Life In 19x19

John Fairbairn wrote:...
No, there aren't. Unless you want to be silly and argue about how long is a piece of string. If you take the year 2000 as a benchmark, Japan had 31 events with time limits of 8, 5 or 4 hours ("event" means preliminaries in some cases as they sometimes had different limits).

They had 4 events of 1,2 or 3 hours. They had 10 events of 10 minutes or less. Common sense tells us that 3 hours or less should therefore be considered "short". Korea also more or less matched that sort of distribution at that time.

The current situation is that Korea has a maximum of 3 hours. But only three events open to men have this limit. This is not "many" and as we've just seen it's on the short side anyway. Eleven events have even shorter limits. Five of them (if three is "many", that's "very many") are Mickey Mouse 10 minute affairs or less. Even as (supposedly) prestigious an event as a world championship (the BC Card Cup) has only 1.5 hours. ...

When we are talking about games from 1.5 to 3 hours, I don't think that it's fair to say that they are necessarily riddled with mistakes due to the time. This amount of time could still be perceived to be quite long. Pros spend a lot of time training offline. It's not during the game that most of your learning comes from. It's from the training that you spend away from the tournament.

We cannot conclude, of course, that Japanese players are stronger just because they play more slowly. It's genuinely hard to say who is best. However, I am rather fond of relying on professional opinion. ...

I am skeptical that professionals have a unanimous opinion of who is stronger.

It is not just a question of less time to think in each game. As I have suggested above, the shorter time limits have brought with them a change of style that is best suited to shorter time limits. Japanese players especially can hardly be expected to change styles in the space of a single international event, and it would be catastrophic for their main domestic careers to change styles permanently. Also, there are now no events (none!) where Chinese and Korean players get to play the top Japanese at 4 hours or more. We have to conclude, therefore, that lack of Japanese success in international events, wounding though it is to national pride, is not really a fair measure of relative strengths.

I disagree.
Playing games in international tournaments is the only real measurement that we have of relative strength of players. How can we measure the relative strength of two players without having them play one another? The result of a game is the only thing that you can have. Until go is solved, anything else is just speculation.

To your point, let's assume that Japanese players get more practice having longer time limits, and don't practice as much with the same time limits used internationally, and also that (for the sake of argument) they have a low success rate at international events.

From this we can conclude that, under the time settings at international events, the result of the game is the best measurement we have to determine the relative strength of players. A player played, and he won. Why shouldn't he get credit for it?

We can make arguments saying that, "This pro didn't practice under those time settings, so his strength is not portrayed". Well, the game that was played was a display of that pro's strength under the given time settings. Maybe he can play better under different time settings. Maybe not. The only way we can know is if we put forth a match between the two players under the new time settings.

Let's say that I lose a game online. Let's say that, whenever I practice in real life, I use pink stones instead of black ones. I can say that my opponent had an advantage because he would have lost against me were we using pink stones.

The only way to validate this statement is to actually play a game with pink stones. The only data we have are the results of games.

You can ignore the real game data we have if you'd like, but that's not very objective, IMHO.

Kirby wrote:

TMark wrote:...Anyone who has been here for more than 5 minutes knows that you will respond to any perceived criticism of things Korean, usually with an over-reaction...

It is an over-reaction in your opinion. I have made the same arguments more than once. Anyone that's been here for more than 5 minutes can also tell that John's comments, for example, are never positive when talking about Korean go. From talking about their "Mickey Mouse time limits" to how "Batoo is not something they should be able to have credit for" to posts along the line of "Korean amateurs aren't as strong as they say they are", I have yet to see a really positive comment on the matter. *

So you may try to claim that I "over-react" to these types of posts, but I don't think it's fair to have only one side of the argument.

*If you'd really like for me to dig up examples, I'll take the time to do so, but I don't think that these topics are unfamiliar to you.

I hope I'm not misquoting, but my memory has John saying the top Korean professionals are stronger than the top Japanese.

As for posts on Korean amateurs: does this really look dismissive and horrible? viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1490&hilit=thoughts+amateurs

Kirby wrote:I am skeptical that professionals have a unanimous opinion of who is stronger.

We shouldn't look for unanimity.

hyperpape wrote:...

As for posts on Korean amateurs: does this really look dismissive and horrible? viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1490&hilit=thoughts+amateurs

Well, it does not seem like a positive data point.

hyperpape wrote:...

Kirby wrote:I am skeptical that professionals have a unanimous opinion of who is stronger.

We shouldn't look for unanimity.

If we use professional opinion as the basis of an argument, it seems natural that the opinion should be one held of professionals in general, and not a specific professional.

FWIW, and entirely anecdotally, I was playing a 4d I know well at my local club, and after the club, we went to the pub and were discussion the Go world generally. He's spent quite some time in China and Korea, including at clubs where professionals teach regularly. He was at one of these and the professional that ran the club (who he knew well, I forget his name, but I'd recognise it so I may have a look soon enough) introduced him to an amateur known as "Mr Han". Apparently he was an ex first class insei for 4-5 years, always in the top few, never quite in the top 2 to go professional. He's now winning a large number of their national amateur tournaments apparently, and the professional's opinion was that he was of "upper-middle professional strength". That's a sample size of one, but I bet he's not the only one.

Also from the same person, as someone who knew Benjamin Teuber, said that when he was training as an insei (European 6-dan at the time), some of the first class inseis routinely gave him 3 stones as competitive games. Assuming that they don't all become professional (the top para hints as it as a realistic possibility that more don't make it than those who do), I think it's safe to say that the top Korean amateurs will be very, very strong.

Kirby wrote:If we use professional opinion as the basis of an argument, it seems natural that the opinion should be one held of professionals in general, and not a specific professional.

Bait and switch. It's obvious that professionals won't be unanimous. But why think there isn't substantial agreement about who is strong?

hyperpape wrote:

Kirby wrote:If we use professional opinion as the basis of an argument, it seems natural that the opinion should be one held of professionals in general, and not a specific professional.

Bait and switch. It's obvious that professionals won't be unanimous. But why think there isn't substantial agreement about who is strong?

Because I haven't seen evidence of it.

In the argument given, we reference a 10-page commentary on a Japanese title match. This does not seem to lead to the conclusion that there is substantial agreement that Japanese pros are the strongest in the world.

I guess John will tell us what he meant, but I didn't think that paragraph was saying that Japanese professionals are stronger. At least it's not clearly saying that as far as I can see.

hyperpape wrote:I guess John will tell us what he meant, but I didn't think that paragraph was saying that Japanese professionals are stronger. At least it's not clearly saying that as far as I can see.

He doesn't say that directly:

We cannot conclude, of course, that Japanese players are stronger just because they play more slowly. It's genuinely hard to say who is best. However, I am rather fond of relying on professional opinion.

But the last sentence suggests that, while it is "genuinely hard to say who is best", professional opinion may provide some insight into the matter. The subsequent argument is the 10-page commentary bit.

Kirby: It's a shame that they evidently don't teach explications de texte in your educational system, but surely there's some equivalent that teaches you actually to read what is written? For example, I wrote only that the 10/5-minute events are Mickey Mouse events, and this applies in China and Japan, too. It's just that Korea has many of them and is leading the way generally in shortening time limits. Similarly, I used the 10-page commentary simply to highlight that the Chinese

respect

Japanese titlematch go. And just like here, I underlined it to make sure people like you didn't miss it. Waste of time!

You're actually quite insulting when you say I don't write positive things about Korean go. New In Go shoots you down straight away. There are several things there, but I'll mention just a few. One item (39) describes Korea leading the way in making go accessible to disabled people, and Item 53 (on Korea's "first world champion") actually begins "Today is not the first time Koreans have dominated world go." Item 17 describes Chinese assessment of the top international players (Korean). Item 51 is another piece on sunjang baduk, which I essentially introduced to the western audience. I'm not aware that you've produced anything at all, let alone anything positive, on Korean go for the western community.

All you do present are opinions. You're entitled to opinions, of course, but so am I, and if mine are different from yours it doesn't make me a bad person. You think short games are a good test of go playing strength. I think slower games are better. That seems like just a difference of opinion, but actually there's a bigger difference. I try to give data or background, you just huff and puff. I read the Oriental magazines. You just say "I haven't seen..." which implies you don't read them, and so you've missed the many comments by pros on who's strongest and what they think of time limits. I add my own take on these things, but at least it's informed by stuff I've seen.

Also, presenting comments that try to correct bias is not being anti. Saying top Korean amateurs are very, very strong is fine (and accurate). Leaping from there to imply (as some people do) that Korean ex-inseis are Masters of the Universe is a little de trop, and my mentioning that Chinese amateurs and Japanese amateurs are often likewise very, very strong, or that pros are usually even stronger, is not pro-Chinese, not pro-Japanese and not anti-Korean and not anti-amateur. Pointing out that there is no satisfactory measure of relative international strength (your argument that there is only one measure does not make that measure satisfactory) is not anti-Korean or pro-Japanese. It's called various things, such as balance, moderation, common sense.

All you do present are opinions. You're entitled to opinions, of course, but so am I, and if mine are different from yours it doesn't make me a bad person. You think short games are a good test of go playing strength. I think slower games are better. That seems like just a difference of opinion, but actually there's a bigger difference. I try to give data or background, you just huff and puff. I read the Oriental magazines. You just say "I haven't seen..." which implies you don't read them, and so you've missed the many comments by pros on who's strongest and what they think of time limits. I add my own take on these things, but at least it's informed by stuff I've seen.

Saying that "I haven't seen" does not imply that I do not read oriental go material, and in fact, I do. I have subscriptions to two monthly go magazines from Asia, and I read from them whenever I get them.

My "huff and puff" is likely due to the fact that I get frustrated when the information presented appears so one-sided. This doesn't mean that I'm not informed.

The only real time that I can remember making a post on what I had read, though, was when I announced Lee Sedol's break from go, and in that thread I was quickly shot down, if you recall, by someone who said that the post was old news (albeit an article I translated from an Asian newspaper, the same day that it was published). Since that time, I haven't written as much about what I've read.

You are, though, correct that we are entitled to different opinions.

You're actually quite insulting when you say I don't write positive things about Korean go. New In Go shoots you down straight away.

Well, I haven't read your personal website, but I don't recall having read anything like that here. I stand corrected.

Pointing out that there is no satisfactory measure of relative international strength (your argument that there is only one measure does not make that measure satisfactory) is not anti-Korean or pro-Japanese.

It doesn't seem to me that this is what you were pointing out. I also agree that there is no satisfactory measure of relative international strength. I would not be frustrated if I felt that this was what you were trying to point out, and I actually welcome this idea.

I do believe, however, that the data that we do have - actual games - is the best measure of relative strength that we have.

You think short games are a good test of go playing strength. I think slower games are better.

Yes, I think short games are a good test of go playing strength. I also think slower games are a good test of go playing strength.

But I think that games should be a factor in determining playing strength.

Also, presenting comments that try to correct bias is not being anti.

Then, I am not being anti.

---

Still, I think that you do have a point in that, rather than getting too upset or frustrated over what I perceive as biased, it would be more proactive of me to translate material on my own, and bring my own contributions to the table (though, I'm sure you'll still be able to bait me in the future by using "Mickey Mouse" in your posts).

This is not to say that I'm not still frustrated. It's just true that it would be a more positive contribution to make my own posts about news that I read.

Point taken on that account.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B Mini-Mouse opening
$$ ---------------------------------------
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 5 . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . |
$$ | . . . 2 . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------------------------[/go]