What would everyone like to see the AGA do over the next three to five years?

I do not know if the President or Board of Directors have a future plan of what they would like to happen. Maybe we can give them and all of us some ideas for what we would like to see.

_________________
Decisions are made by those who show up.
and possibly those willing to attend secret meetings in ancient basements

Before I give that question serious consideration, let me ask a question of my own.

What is considered essential reading to get a person up to speed on the AGA orginization, current goals, and so on?

I am going to take a shot at answering my own question and say most of the info posted here:

http://www.usgo.org/org/information.html

in particular national assembly minutes and annual reports?

I think we'll assume there is no future plan at this point. But those minutes should be interesting reading anyways.

_________________
Decisions are made by those who show up.
and possibly those willing to attend secret meetings in ancient basements

It might be useful to put out some general categories:

* Tournaments
* Web
* Ratings
* Membership
* Chapter Services

On the ratings front, I'll highlight a few goals that are on the "wouldn't-it-be-nice" list, which will get done assuming I stay and as I get time

* Web form for immediate calculation of provisional ratings for tournament submissions--this one is under active (but slow) development
* Evaluate whether to rate online games--right now the question is about championship level events played online. That one requires data entry.
* Evaluate other rating systems--everyone talks about whole-history ratings, but that system has issues of its own so it is something to look at very carefully. There are a few potentially interesting systems out there.

Phil - I recognize that this is simply evaluating the question of whether to do it or not. I have no problem with the AGA sanctioning an "online rating" with regard to games that meet certain qualifications. However, I hope these games are NOT melded into the face to face tournament ratings. Putting aside issues of identity and cheating - which I regard as minimal - I really think online play is different, and some folks are clearly better at one versus the other. This effect is probably smallest among the very, very strong and the very very weak, but it is palpable in the middle.

As someone who runs a "major" tournament, I would also hope that this idea is not an effort to end run the minimum 10 rated games requirement. I know some of the strong players hate that rule, but whether folks agree with it or not, the only reason to have it is to support tournaments by giving strong players a reason to attend, or to organize them themselves.

_________________
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle

At this stage the only question before me is whether there is a statistical difference between people playing online games vs. face-to-face. Further discussion can only begin once that question is answered. Annecdotally it appears that upsets happen more often than they should in online play, but it's tough be sure. Tournament reports from online events are necessary, and I have very few of those.



I would hope not either. One of the legacies of my tenure as tournament coordinator was language in the policy requiring that those 10 rated games be face-to-face. It would be a policy decision to allow online games to count, but it wouldn't be one that I would support.

I don't know about this. I don't play on-line much, so I may not be qualified to give an opinion, but I think that if the AGA is going to grow they need to embrace the on-line world. They should encourage Internet based chapters and allow those chapters to have AGA approved on-line ratings tournaments that count toward players AGA rank and qualify for AGA events. If you want the AGA to stay as a face-to-face exclusive organization you are limiting it's potential membership.

Well you may be right in your conclusion, failure to completly embrace the online world will be limiting. But I still maintain that turning our backs on face to face go will completly marginalize the AGA.

I welcome an exploration of the value of an AGA "online rating" based on Chapter, whether online or landbased, or AGA sanctioned events. This could be a way of bringing folks in. Something akin to a postal rating in chess.

I am just totally against the ratings being merged with face to face offical tournament ratings.

_________________
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle

1) I'd like to see long term preparations begin, so that we are ready when the world mind sport games come to the USA.

I don't see the harm with on-line ratings being merged with face to face results. It's true that on-line playing is different than face to face, but right now, some event qualifiers are played on-line and some are played face to face. Who gets the advantage in these games? In the case where an on-line rank is inflated, the player will still need to prove his worth in a face to face match at the US Open or other tournament. Please understand, I am not talking about merging KGS ratings with the AGA. I'm talking about holding specific ratings tournaments with AGA rules, hosted on-line.

[quote=".... Please understand, I am not talking about merging KGS ratings with the AGA. I'm talking about holding specific ratings tournaments with AGA rules, hosted on-line.[/quote]

Yes, I would object to KGS rating being merged, but we can setup conditions where online games are appropriate to be merged with face to face games for ratings. I even posted a proposal a year ago for a set of tools to manage an online tournament which would help satisfy those additional the requirments.

_________________
Michael Dobbins; Dragon: mdobbins, KGS: mgd, AGA#: 4253,
My Website

These are not projects or goals, except indirectly, but...

1. I was astonished to see a longish run of Hikaru no Go in English in one of the Barnes & Nobles at the main railway station in either Philadelphia or Washington (I think the latter) a couple of weeks back. Is this due to AGA efforts, or if not is it something the AGA can capitalise on? Assuming Washington, it may even be connected with the Obama go board gift.

2. I've heard a few non-Americans (not me - I'm a last-minuter) say they would like to visit the US Congress but that they find the very late announcements of dates and venues (not to mention frequent last-minute changes) make planning and getting cheap advance flights very awkward. There is a stark contrast with the European Congress where you can book a year in advance. Earlier decisions on dates and venues would probably also benefit Americans, I'd guess.

3. Would two congresses - one in the east and one int he west - instead of one attract a bigger attendance, on the principle of lower travelling costs? If held at the same time there could be some sort of electronic tie-up.

I don't see any insurmountable reason why it wouldn't be possible to plan Congresses two years in advance. That would solve some of the problems of people from overseas who need advance notice. The main difficulty seems to be getting people to commit to running the congress.

I don't think having East and West coast congresses at the same time is a good idea. One of the big attractions for congress attendees is the pro events and I doubt whether the oriental organizations would send twice as many pros. Also, the congress is the site of the US Open tournament. With two congresses would there have to be Eastern Open and Western Open and then a playoff to determine the US Open Champion? Years ago, before there were US Go Congresses the US Championship used to be done that way, tournaments in the East and the West and a playoff, but I don't think it would be popular now. In particular it seems likely that there would be different field strengths.

I don't like splitting up the Congress either.

What about bringing back the something similar to the east and west Oza competitions? I know there is no more funding for it, but it would be nice to have large attractive weekend tournaments in the winter.

As far as making Congress possible to go to, I can't commit to going until later. If I want to participate, I will have to pay $425. That's a large number to make on top of travel, food, and lodging which I would probably get outside of Congress. I can understand encouraging early sign up, but this will probably make it unreasonable for me to go.

I'd like to suggest a different set of "categories" that I think are more player-centric. As with any organization, the interesting question is, "How do I benefit from being a part of this organization?" Here's my list:

* How do I find people my level to play against?
* How do I find stronger players so I can improve?
* How can I measure my progress? (e.g. ratings and rankings)
* How can I help spread Go in my area?
* How can I participate in Go-related events? (e.g. tournaments and workshops)

I think AGA projects should be measured against these goals, ensuring that everything the organization does has a direct benefit to its members in these ways. That, I think, will help increase participation, and help increase the feeling of a solid direction that individual players can join and continue to build even stronger.

I posted this in the other AGA thread, but here it would actually be on topic, and I was curious what others thought of it.

A following post called me misinformed and untrue. I give great respect to that person, but I am disheartened that he doubts my authenticity. I'm deleting my suggestions so that others will not be skewed by what I wrote. Sorry for the inconvenience.

A few comments--

Ratings: the AGA system is an Elo system, just with more digits of precision than you're used to. The additional sigma parameter is a large improvement over Elo's original system, improving accuracy.

Membership fees: I think this is currently the bulk of AGA funding...

I agree about chapter services. When you register a chapter, they send you the same thing you get when you join individually; I would much rather have gotten a pamphlet explaining how to do administrative things and telling me who does what in the organization, so I would know what to do when I have a problem.

_________________
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com

Just had to comment on this one, both because it is totally misinformed, and completely untrue. The price of AGA Youth Membership is $10 a year, which actually doesn't even cover our costs for the services provided. The school in question would have had to register 50 players to reach $500. I know for a fact that no school in the US has ever registered anywhere near that many kids. The AGF does not require AGA membership for any of our services, and we provide free equipment to start clubs, and then sell additional equipment at cost. Both we and the AGA actively support youth clubs, and we neither require nor expect schools to join as chapters, or to register their members. Any school in the US that was able to raise funds would be able to double the value of those funds by using AGF Matching Funds, which would buy them $400 worth of equipment for only $200. Last year, we didn't even require AGA membership to participate in the school teams tourney, and in prior years, we gave free membership to any new members who wanted to join to participate in that tourney.

The adult membership, at $35, is also a great deal. Not only do members get free commented games every week in the EJ, but they can play in as many rated events as they want, anywhere in the country, and receive the annual Yearbook as well. All of this aside the POINT of AGA membership is to help spread Go in this country. Your annual dues help fund everything from the EJ to the Go Congress, the various tourneys, and also help support youth programs. To paraphrase John Kennedy: Ask not what the AGA can do for you, ask what you can do for the AGA.

I'm not sure if these have been mentioned, but here's a few suggestions in terms of what I'd like to dream about happening with the AGA/ Go in general. Let me preface this by saying, I know my ideas are a rough sketch, and I know I probably do not have all the information available to me. I plan to read through the minutes and various AGA documents at work to catch up, but until then, here are a few suggestions. At the very least, it might bring up an interesting discussion:

The first one is because I'm not entirely sure of how much is done between the AGA and other board games' organization. I would like to see if it's possible for the AGA to team up with a chess foundation, and have a dual tourney. You might not have the biggest turnout in comparison, but I think you will likely get more people interested in Go. Especially these people who might have heard about the game, but were not interested in trying it out. If the equipment is brought to them, they might be more likely to try things out. Of course, there's probably quite a bit of man power involved in this, but the Go community is friendly. I would assume many chess players might watch a few games, and even ask to be taught the basic rules. The rest should follow along.

The above can be applied to any type of game. Poker, Bridge, etc. There's really quite a group of players out there who would be interested in a game such a this. I'd say it wouldn't be a bad idea to try to organize a sort of combined effort.

The secondary benefit is that it would most likely be cheaper with a partner than without one.

---

Another suggestion is for the Go Congress. I do not know if it's a viable option at the moment, but I think adding consistency to the Go congress is a positive thing. If anyone knows of PAX(Penny Arcade Expo), then you will see where I am going with this:

Go congress should be at a fixed location. Sure you can have alternating coasts, but in the same sense, it should be a fixed location in these different coasts. Has this been discussed before? I was speaking to someone who told me there are no main coordinators of Go congresses. That type of position, if anyone is willing, would probably needed to be added in. I am thinking of something like one(two?) for the east coast, and one(two?) for the west coast. I would say that as many as is needed. I think a static congress in the long run is a lot better in terms of attendance factors, planning for the attendees, overall price, and the overall cost. It's a lot easier to plan one or two years ahead when you know the location will never change. I would also guess to say that the pricing would be cheaper for both the attendees, and the AGA. When there's a static location, the AGA can book early, and most likely have discounts open to you(the AGA) for booking every other year or so in advance.

As for what locations you can consider, I am not too sure about the pricing for various venues. Maybe AGA members who have researched it can offer concrete suggestions. For the West Coast location, I would say Portland/ Seattle/ somewhere in California. In terms of East Coast, around the Maryland area would be a good place. States like Delaware, Virginia, New Jersey, etc. I think overall, these are all close enough to famous destinations that people can plan a vacation around them for their families as well.

Overall, I believe it's a big change, and I'm not entirely sure if it's possible to do in the amount of time you are looking for, but I thought the idea is interesting to get out there. I think overall, it would be beneficial to look at this option. It is available, and I do not believe it would be harmful for the AGA to look at it.


Again, let me reiterate that I am just looking at this as a rough sketch, because I do not know about the numbers, or the immediate goals the AGA plans for Go congress. Mainly, I'm hoping that it will bring about a discussion, either here or in the AGA meetings about this idea.

-edit-

After reading the previous post, It seems I am not the only one who would like to see a change like the above for congress.(uglyboxer, oren, and John Fairbairn also mentioned something similar). Also considering the older posts, I should have taken some time out to clean this up. I hope it doesn't detract from people reading it, but if it does, I understand why.

_________________
I know nothing.