Although, I also agree with this

_________________
be immersed

Everyone can move to Canada and play in their tourneys? Maybe they dont have the same restrictions in the great white north.

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

I'm confused, are you suggesting (ironically) that Canadians have the same restrictions as the US? If so, how does that then support/detract from the argument that the US qualifying tournaments should accept all comers on the basis of having our representatives represent all American go players?

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

This may (or may not) be a nice ideal, but it's not wedded to reality. Reality is that somebody has to organise the event, by giving time, skill and probably money. The only way this can be done at the moment is by AGA volunteers. If they all agree on your ideal, then there's no problem. But all the indications are that they see themselves as part of a distinct community and want to organise things for like-minded people who appreciate what they do. That currently seems best served by keeping everyone under the AGA umbrella. If people want to call them small minded (even though that goes in the face of their magnanimity), ok - they are free to set up their own rival organisation. Any volunteers?

I don't think I implied that the qualifier should be free. It should certainly cost money, But the restrictions which require 10 rated AGA games and continuous AGA membership exclude those people who come from off the AGA track from competing and representing their country abroad.

There should be a path to representation abroad for non-AGA players, perhaps the tournament would cost more for them in order to offset the cost of travel. That path does not currently exist.

Everyone is not currently under the AGA umbrella, the hypothetical rival organizations that you speak of already exist. They're not national organizations, they're clubs located in Korean and Chinese American communities, and they have their own volunteers. I don't see why we have to undercut those cultural organizations by forcing them to come under the AGA umbrella in order to recognize them as American players.

EDIT: Furthermore, the right to attend an international tournament is one that is delegated by international organizations to the AGA, in good faith that the AGA is selecting the best player to attend from the least biased qualification system they can. If there WAS a rival organization which developed its own qualification system, what would stop them from putting that candidate forward directly to the international organizers?

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

I am happy to say that this would not work. The sponsors in the Far East will issue invitations to the national organisations which are members of the EGF and the IGF. In no way are they going to deal with a Korean club in LA and a Chinese club in San Francisco; they have to deal with the recognised national organisation, which has to establish criteria for its members on how they will qualify for the benefit.

This year, I went to the WAGC as the representative of the British Go Association. Unfortunately, it meant that I would miss one round of the qualifying tournaments for the British national championship and would have to re-qualify for the next year. The BGA contacted me to find out whether I would complain about the scheduling, because of the extra effort and cost that I would have to put in. I was amazed; I was getting a trip to China to represent my country, and they thought that I might have some complaints about minor, petty qualification rules! Get real! If you want to take part in events like tournaments in Japan. China and Korea, the qualification rules are a very minor irritant along the way.

Best wishes.

_________________
No aji, keshi, kifu or kikashi has been harmed in the compiling of this post.
http://www.gogod.co.uk

Well, first of all, it's really not just two clubs. They're scattered around the country, you'll likely only have heard of the LA one because of the Cotsen, and the San Francisco one because they're active in the AGA and Mingjiu is there.

Secondly, I didn't think my gedanken experiment would produce results. The purpose of the rhetorical question was to illustrate that the AGA has a natural monopoly on tournament seats.

Finally, those qualification rules aren't petty if the players are not part of the AGA system.

10 games a year and continuous membership forces strong players from those small clubs to participate regularly in an organization that they know very little about for a year solidly, in order to be able to represent their country abroad.

I'm sure many would feel that this is justified, that this serves as a useful carrot to get them to join the AGA. Personally, I feel that if they're willing to help defray the cost of the qualifier and travel, they're strong enough, and they're American, this should be enough.

I wouldn't call this "idealistic", I'd call it pragmatic: bring in more players and increase the level of our qualifiers, while defraying additional costs. Further, I would argue that creating that year buffer loses an opportunity to get them involved.

They're not going to say "Hey, some round-eye just told me about a qualifier, we can wait a year and play in next years tournament if we join the AGA and start going to their tournaments regularly".

We need to find ways for the AGA community and those cultural communities to overlap at events. If we had an open qualifying system, we could send out, for example, a qualifier announcement in the Korean/Chinese newspapers around the country, giving the price for AGA-members and non-AGA members. And then just see who shows up.

This takes advantage of the impulse-buying phenomenon. Get them to see something and have an opportunity, right away, to go after it. We shouldn't temper that with a year.

And then, when you hook them, then you can start feeding other things their way: Merchandise, Tournaments, Pro Lectures. That's the real cash-cow, Not the vanishingly small group of AGA memberships that won't lapse for a couple months as a result of these rules.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

Problem: the AGA wants people to be involved. It feels wrong to give out free tickets to international events to people who haven't been sufficiently involved, as many feel that they are freeloading on those who are.

I think these two rules (cont. membership and 10 rated games) are a terrible solution to this problem. I have a number of thoughts.

First, as a potential solution, why not just stop subsidizing international tickets at 100%? It's not like the AGA is rolling in money. This way no one will feel like the stronger players are mooching off the rest of us. (I think it's reasonable for the AGA to perhaps continue to subsidize youth trips, etc.)

Second, philosophically, I think the two rules in question are fundamentally backwards. The way to encourage participation is to make something people naturally want to participate it. I don't know how many people are members of the local Korean Go Center, but I do know very few of them are AGA members. They don't see the point to it. And when I tell them about various tournaments that might interest them--like the ING Masters--I feel obligated to mention that they need to meet these requirements. They ask why, as the rules make no sense to them. What do I say? It's quite hard to relate the whole story in limited English.

Third, practically, these rules are poor metrics for participation, which is really what the AGA wants to encourage. (well, membership is a valid requirement, but I do not think the AGA ought to be so draconian about it.)

If you want to make sure people are active, then reward that directly-- come up with a system that gives points for teaching, running a club, or organizing tournaments in addition to playing rated games. Or make it a requirement upon getting an international ticket-- winners must play some simuls on KGS for AGA dan members, or visit some AGA chapters and play teaching games, comment games for the e-journal, give lectures on KGS for AGA members, etc.

Requiring 10 rated games is just a bad way to accomplish this. Honestly, showing up at two or three tournaments per year is not much participation, so I don't even think the rule even accomplishes what it sets out to do, even when people follow it.

I think it's extremely important to lower the entry barrier as much as possible. At the local Go Center, there are at least 8 people 7d or stronger. How are these rules enticing them to join the AGA? They aren't. I think we should add the requirements after people are already hooked, not before.


I feel like posting something like this to the email discussion, so if you have feedback I would appreciate hearing it.

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

I'm not a member of the AGA, nor of any go association, so I'm looking at this from a distance. Nevertheless, I find it astounding that some people are suggesting that you don't need to be a (continuous) member to benefit from perqs that the AGA provides. Seriously, if you're representing the AGA - which is what I understand you are doing if you represent the US in international competitions, since the AGA is the recognized organization - how could you for even a second consider that you don't need to be a member, and prove that you've been a member for a certain time? (Ie, not take out membership just in time for whatever international event you want to go t.)

As for the game requirement, that seems quite minimal. Oh, pity the poor "pro" who has to play in a few tournaments rather than charge people to play games...

Crybabies, if you ask me...

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

I guess I just don't agree that the AGA should completely monopolize those tournament seats. I think they should open up the field, and, as Daniel pointed out, charge for some of the cost of running the tournament and travel. I think having an artificial restriction like: you need to play 10 games at OUR tournaments and be a member for a year is unnecessary. It not only strikes me as unfair, but silly from a price/prestige point as well.

I'm not really talking about pros who charge being forced to play games either, I'm talking about strong 7d+ players that hang out in their own smoky clubs playing games with the club's customers, who might swing by a qualifier if there was an easy way for them to get in. But who are unlikely to jump through a lot of hoops to do it.

Sure, they don't get any gold stars for attendance, but they're American and they deserve to be represented.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

Do they want to be represented? If so, they either join the AGA (because that's just the way things are), or they create their own, competing organization.

The AGA is paying expenses for these people, right? So why do they think they can benefit from that money if they're not "members in good standing?" Your words above are exactly the issue: you talk about "an easy way for them to get in." Why should there be "an easy way"?

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

Well, as has been made clear, a competing organization is not only difficult to put together, it also would never have the standing to get its own seats at the international tournaments. The IGF recognizes one organization.

Secondly, I said: Let them pay more for an entry fee. By "easy way", I meant one that wasn't full of red tape. Unless you think red tape is good for the game of go...

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

No, but I don't see it as red tape. I see it as a commitment to the organization that promotes the activity.

I don't see it as any different from sporting organizations (you can't enter a PGA tournament, I'm guessing, if you're not a member of the PGA, and it's probably the same for tennis or bowling), and those that cover "mind sports" (is it any different for chess or bridge?).

How hard it is? You fill out a form, pay a few bucks (it's not that expensive), then commit to playing games in tournaments. Ten games, that's, what, two tournaments? If you're not serious enough to do that, then IMHO you're not serious enough to represent your country.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

So where does being needlessly punitive factor into expanding the AGA?

Why can't their "commitment" be shown in the form of twice or even 3 times the entry fee to the tournament?

Why does it need to take the form of taking part in tournaments which are outside of their communities? They play tournaments IN their communities all the time, those games are simply not recognized by the AGA.

The AGA gains nothing by keeping out players, period. It doesn't create much incentive for people IN the AGA to keep their memberships current (I mean we're talking about a very select few, ratings-wise, the AGA is nowhere near as top-heavy as these cultural organizations),

You won't bring these strong players (and their associated clubs: as goes the il-gup, so goes the club) into the fold by ignoring them and creating hurdles for them in order to get to the meat of the organization.

AND you're not making life any more fun for the players IN AGA, by keeping fresh blood out.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

These rules don't promote the activity; they promote the activity within the organization.

What shapenaji is suggesting is more in line with promoting the activity itself.

Honestly, I think it promotes go in the organization too,

AGA membership is, what, $30/year? If they pay 40-60 per tournament, and they like playing in the tournaments, I don't think it'll be very long before they become members.

So how about this format:

Qualifying Tournament:

$20 with a year of continuous AGA membership and 10 rated games
$40 for all others

The AGA is going to end up shelling out the same amount of money that it would anyway, but now the additional players are just gravy.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

The discussion has already kind of moved on, but I'm curious... Why are you "happy to say" that it would not work? Are you saying that you're glad the AGA is the only way for people in America to get into the international tournaments being discussed?

_________________
be immersed

Why would any organization set up and sponsor a series of events for a group of people who want nothing to do with the organization, who complain that requiring membership is punitive, that participating in officially sponsored events is too burdensome, that the organization should cater to their needs, their schedules, their financial circumstances, and so on just for the sake of promoting what – themselves?

As Kirk has said, if these folks want to create their own organization, with their own rules, their own membership requirements, and their own financial backing... wonderful! They can then legitimately complain about their own organization's membership requirements and event participation rules.

Honestly, being a member of the AGA and playing 10 tournament games per year is a "hurdle" for these prima-donna strong players? if that's what it takes to promote the AGA and Go on this continent, count me out.

_________________
"This is a game that rewards patience and balance. You must think like a man of action and act like a man of thought."
-Jonas Skarssen

I find it rather strange that AGA qualification tournaments are not used like they are used in many European countries. Qualification tournaments for international events are excellent opportunities to make the strongest players to give something back to the community.

It appears that if some strong players play in a qualification tournament, that is not considered any kind of a contribution to the community. On the other hand, playing 10 games in any random tournament is considered giving something to the community. In my opinion, this gives me the impression that the qualification tournaments don't work like they should.

As an example, I don't understand how there are complaints that face-to-face go is not doing well in America and at the same time many qualification tournaments seem to be held online. If some existing face-to-face tournament would be declared a qualification tournament for some international event, I think at least that tournament would get a very nice boost in attendance. I am also rather certain that this would make many already hard-working tournament directors happier.

As shapenaji pointed out, other go playing demographics already exist. But the AGA has been given a very valuable resource: the ability to send people to participate in international tournaments.

I think that a big part of the debate is whether this valuable resource should be used to send a representative of the AGA or of America. Some would think that it would be more fair to allow for other American go playing groups that are not a part of the AGA to be given the opportunity to share in this gift that the AGA has received.

There is the side discussion that also happened of how I felt that the AGA was a relatively closed organization (and hard to change), and that this affected my opinion on the matter. But maybe that's not totally relevant.

_________________
be immersed