The two aren't comparable. I would think it was perfectly fair if rebuilding the ratings involved a timescale on the order of ten tournament games (about 20 hours). In reality it took an order of magnitude more work--closer to two hundred hours.

Sarcasm yes, 6 months, no.

However.

Online organizers will tell you that you cannot schedule more than two games a day - so this will take a whole weekend. And how many events do we get invited to that we have to hold qualifiers? A truly inclusive field as suggested might require one weekend for the pre qualifier, and two weekends for the qualifier. Again, that is per event. Plus the AGA already supports the multi weekend Strong Players Online Tournament.

It adds up.

Well, one would have to do a complete listing of pros to make my point hold generally, but take Feng Yun as one example. She lives in New Jersey, and thus has her pick of the New Jersey, Hoboken and Maryland Open within close distance.

The last Maryland Open featured: Jie Lie, Eric Lui, Yuan Zhou, Daniel Chou, Gus Price and Ricky Zhao. The past two editions of the New Jersey tournaments have featured Andy Liu and Zhaonian Chen, among others. If she shouldn't play those players, she shouldn't play in the US period, and ipso facto should not represent the US.* She'd be more likely to play a mismatched game at the NAMT under the old system.

That's even excluding the point that the NAIMT and US Open are potential sources of games.

*To be crystal clear, I have not heard Feng Yun say that these tournaments lacked competition, nor am I aware of anyone who has said these players would be unworthy opponents. I'm just pointing out a consequence of the opposing position.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Well, for one, ten tournament games is not merely the sum of the time controls of those games. It's either 2 2-day tournaments, or 3-4 1-day tournaments (assuming people play some as half of a two-day). Include transit and somewhere on the order of about 40 hours. Still, much less than you put into your work, but sizable. 2-day tournaments also often require you to stay in the city. They're also non-negotiable hours. Whereas the 200 you put in could be built on your schedule.

But I think my point has very little to do with the magnitude of time spent.

How would you feel if you were forced to take on volunteering duties in the AGA based on your unique qualifications? If you had had a right to play in a tournament for a long time, and then that right was held subject to what you would do for the AGA, I suspect you'd feel frustrated.

Again, I don't feel that this structure offered incentives to players in good standing. It took away traditional privileges from players who were considered (from the number of games they played) to be in bad standing (Though they may have offered other services to the AGA, which is at the heart of Daniel's suggestion).

What's so terrible about what I suggested earlier? Change the tournament entry-fee structure to encourage good standing. Don't exclude players or force them to come to tournaments that they don't want to/can't go to.

Furthermore:
Many people go to 1-2 tournaments a year. From what I've heard, Oregon, for example, holds 2 tournaments a year. Some places in the midwest hold fewer than that, if at all. If I miss one of those 2 tournaments, owing to my job, my girlfriend, etc... I cannot play in a qualifier. There need to be other ways to get good standing. (Daniel's suggestion is good for this)

And even then, excluding people based on standing is not exactly pragmatic. Qualifiers are the hardest tournaments, it makes sense that they'd attract more players than the smaller tournaments during the rest of the year. Why is this so offensive? Why not take advantage of the larger # of players to do outreach, sell memberships, and sell merchandise? Qualifiers are an excellent marketing tool, and a great way to bring money and interest to the AGA and its partner organizations.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

Do you mean someone forced anyone to represent the American? Well, if someone forced him to take on volunteering duties, he can just say he doesn't want to be volunteer anymore. Same here in this case, If they feel forced, which is actually not, they could just say 'Don't care to represent American'. Apparently the one who represented did not feel being forced.

_________________
长考出臭棋.

The Maryland region is blessed with a number of players. And more tournaments per year then you'll find anywhere else. (I don't think anywhere else is even close)

The NAIMT and the US Open both require congress registration/lodging/travel, which is on the order of 700-1000 dollars. Not small.

Furthermore, New Jersey to Maryland is a 3.5 hour drive, which would need to be embarked upon at 6 in the morning to arrive for registration. It would then require a 3.5 hour trip back the next day and hotel expenses.

If you don't live in the MD, DC, VA area, these tournaments are not always easy to reach.

EDIT: In general, Pros and other strong attend the tournaments they can, which offer them the best games. The Maryland region is not representative of the kind of tournaments they would need to attend.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

Can you restate? I'm confused as to what you're saying.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

I call crap. If a strong player or pro wants to get his rated games in, he can hold a ratings tournament at his house one day. How long do you think it would take Feng Yun to accumulate her 10 games if she really wanted to? She runs a *go school*. Rated games are there if she wants them.



Nobody is being 'forced' to volunteer--it's the price you pay for a chance to compete for all-expenses paid trip to Asia--that's the entry fee to the qualifier. The prize is significant--you get airfare, accomodation and you get *paid* a game fee. Can't find the time to put in a few hours? Well then obviously you wouldn't have time to go to Asia either.



Then organize a tournament. All of a sudden you've got an incentive to find those local players. I did a little calculation when I was tournament coordinator and looked up how close AGA members were to each other. *Every* AGA member in the US lives with 100 miles of another *AGA member*. At worst you have to drive an hour to meet halfway one weekend and play at the local McDonald's.

I don't intend to carry on with this discussion. The interesting arguments have been made, mostly by others, and the board has made up its mind. Given their past history I expect that this decision will be changed again in a few months, and the arguments will continue.

More than the airfare, all-expense paid trip, etc., if I were strong enough, I would care about the *opportunity* to play in such a tournament. Maybe the current policy provides a lot of benefits, but even if it didn't, it controls who has access to this opportunity.

I suppose it could be argued that 10 games is a small price to pay for receiving such an opportunity, but I guess I just feel that it's debatable whether there should be a price to begin with (i.e. If you are good enough to win the qualifying tournament, and if you're an American citizen/permanent resident, why shouldn't you be able to represent America?).

_________________
be immersed

Phil, I'm not exactly sure where you started getting pissed off here. But my replies to you were civil...

Did you read the earlier part of the thread? My primary reason for arguing against this is the impact on recruitment. And you seem to have nothing to say on the point that qualifiers are a great way to reach out to the communities.

Is Feng Yun really the reason why this rule should be in place? I wasn't aware that the AGA board was in the habit of singling out the few pros in this country for not attending enough. (again, xed_over said that this is not why the rule was in place)

You're talking about the cost of the trip, which is EXACTLY why I suggested that you raise the price of entry to players who are not in good standing. They stand to gain something from winning, and they have not contributed what the other players have. So their costs should increase. That's very different from excluding them from play entirely.

As far as your suggestions about "just how easy it is to meet this requirement", I call bs. This is a poor way to encourage people to join in the community. "Oh, sure you can play in our qualifiers, if you do A), B), and C) and then sign form ZZ9ZZZalpha"

There's no advantage to these rules. All I've heard from you guys is how "They don't deserve to play" or various comments about how lazy they are.

Gee, does anything foster community loyalty like bureaucracy, name-calling, and isolationism?

These rules create bad blood with pro's, exclude communities that don't have strong ties to the AGA, and seem largely designed with revenge in mind.

The fact that you seem to get so angry about these rules only seems to confirm that last part.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

I chose Feng Yun as an example in part because unlike Mingjiu, she rarely meets the 10 game criterion.

But several professionals live in California, which is not quite as blessed as Maryland, but still holds many noteworthy tournaments.

You're right that the congress is expensive, and time-consuming. Yet look at the attendance, especially among professionals. You can't even qualify for the WAGC without attending Congress, yet none of the folks protesting this rule have mentioned it, nor has there been any outcry that I'm aware of.

I frankly think that it's a bit silly to say "you might have to leave the house at six." Yes. You might. I was as much of a night owl as just about anyone until I had a child last year, but I never would've said it was unreasonable to get up at 5:00 to try for a chance to represent my country.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I did not speak up during the AGA chapters debate, because I did not feel that it was my place, as someone who has only ever participated in AGA matters as a club member and competitor, never as an organizer or volunteer.

Nonetheless, I was saddened by the tenor of the discussion. The initial discussion here on L19 was to emphasize the ways in which the rule might disadvantage specific people who were geographically isolated, or children who don't have real control over their parents' willingness to take them to tournaments. Those are all reasonable concerns, and basically motivated by sympathy for someone who might be disadvantaged.

On the AGA chapters list, I felt as if there was a surprising number of comments that seemed to have the attitude "why would anyone ever want to compete?" as if it was just misguided to ask that players try to participate in AGA tournaments. Obviously there are people who opposed the policy without that sort of indifference (Barchilon is the example that leaps to mind). I'm not saying this to argue that we had to keep the policy, I'm more concerned about the attitude itself.

I'm not sure if it's a pro vs. amateur thing, but I feel the pull of John F's comments a lot more having seen the discussion play out.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I haven't carefully followed the thread since about page 6, so I hope this isn't rehashing old news, but one thing I wonder about: some tournaments do double duty as qualifiers and open tournaments. The US Open is truly open, but only some players gain credit towards the WAGC. Similarly, the old Toyota Denso Oza was an open tournament--at least once the champion (Jie Li?) was not eligible to represent the US. The Korean Prime Minister's Cup may also work this way, but I'm not sure.

Maybe there's a reason it's unworkable, but perhaps distinguishing between participating in a tournament and qualifying for international competition could help with some worries about participation.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Feng Yun also has kids and a go school? The go school meets on weekends: http://www.fengyungoschool.com/

And still, pros are not really the primary ones impacted here. I'll go out on a limb and say it might encourage Feng Yun to attend more (though for the above reasons, I suspect her time is limited), but I don't think that justifies losing qualifiers as a place to have communities overlap.

Leaving your house at 6 is fine, not being able to return until 9 pm the next day? when you work on weekends and have kids to take care of? harder.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

Admittedly, I just skimmed this thread, but if your main point is regarding recruitment, it would seem to me that the argument you're trying to make is that there is a community of very strong players who would be joining the AGA, however are refusing to do so because there is one specific rule about getting a paid trip to Asia if you don't demonstrate significant interest a year or two in advance. Is this the point you're aiming for? It seems to me like anyone seriously considering getting involved in the AGA community would already be well on their way toward meeting these requirements before even learning about these rules. Instead what seems more likely is that there was a small group of people who were active at one point, had other priorities take over in their lives, and are now unhappy with being excluded from an opportunity they had once looked forward to. Without making any judgment as to that second possibility, I would say the effect on new recruitment from it would be minimal...but what do I know...

It's not that they're refusing to do so because of any one reason. They simply do not have many connections to the AGA. And if a qualifier can be advertised in a local newspaper and in Korean communities (which really requires it to be available for all-comers, through some route or other)

We're not talking about people who were once AGA members. A few of them have swung by American clubs, but most of them know little to nothing about it, (as a result, they are always surprised when dan-level "round-eyes" can come in and give them a good game).

I see qualifiers as an excellent bridge between the communities. It can be used as a big flashy neon sign that says "Look what we've got". And the very same prejudices that occasionally lead them to underestimate non-asian players could bring them out in large numbers to try to get a piece of the pot.

If you advertise the price of the prize (say $2000 worth of travel costs + game fee) and then advertise the AGA member in good standing and non-AGA member rates, I think you'll accomplish 3 things.

1) They'll come out in droves to try to prove that they're the best
2) You'll recoup more of the prize pool owing to the higher rates.
3) You'll start to build connections

3) is huge. It took me a long time to find the Korean clubs in VA, it was only word of mouth that got me there. And the connections were very few. Most people had no idea there was one.

To be honest, we don't know where a lot of these clubs ARE. Usually they're in back rooms, they don't advertise, have no internet presence, and the one way we can reach them is through the Korean media in this country.

We don't know how much recruitment is there...

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

I understand that there are communities like this (and as someone who was involved with a go club at a university with a very large international community I know how sometimes they can be secluded / secretive), however is that what the primary aim of these awards are? I don't think anyone is suggesting we shouldn't be reaching out to these communities, however I'm not sure the intent of these trips is for someone who has otherwise been uninvolved with the AGA to suddenly get a trip overseas. Surely these events can be used as a means to promote the AGA, but if all it takes is winning one tournament then it doesn't seem to promote the idea of joining and contributing to the AGA community.

Well, My understanding is that the primary reason that the AGA receives invitations to international tournaments (along with other go-playing nations) is because the "Big 3", would like to see go spread around the world. They know that they stand to gain if more people play.

The intent is to select a representative candidate from each nation to show the level of go in each country.

Now, the AGA's intent is to encourage participation within the AGA. And I believe that reaching out to the communities accomplishes that too. It's a longer term benefit, imo, to tie together all the go playing communities in America. "All united under tengen" as it were

But even if this is not the AGA's long-term goal, they stand to gain more in the short term by including these populations as well. More players, more and more expensive entry fees, the same number of prizes, and possibly, in future, more members in good standing.

Having an open qualifying system is thus a good decision for the AGA.

This may not be the original intent of the prizes, but it works.. multi-purpose moves are a good thing, as any go player knows.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

This discussion has become a bit disjointed.

This rule is not, and certainly should not, be about Feng Yun. The AGA would be foolish to base its policies on one person. The ten game rule is either good for everyone, good for amatuers with pros exempted, or bad for everyone.

Personally I am in the middle camp. If we made a Venn diagram, I suspect the largest circle would be pros should not have to play the ten games. I am unclear on how large the other two circles would be.

As for amatuers, we play this game because we love it. So I find it really strange to see folks suggesting that playing in some tournaments is a punishment.

Perhaps, though I think the requirement a modest one, the rule is premature. Maybe the AGA needs to come up with other ways to make tournaments more attractive, and holding them easier. With more events, and more participation, the "burden" of meeting the requirement is less, and might be more workable.

Phil Waldron took flack for enforcing these rules, and the Board did little to defend him, now when they feel the heat, they fold. I think this is Phil's frustration, and I share it. It is particularly irritating that this change comes without any real plan to address the issue of declining tournament attendance. No matter how minimal you might feel the impact of this rule was for tournaments, the Board removes it with nothing in its place.

There is lots of argument that the Board is wishy washy, or that the Board does not have plans but simply caves to pressure. This is not true. There are many plans to improve member satisfaction as well as to increase tournaments, AGA membership, and AGA benefits. These things take time to accomplish, but the Board and the Administrative volunteers in the AGA all realize that this is extremely important, and will be proposing the necessary initiatives in the coming months.

Note how much debate and upset has been created about one issue. While there are many polarized around this issue, this is not new. There was never unanimous agreement about this rule, and it has been continuously debated since it's enforcement was proposed.

The Board's decision on this rule reflects a change in personnel and a change in orientation. Remember that this is a volunteer organization; that it has been less than a month since this crisis erupted; that it takes time to make the plans necessary to properly move forwards; and that most of the key volunteers in the AGA are not only on the Board or only running certain things, but that they work with other organizations and often handle many projects withing the AGA. Note also that there have already been more updates, in the past 3 weeks, about the internal goings-on in the AGA than there have been in the past.

This was a reasoned decision, that will fit into an overall goal for the progress and growth of the AGA.