more tsumego than I am prepared/able to do. In reality perhaps I will continue going up a dan grade every 4 years or so but even that could be over-optimistic as each step gets harder as you get stronger and my brain is probably getting dumber. I think I mentioned on that unfulfilled goals thread that I had a vague aim to be British Champion in the next 5 years which I think is still possible (particularly if the opposition is only Andrew Kay, a strong 4d, rather than someone stronger like Matthew Macfadyen, Vanessa Wong or Chong Han), but not this year as I am out of practice and am only the challenger because no one strong turned up.SoDesuNe wrote: OT: By writing in this forum, you already made the first step in the wrong direction. I'd be interested to know, whether any member in this forum made any real improvements reaching higher Dan-ranks while being active?
I strongly suspect that go ability is pretty specific to go, and that it mostly consists of the abilities to visualize sequences of stones, to remember patterns of stones and to execute go concepts well. Additional factors such as one's level of interest, determination and thoroughness as well as one's self-discipline, patience and composure also play a role. Whether these abilities coincide with other mental abilities (being good at math or languages or IQ tests for example) is guesswork unless someone has some statistics, but I have heard that whereas it is common in the West for go players to also have a talent for software engineering and other hard sciences, this is not necessarily the case in Asia. My point is, one can be quite intelligent as measured in other abilities, and nonetheless lack a talent for go.fishesandcats wrote: Can you elaborate on what constitutes "ability"? Is this a function of intelligence?
Certainly not all: I started playing Go whilst doing a Computer Science degree (though was introduced to it by a friend reading Theology) and that wasn't an interest of mine, I just found it a really fascinating game.Abyssinica wrote:I just think all the computer scientists try to learn Go because they have an interest in wanting to solve it or have machines beat stronger players.
There once was a famous intuitive mathematician called Ramanujan who was obviously extremely gifted for number theory, to the extent that he predicted certain results that could only be rigorously proven by the most ardent and talented (!) mathematicians after great effort. He was a savant.I don't believe in intrinsic limits. Not having a good learning enviroment will limit you. Not having sufficient motivation will limit you. Time will limit you eventually but until then it's only decided by how you spend your time.