Life In 19x19

It seems more likely to me that there will just be a sudden, inexplicable paradigm shift as Go becomes more popular (knock on wood) and the odds of American victory improve. Compared to TV and print advertising, the cost of sponsoring a cycling team, a sailboat, or a dude who plays a board game are really minuscule. However, whether the exposure that niche sponsorship brings justifies its costs from an accounting point of view is even murkier than standard advertising, so how good someone feels about the sport/cause/whatever is a major driver of the decision to become a sponsor.

jts wrote:It seems more likely to me that there will just be a sudden, inexplicable paradigm shift as Go becomes more popular (knock on wood) and the odds of American victory improve. Compared to TV and print advertising, the cost of sponsoring a cycling team, a sailboat, or a dude who plays a board game are really minuscule. However, whether the exposure that niche sponsorship brings justifies its costs from an accounting point of view is even murkier than standard advertising, so how good someone feels about the sport/cause/whatever is a major driver of the decision to become a sponsor.

I suspect the ramp in popularity will likely come from a dip in US-China relations, and we'll end up with something akin to the Bobby Fischer vs. the Russians phenomenon.

It wasn't just that Bobby was good, it was that it was the perfect time for a battle of the minds.

shapenaji wrote:It wasn't just that Bobby was good, it was that it was the perfect time for a battle of the minds.

I think one difference is that many people knew the rules of chess and could sort of follow along. With Go, that's unlikely to be the case.

This reminds me of Motorcycle Grand Prix. It is huge around Europe and other parts of the world, and an American won the championship. It still didn't break on any sports sites or news organizations.

jts wrote:However, whether the exposure that niche sponsorship brings justifies its costs from an accounting point of view is even murkier than standard advertising, so how good someone feels about the sport/cause/whatever is a major driver of the decision to become a sponsor.

The accounting question hits the nail on the head.

To look to a different "sport", consider professional Starcraft. For those not in the know, it's a "real-time strategy game", where players build and control units with the goal of stomping on your opponent's units.

The top Starcraft players create video streams to broadcast their daily practice and can draw several thousand viewers. They make money by selling ads on the stream and the rate seems to be something on the order of 0.2 cents per viewer per ad. It's typical to see 4000+ viewers for a top player, showing an average of four ads per hours. It yields $32/hour, which is more than competitive with working at McDonald's.

If the same rates held for go players (any reason they should be more valuable?) then it would take twice the size of the AGA tuning into a stream to pull down the same numbers. I think someone is going to need to come up with some really clever media options to make a buck that way. Not saying it can't be done, but it will take some real thought and effort.

pwaldron wrote:....
To me it feels like the next major advance in Western go is not going to be the creation of a pro system, it will be leveraging some form of media to generate a domestic income stream. I think that will be the big thing that these new pros will have to work on if they want to secure a livelihood for themselves.

I think that it is not one thing first then the second thing, pick either of the above for the things.

If it happens it will be a synergy of both co-creating each other. You can't get money without pros and pros can't support themselves without money. To get this to work you will need pioneer pros willing to support themselves and work towards creating a revenue stream (with lots of others help for sure.) But the money and the pros will have to start small and ramp up together. If anything, having the presence of a few pros should lead the money a bit up the ramp. I think you are right that the money will predominately come from corporate advertizing budgets. How to attract their attention in a fundamental issue. Having a pro system is a basic need to get their attention.

pwaldron wrote:They make money by selling ads on the stream and the rate seems to be something on the order of 0.2 cents per viewer per ad. It's typical to see 4000+ viewers for a top player, showing an average of four ads per hours. It yields $32/hour, which is more than competitive with working at McDonald's.

Actually its .02 cents per viewer or 2 cents per 100 viewers. They only play ads to supplement their pay. Where they make a living is from a combination of in stream billboard space for product ads and being on a sponsored competitive team. Usually only the players that are on a sponsored team can make a living off of being a pro starcraft player.

Was there just a single qualifier each from Maryland and Seattle? I know Zhaonian Chen was second in Maryland, but I don't know if that earns him a spot.

hyperpape wrote:Was there just a single qualifier each from Maryland and Seattle? I know Zhaonian Chen was second in Maryland, but I don't know if that earns him a spot.

The way I interpret this posting on usgo.org, the only players qualified so far are:

Calvin Sun (Cotsen)
Curtis Tang (Cotsen)
Edward Kim (Seattle)
Andy Liu (Maryland)

and that the only two slots left are for the online tournament, the registration for which has been extended to June 5th. (I guess this really has a big promotional aspect to it and it would look good if a lot of AGA players played in that one even if they are not the top players.)

But maybe I'm missing something. I'm only learning what's going on a piece at a time...

snorri wrote:

hyperpape wrote:Was there just a single qualifier each from Maryland and Seattle? I know Zhaonian Chen was second in Maryland, but I don't know if that earns him a spot.

The way I interpret this posting on usgo.org, the only players qualified so far are:

Calvin Sun (Cotsen)
Curtis Tang (Cotsen)
Edward Kim (Seattle)
Andy Liu (Maryland)

and that the only two slots left are for the online tournament, the registration for which has been extended to June 5th. (I guess this really has a big promotional aspect to it and it would look good if a lot of AGA players played in that one even if they are not the top players.)

But maybe I'm missing something. I'm only learning what's going on a piece at a time...

Edit: The link I gave above to the Tygem online tourament says this, which seems to contradict what was said earlier:

"The tournament will select seven finalists to compete from 7/28 to 8/4 in North Carolina, where sixteen players altogether will compete for two pro certifications."


I don't see where they get 16.

snorri wrote: "The tournament will select seven finalists to compete from 7/28 to 8/4 in North Carolina, where sixteen players altogether will compete for two pro certifications."


I don't see where they get 16.

I'm guessing similar to Ing qualifiers, the field will be filled out by highest rank and desire to participate.

Just a curiosity, but are they going to use the system they've used this year every year? Or will they switch to having a specified pro exam?

snorri wrote:I don't see where they get 16.

I believe the way it works is 2 players from the cotsen, 1 from seattle, 1 from maryland then 7 from the tygem online qualifier. That makes 11. The last 5 will be filled by seeded players. The seeded players will be top ranking AGA and CGA amateurs. Though I'm not 100% sure how they figure out who is seeded and I'm not sure who the seeded players are. I'm not even sure the players themselves know if they are seeded or not

RobertT wrote:

snorri wrote:I don't see where they get 16.

I believe the way it works is 2 players from the cotsen, 1 from seattle, 1 from maryland then 7 from the tygem online qualifier. That makes 11. The last 5 will be filled by seeded players. The seeded players will be top ranking AGA and CGA amateurs. Though I'm not 100% sure how they figure out who is seeded and I'm not sure who the seeded players are. I'm not even sure the players themselves know if they are seeded or not

Reading this gave me a headache. And it all just seems rather convoluted. Hopefully they'll switch to a round robin format next year.

If necessary, have a prelim tournament with the lower ranked members of the AGA and CGA, and simply have #x seeds to qualify automatically for the main tournament, and then allow the top #y seeds advance from the prelims.

The only problem I foresee with round robin is the amount of time that it would take, and that may be time people do not have. So if time is a detracting factor, maybe swiss. If swiss doesn't work either, double or single elimination might work. Actually, thinking on this further, maybe swiss really would be the better option. It would always pit the winners against each other until the end. And that way if people who have no chance of winning drop out, it wouldn't be as devastating or result altering. I say this with the thought process that players winning wouldn't normally drop out. Also swiss is generally a lot faster than round robin.

At the end of the day, it could be time consuming, but if you're attempting to become a professional, shouldn't it be?

Say you have 100 entrants for the tournament. Automatically seed the top 16 for the main tournament based on organization standing (Maybe 8 for AGA, 8 for CGA). And then allow 16 more to advance from the 84 in the prelims.

Then the main tournament could be single elimination with the top one or two becoming pros.

Just an idea though. And again, that is very time consuming, so maybe having the prelims take place on the internet over a period of time would be more time efficient.

And then you could have the main tournament of 32 take place at the annual Go congress.

32, 16, 8, 4, 2. You could complete the main tournament in 5 days with pool of 32 players in a single elimination tournament. Or if you wanted a pool of 64, it would last 10 days, or maybe a little more with a bye day here and there.

Obviously this is off topic, but this could work. The thought of having amateur events enabling folks to compete for pro qualification seems a bit odd to me, especially if the winners have no ambition to become pro. I have no idea if there is already a plan in place for next year, but this is just my thought process.

At the end of the day, I really know nothing about the inner workings of these things, and I don't pretend to, so feel free to ignore this as simple noise.

hailthorn011 wrote:Obviously this is off topic, but this could work. The thought of having amateur events enabling folks to compete for pro qualification seems a bit odd to me, especially if the winners have no ambition to become pro. I have no idea if there is already a plan in place for next year, but this is just my thought process.

I have a feeling much of it comes down to practicality. To try and organize several new events around the country and field a strong turnout would require quite a bit of time and effort, as well as maintaining some sort of organizational staff. It is much simpler to support existing tournaments that already draw well and have them double as a qualifier. This also removes the possibility that you might cannibalize regional tournaments (that is, if you organize an independent Northwest region qualifier, players may decide that have enough time and budget to do one tournament, so they choose either the qualifier or the Seattle's tournament...hurting the turnout for both events). This is perhaps similar to say, qualifying for the Boston Marathon. Instead of trying to do their own qualifiers, they accept times from other events in other areas (Philly, LA, etc).

Mef wrote:

hailthorn011 wrote:Obviously this is off topic, but this could work. The thought of having amateur events enabling folks to compete for pro qualification seems a bit odd to me, especially if the winners have no ambition to become pro. I have no idea if there is already a plan in place for next year, but this is just my thought process.

I have a feeling much of it comes down to practicality. To try and organize several new events around the country and field a strong turnout would require quite a bit of time and effort, as well as maintaining some sort of organizational staff. It is much simpler to support existing tournaments that already draw well and have them double as a qualifier. This also removes the possibility that you might cannibalize regional tournaments (that is, if you organize an independent Northwest region qualifier, players may decide that have enough time and budget to do one tournament, so they choose either the qualifier or the Seattle's tournament...hurting the turnout for both events). This is perhaps similar to say, qualifying for the Boston Marathon. Instead of trying to do their own qualifiers, they accept times from other events in other areas (Philly, LA, etc).

Well, going back over what I said, I highly doubt this would disrupt other events for 2 primary reasons.

1. The bulk of the tournament would be the prelims which would take place online.

2. If the primary tournament takes place at the US Go Congress (like this year), the players would already be there.