Do we really need a chess.com for Go?

[pwsiegel]

@Plum_Talk

I disagree with this characterization of the AGA. The AGA created and supports the North American professional Go scene, as well as the go associations of Canada and Mexico and throughout Latin America. There are some entrenched leaders who are resistant to change. But that is true in any community, Go or otherwise. We are extremely active on Discord and looking toward the future of Go digitally and in person.

@Groin

It’s easy to criticize the work of the AGA EGF and such… If you want to criticize you better come with some more nuanced description of the situation, listing what is made and what could be done, and how things are now.

I find it very interesting - when I called out some rather outlandish criticisms of gomagic’s plans to scale up I got a ton of pushback, but when I so much as hinted at imperfections in the AGA I was called out for being unfair and insufficiently nuanced! I feel like something can be learned from these instinctive responses.

Allow me to clarify: when I wrote “The AGA / NAGF seem to have similar problems as FIDE”, I wasn’t trying to imply that all of these organizations are garbage. I respect the AGA and appreciate what it does for go in the US, just as I respect FIDE and appreciate what it does for chess globally. But I think chess has benefitted a lot from chesscom in the form of growth, modernization, and online presence, and I hope to see something similar in go.

I don’t see these efforts coming from the AGA, just as they didn’t come from FIDE. Both organizations have problems, and a number of those problems are rather similar - as @Plum_Talk indicated, some of them just kind of come with the territory. And no, sorry, I don’t have to come up with solutions to all of the problems in order earn the right to assert that the AGA is an imperfect organization.

@Groin

Back on a “chess.com” for go, it looks like a pure fantasy from a westerner not taking in account that till now most is happening between C J and K. Those 3 countries have each their own professional system, their sponsors, their schools, their websites and their history. That’s a better way to present the situation to a newcomer as to say, man I miss a chess.com of go.

If CJK wants to make a big investment in growing go online and/or the US, I’m all for it! But I don’t think it’s a major priority for them, so I expect that it will have to come from elsewhere.

And actually chesscom faced similar headwinds during its ascent. Until Magnus Carlsen’s ascent in the early 2010’s, the major chess countries were Russia, some former soviet block nations, and India - the US wasn’t really even on the map. Yet chesscom was founded US and self-funded by two people with no real ties to any of these countries or any OTB chess federation. So who knows?

[Samraku]

@shinuito

Generally I believe we’re pushing toward blocking these kinds of AI summary posts that don’t add much to the discussion.

I don’t read them. I want to talk to humans, which is why I’m on OGF and not some chatbot site

[shinuito]

@pwsiegel

I find it very interesting - when I called out some rather outlandish criticisms of gomagic’s plans to scale up I got a ton of pushback, but when I so much as hinted at imperfections in the AGA I was called out for being unfair and insufficiently nuanced! I feel like something can be learned from these instinctive responses.

I don’t want to come across rude but one thing maybe you can take from it is that it seems like you write one thing and mean something else.

Then people object to what you wrote and then you have to adjust it.

@pwsiegel

The AGA / NAGF seem to have similar problems as FIDE - out of touch, afraid of the internet, more interested in keeping the existing establishment happy than growing the game.

When you write the above it doesn’t come across as

@pwsiegel

I wasn’t trying to imply that all of these organizations are garbage. I respect the AGA and appreciate what it does for go in the US, just as I respect FIDE and appreciate what it does for chess globally.

It doesn’t sound like you have any respect for FIDE or the AGA/ NAGF from the first thing you wrote.

@pwsiegel

and this thread is all about how it’s a nefarious scheme to crush OGS and force players to scroll through ads before they can play their next move. Nobody is explicitly saying “I don’t think anybody should invest money in go”, but in practice I suspect that at least some people are unwilling to accept any of the tradeoffs that this requires.

@pwsiegel

But my point survives: the response in this thread was mostly about the threat that gomagic’s proposal poses to OGS and go culture more generally.

@pwsiegel

My argument was not “removing ads proves that OGS is opposed to investment”. It was “attracting investment requires tradeoffs, so let’s not jump down gomagic’s throat for stuff they didn’t even propose”.

These are very different points, and very differently put. The first one I objected to, the second two are less objectionable, though I would still disagree on the “mostly about” point when it was written.

Basically if you’re being hyperbolic, people might call you out on your hyperbole.

That’s the commonality between people objecting to what you’re saying either the thread is about or people’s attitudes in general to Go magic are, or how you write about the AGA.

[Groin]

@pwsiegel

instinctive

Please respect the effort I make in contributing to a thread. There is nothing instinctive in this.

[JethOrensin]

I just noticed this:

@pwsiegel

And actually chesscom faced similar headwinds during its ascent.

No, it didn’t. There was already a significant established playerbase in the USA and in the western world, in general.

@pwsiegel

Until Magnus Carlsen’s ascent in the early 2010’s, the major chess countries were Russia, some former soviet block nations, and India - the US wasn’t really even on the map.

Not on the map? So now Bobbie Fischer is a figment of our imagination or something? He held the higher peak chess ELO rating ever recorded from around 1971 till 1990 when Kasparov finally reached a higher peak-ELO.

Here it says:

Full source:

How many Americans play and follow chess | YouGov

Go, is nowhere near those numbers… let’s be real here.

@pwsiegel

Yet chesscom was founded US and self-funded by two people with no real ties to any of these countries or any OTB chess federation. So who knows?

This is a gross oversimplification that omits a lot of significant things and steps.
It is like saying that “Tesla was incorporated in July 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning as Tesla Motors.” (source Wikipedia) and then going to say “see, that went well, so who knows?”

Yeah, who knows? Not us, apparently, because 99.9% of the story is missing.

[springyboard]

@pwsiegel

And actually chesscom faced similar headwinds during its ascent. Until Magnus Carlsen’s ascent in the early 2010’s, the major chess countries were Russia, some former soviet block nations, and India - the US wasn’t really even on the map. Yet chesscom was founded US and self-funded by two people with no real ties to any of these countries or any OTB chess federation. So who knows?

To clarify:

• India only became a chess superpower very recently, with three prodigies entering the top 10 last year. In the 1990s and 2000s, Viswanathan Anand was among the top 3-5 players in the world, but there were no other Indians in the top 50.
• The former Soviet Union and its successor states dominated top-level chess from 1945 until very recently.

[springyboard]

@pwsiegel

Welcome to go!

Yes, this is pretty much correct. There actually is an international governing body called IGF (international go federation), but it doesn’t maintain a rating system or run professional tournaments. That is handled primarily by national / regional go federations.

In particular, there is no counterpart of the candidates tournament or world championship match, which is kind of unfortunate. Instead there are essentially four top level tournaments: Ing Cup, Samsung Cup, LG Cup, and MLily Cup. There are other big international tournaments, but these are the individual events with the largest prize funds. The situation gets more complicated if you go back in time - for much of the 20th century Japan was extremely dominant in go, and the peak of go prestige consisted of 7 Japanese title matches with a candidates-like qualification system.

Anyway, yes, it would be nice if there were some centralization / standardization for OTB go. But chesscom’s success in growing the chess community has rivaled or exceeded FIDE’s in recent years, and I’m kind of hoping we’ll see something similar in go. The AGA / NAGF seem to have similar problems as FIDE - out of touch, afraid of the internet, more interested in keeping the existing establishment happy than growing the game.

@Groin

OTB go is completely centralized through the IGF and its regional branches. I never heard of other go federation pretending of a world couverture.

IGF is focused on the amateur world, but branches like EGF and AGA did put in place professional systems.
I’d be interested of more information about the interconnections between the various professional associations and the IGF and its branches.

It’s easy to criticize the work of the AGA EGF and such… You know for most OTB players, their commitment in developing go is very simple: pay an annual fee so they can participate in the tournaments. And that’s all.
If you want to criticize you better come with some more nuanced description of the situation, listing what is made and what could be done, and how things are now.

Back on a “chess.com” for go, it looks like a pure fantasy from a westerner not taking in account that till now most is happening between C J and K. Those 3 countries have each their own professional system, their sponsors, their schools, their websites and their history. That’s a better way to present the situation to a newcomer as to say, man I miss a chess.com of go.

True. Now each federation publish a rating of its professional players and I know 2 unofficial international ratings (one in Japan (? no ref) and the one of R. Coulon)

Thanks for helping to explain the situation to me.

I am not qualified to critique any Go association. FIDE has major flaws. My point is about the benefits of international centralisation (or at least greater international coordination) at the federation level.

In chess, some national associations award ratings and titles, but generally, serious players only care about FIDE ratings and titles. A specific FIDE rating means the same (in terms of strength) anywhere in the world. If a player from India or the Philippines comes to Singapore to play an amateur tournament, they can be fairly matched with others based on their FIDE rating.

When each national federation awards their own ranks and their ranking standards vary widely, ranks become less meaningful. In Go, ranks are used to set handicaps, so if Player A is 5 kyu in a country with deflated ranks, while Player B is 3 kyu in another country with inflated ranks, should Player B give two stones to Player A? This also has an impact on players setting goals (does the difficulty of a shodan goal depend on which country you are from?) and following advice such as “these tsumego are suitable for SDKs”.

I am very much open to learn about how the Go world navigates such issues.

When we talk about “growing the Go community” (or growing the chess community), are we talking about “active players”, “fans of the professional scene” or both? Casual fans or even potential fans would be more attracted to follow a World Championship (or clear equivalent).

[pwsiegel]

@shinuito

I don’t want to come across rude but one thing maybe you can take from it is that it seems like you write one thing and mean something else.

Then people object to what you wrote and then you have to adjust it.

Fair enough, I’ll take that on board! From my perspective, for what it’s worth, my “adjustments” aren’t actual substantive changes to my arguments - they are deflections of strange inferences about hidden intent or beliefs behind what I wrote. I believe (right or wrong) that the AGA is out of touch, afraid of the internet, and more interested in keeping the existing establishment happy than growing the game. I ALSO believe that the AGA is doing a pretty good job organizing and supporting OTB go in the US. I was just trying to make an offhanded analogy with FIDE rather than write a polemic about the AGA, so I didn’t clarify, but I wish I had.

There is a comparison to be made with how the community responded to gomagic’s proposal, e.g. magnifying gomagic’s offhanded mention of integrating with the OGS API into a nefarious “embrace, extend, extinguish” scheme. I think some members of the community are reflexively defensive of the status quo, and subconsciously position anyone critical of it as an antagonist.

@shinuito

These are very different points, and very differently put. The first one I objected to, the second two are less objectionable, though I would still disagree on the “mostly about” point when it was written.

Basically if you’re being hyperbolic, people might call you out on your hyperbole.

That’s the commonality between people objecting to what you’re saying either the thread is about or people’s attitudes in general to Go magic are, or how you write about the AGA.

Are these actually different points? All of them are essentially saying “This thread is overly critical of gomagic’s proposal”.

I think you don’t like the first point because I speculated about WHY people are being overly critical. You don’t have to agree, but my speculation can pretty easily be supported by evidence:

• I don’t think anybody has said anything like “I’m concerned about X, and I hope gomagic does Y to address my concerns”.
• Many of the criticisms were disconnected from the specifics of gomagic, its existing products, its management, or even its actual proposal.
• I don’t think anyone cited any alternative projects, proposals, or organizations that they feel are providing a better vision for growing online go.

Obviously this doesn’t PROVE that anyone in this community would react similarly to other similar proposals. I did use the word “speculate!” But I think we can safely call this “grounded speculation” rather than “hyperbolic speculation”.

[pwsiegel]

@JethOrensin

No, it didn’t. There was already a significant established playerbase in the USA and in the western world, in general.

This certainly demonstrates that we shouldn’t expect a US-focused effort to be anywhere near as successful in go than it was in the US - no argument there!

@JethOrensin

Not on the map? So now Bobbie Fischer is a figment of our imagination or something? He held the higher peak chess ELO rating ever recorded from around 1971 till 1990 when Kasparov finally reached a higher peak-ELO.

Fischer’s last rated game was in 1975*. I didn’t mention Paul Morphy either

@JethOrensin

This is a gross oversimplification that omits a lot of significant things and steps.

Fair enough. What is the structural reason an organization like gomagic can’t also benefit from similar “significant things and steps”?

(*Unless his match with Spassky in 1992 was rated? I know it was “unofficial” but I don’t know what that means specifically. Anyway, my point remains.)

[JethOrensin]

@pwsiegel

Fischer’s last rated game was in 1975*

Yeah, but it doesn’t matter. If Bobby Fischer held the “world record” of Elo of Go for a few decades, then I’d say that they USA would have been pretty much “on the map” of world Go, by default, since that would mean that all the pros in the world would be out to surpass that record.

Such records rarely happen “in a vaccuum”, so it means that there is a significant “chess presence” in that country, so that a “world champion” can be produced. It is very rare that a world champion in any sport/activity will be born/raised in a country that is “not on the map” for that activity.

@pwsiegel

Fair enough. What is the structural reason an organization like gomagic can’t also benefit from similar “significant things and steps”?

They can, but unless those are presented and analysed, then you cannot benefit from something that you are not even aware of. What did the people of chess dot com do, exactly? What were the steps? Those are not minor details, it is the important part of the process that matters, if there is any chance of replication

[pwsiegel]

@JethOrensin

Such records rarely happen “in a vaccuum”, so it means that there is a significant “chess presence” in that country, so that a “world champion” can be produced. It is very rare that a world champion in any sport/activity will be born/raised in a country that is “not on the map” for that activity.

We’re veering off into (admittedly very interesting) historical arcana, but: I think this is exactly what happened with Bobby Fischer - he came essentially out of nowhere, and his legacy was pretty much just his legend. Can you name a single US chess champion from 1980 to 2000? I guessed two correctly, but one of them was a soviet immigrant.

Returning to the topic of this thread, the question is: “Did Bobby Fischer play a role in chesscom’s rise”? The answer is certainly yes, in the sense he increased the size of the US player base and awareness of the game. But that’s kind of the extent of it.

@JethOrensin

They can, but unless those are presented and analysed, then you cannot benefit from something that you are not even aware of. What did the people of chess dot com do, exactly? What were the steps? Those are not minor details, it is the important part of the process that matters, if there is any chance of replication

This isn’t how building a business works in practice. It’s not 2007, and chess isn’t go. Gomagic would be poorly advised to try to replicate chesscom’s strategy, which involved a lot of luck (good and bad) and a lot of idiosyncratic people and events. That’s just what running a business is like! To their credit, that is not how they invoked chesscom’s example - they used it as an analogy to communicate their ambitions, and to estimate the size of their addressable market.

[pwsiegel]

@springyboard

I am very much open to learn about how the Go world navigates such issues.

It’s a very good question, I’m not totally sure myself. At the professional level there are no handicaps in rated games or tiered training tools (that I know of!); at the amateur level there is a lot of confusion.

Indeed, 1d amateur definitely means something different depending on the rating system, and it changes over time. If you go to the “worldwide rank comparison” page on sensei’s library, it says that an EGF 1d corresponds to 2d AGA, 5d in Japan, and 4d in China. (I don’t think that’s accurate now, and I’m not sure how accurate it was at the time, but that just reinforces how unclear it is).

The AGA specifically has a difficult version of this problem at the higher levels: a lot of strong players in the US are immigrants from China or Korea, and the highest amateur rank you can choose when you get an AGA membership is 5d. So the AGA 5d pool includes some highly underrated players, which has ripple effects on the nearby ranks. I don’t think there’s an obvious solution to this problem that can be implemented by the AGA unilaterally - it’s an example of the possible benefits of international standardization.

@springyboard

When we talk about “growing the Go community” (or growing the chess community), are we talking about “active players”, “fans of the professional scene” or both? Casual fans or even potential fans would be more attracted to follow a World Championship (or clear equivalent).

Great question - it surely depends who you ask. I very much wish that it were easier to follow professional go, and I think some kind of world championship-like system would attract resources and attention to the game. But those are more my personal preferences - I’m not sure if it’s the best way to pursue other goals like growing the number of active players in the US. (I’m also not sure what kind of engagement gomagic is trying to promote in their proposal - I assume it’s growing the active player base, but I could be wrong.)

[JethOrensin]

@pwsiegel

Can you name a single US chess champion from 1980 to 2000?

You are missing the point though. There was a significant playerbase for Chess and, unlike Go, chess was - and still is - a game that is known to a vast amount of population.

Do I have to put this image again? Ok, then:

That is the point. Fischer was just the top of the iceberg.
For Go in the “West” there is no iceberg…

@pwsiegel

This isn’t how building a business works in practice. It’s not 2007, and chess isn’t go. Gomagic would be poorly advised to try to replicate chesscom’s strategy, which involved a lot of luck (good and bad) and a lot of idiosyncratic people and events.

Yeah, that’s kind the point of most people in here, which you disagreed with.

[pwsiegel]

@JethOrensin

You are missing the point though. There was a significant playerbase for Chess and, unlike Go, chess was - and still is - a game that is known to a vast amount of population.

Sorry, I already responded to this point, I’ll quote it in case you missed it:

@pwsiegel

This certainly demonstrates that we shouldn’t expect a US-focused effort to be anywhere near as successful in go than it was in the US - no argument there!

(oops typo, I meant to write “than it was in chess”)

---

@JethOrensin

Yeah, that’s kind the point of most people in here, which you disagreed with.

Hmmm, I don’t remember disagreeing with that point?

[JethOrensin]

@pwsiegel

Sorry, I already responded to this point, I’ll quote it in case you missed it:

That’s all right then, in this case there is no reason to discuss Bobby Fischer anymore.

@pwsiegel

Hmmm, I don’t remember disagreeing with that point?

I won’t go quote-hunting for this, but I think that the general impression I have of this topic is that some people think that replicating the chess dot com feat is impossible and on some level unwanted, while you think that those people are being too negative for having that outlook. Anyway, it is not very important and I could have gotten the wrong impression. If so, I apologise.

[pwsiegel]

@JethOrensin

I won’t go quote-hunting for this, but I think that the general impression I have of this topic is that some people think that replicating the chess dot com feat is impossible and on some level unwanted, while you think that those people are being too negative for having that outlook. Anyway, it is not very important and I could have gotten the wrong impression. If so, I apologise.

Well, @shinuito said outright that he thinks my writing has been unclear in this thread, so I guess I should allow that as a possible explanation for the confusion!

The intent of my arguments in this thread - hopefully reflected in the text - has been to show that many of the objections others have raised are disconnected from both gomagic’s actual proposal or their record as a company. Things like free-tier ads, lootboxes, gambling, subverting OGS, etc. I do recall pointing out that the way they invoked chesscom in their pitch deck (“Goal: become the #1 go platform, in other words the chesscom of go”) doesn’t imply that they’re going to replicate chesscom’s strategy or product, but I don’t think I disputed the claim that replicating chesscom’s success is unrealistic.

(Also I don’t think you or anyone else has been disrespectful in this thread, so there’s nothing to apologize for!)

[Groin]

What makes me doubt and what you don’t mention now is the lack of western players in itself, and that’s the last point we were talking about. Unlike in Chess.

These last decades we had some of the best opportunities to initiate a growth. See:

Hikaru no go

The AI revolution with go involved in it.

Did this create a strong new interest in go? That’s not what I observe. There are a few small progress maybe. Like the creation of professional players in the West. But globally nothing really changed. If any progress it’s pretty slow.

That’s something which makes me highly doubt that the creation of a website inspired of chess.com by a western background will result in a consistent growth of the go community.

[pwsiegel]

Nobody - not even gomagic - is optimistic enough to say that an online go platform can reach the scale of chesscom any time soon. Go is just less popular than chess, especially in western countries, and this for sure limits the potential of such a site.

But there are causal mechanisms pointing in the other direction. Chess has exploded in popularity in recent years, and online chess was both a driver and benefactor of this explosion. Aside from providing a place for people to play and learn the game, they have organized, marketed, and broadcasted numerous events and and help nurture online platforms for players, educators, and enthusiasts. These efforts snowballed: more events, streamers, commentators, etc. led to more users, which led to more revenue, which led to bigger and higher-profile events, and so on.

To be sure, a number of unpredictable exogenous events also played a big role in the chess boom: Queen’s Gambit, the pandemic, the Hans Niemann controversy. But the point is that online chess was ready for these spikes of interest in a way that online go is not. When newcomers find their way to an English-speaking forum and ask how to get into go, where would you say they are typically directed?

Sustainable growth doesn’t happen by itself - it requires investment. All investments carry risks, and there is very little chance that gomagic is going to grow in the same way chesscom did. But there is still potential and opportunity, and I think those who want to see the go community grow should cheer them on.

[Groin]

Man, you’re so optimistic.
Go on the street and start asking everyone if they know what is go. Come back to the real world of today.

The market is so restrained. Commercial products like go magic are all trying to survive. How many attempts did I see. How many sadly will fail again and again. In some way I’m bit annoyed each time go magic claims to be the best. There are so many others on the same road, trying to get their small piece of bread. Take the press Go moon, go world, the European review, … Up and down. Take the go centers, so big money invested for the development of western go, now all closed. Take the Olympics of go. Asian TV were there. Western TV: not even a report in a magazine.

I don’t want to deny that progress are not possible but as long as my butcher or the teacher of my children does have no idea of what go is, I only expect it to be very slow.

[JohnnieDarko]

@Groin

Go on the street and start asking everyone if they know what is go.

I don’t know about my butcher, but in social and work circles, half the time when I say: “I play go, that game that was finally beaten by AI”, the response is: “Oh yeah I’ve seen that on the news. Don’t know anything about it though.”

Sometimes even followed up by: “seems interesting”, but I think that’s often out of politeness.

@Groin

In some way I’m bit annoyed each time go magic claims to be the best.
[…]
Take the press Go moon, go world, the European review,

Well I agree that the numbers are so small that profitability is the big hurdle. However I disagree with your comparison to the other initiatives.
In regards to growing the number of people who play go, Imho GoMagic is so far above the rest that there’s no comparison.

Can’t find anything on Go Moon, Go World was a magazine from 1977-2012, and the EuroGoJournal is another text based thing. Go olympics, it’s just a cup with no western representation?

No beginner will pick up go by having to search for a magazine, then read about a high-level match between two people from far away countries.

In contrast, GoMagic is on all my socials, YouTube shorts, longs, Instagram, Reddit, it’s hard to miss. Their stuff looks professional and it’s accessible (short and to the point), and most important, it’s not boring.

Compared to better streamers, for example Dwyrin, they are still a bit of an aquired taste with their type of humor, they don’t actively target a new audience and most their content is an hour long. I like it but it’s not for the masses.
Amateur content creators yap away without script in a spare room under bad lighting, fun if you happen to like their personality, but that’s also not mass appeal stuff.

Imho not all GoMagic hosts have the same amount of mass-appeal charm either, but most of the free stuff is well produced. I can see that these guys get it.

If GoMagic can make a content > learn-to-play > games > community pipeline, funded by their premium lessons, then they’ll have the proper infrastructure to onboard as many new players as their social media content attracts. The difference with OGS, or any other platform or initiative is that it isn’t a full stack, so at some point you have a barrier and you lose people in the proces. I think that’s what they mean with chess.com.