[Poll] How go should be advertised?

I guess in a literal sense 10% is a fraction, but in my understanding of English “a fraction” is synonymous with a negligible amount, I guess that’s my point.

I agree with your argument that it’s hard to attract new players. :stuck_out_tongue:


oh, I see the misunderstanding there :slight_smile: A fraction is indeed a small part, but we tend to think that it is a veeeeery small part due to various phrases ( e.g. “a fraction of a second” which indeed means something of negligible amount of time).

In any case, how many people you will lose along the way really depends on what you are selling/promoting, but in each step you expect a small amount of people to be retained.
In case of books it is easier to become a fan, since the act of buying books is, indeed, easy to accomplish and be persuaded to do so.

So, let’s say you have a campaign that reaches X amount of people.
A fraction of them will be interested in the object of the campaign. An ad/campaign that gets (10% of X) hits (it is called a response rate) is considered a success in this era.
Now, considering that we do not want them just to be informed about something or just purchase a book, there is a next step of getting people to like the game and become fans, which also has its own “response rate”. This step is much harder than responding to a call to buy something, so even a 1% response rate, over the already applied (10% of X) would have been awesome imho, but that is just my guess.

So, it is something like 1 in a thousand people will learn about Go and will eventually stick around and play longterm? Seems about right.

I guess we eventually did go down into something that is a fraction, in both of our understanding of the word, but I hope this clears up any misunderstanding :slight_smile:

A mural of people playing Go, located in a park, recreation center, or library (high visibility) might spark some interest.


OT: how important is it really to hold the stones correctly?
My only experience is mouse/ magnetic pieces, so the middle finger above point finger just can’t happen.


Meh, it’s not important at all. It’s really just an optional, stylistic flourish, like how some fancy people use a fork and knife while eating, instead of just tearing apart their food and shoving it in their mouth with their bare hands.

Weird flex: the other day, my 3-year-old son demonstrated the “correct” technique, even using a stone from a magnetic set


I guess it depends on what you mean by important. I suppose it’s not important but it is easier to play that way. It’s harder to place stones if you are holding them with thumb and first finger.


The first time I went to a go club, I’d only started holding stones the “proper” way for about five or six games. In the middle of one of the games that evening, a stone shot out from off the top of my fingernail and fired the stones in one area of the board in all directions.


You need to wear in that fingernail!

Akira checks Hikaru’s hand and notices that Hikaru finger nail isn’t worn out from pickup stones,



So X is about 75% in my school and the first response rate is about 30%. The total response rate from that X(75%) to players playing reaching 15k or better and playing for a couple of years is about 1% in this school.

So it seems possible to get a better result than 1 in a 1000 learning about go and sticking around longterm.

But it takes considerable effort. I must have spent about 1000 hours in the past 9 years to “harvest” 5-10 longer term go players out of a total of about 1500 children that have spent some time in this school during that time (of which maybe 1100 know the game exists, about 400 played at least a few games, about 150 kept playing occasionally, about 40 played dozens of games, about 25 reached 35k, about 12 reached 20k and about 7 reached 15k).


At the end of the day teaching people to play go is probably an investment that might not even pay off in a generation
or two I imagine.

It’d be nice if lots of people who played the game one or twice fell in love with it but in some cases it might be more likely they grow up and tell their own kids about it than taking it up properly themselves :slight_smile:

Still great work teaching so many people!


I seem to remember a quote by Pliny of Cato the Elder, along the lines of

“No-one who plants a fig tree lives to see it harvested.”


An anonymous proverb often attributed to ancient Greece:

A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.


The usual way to hold a stone let your opponent see better the goban.


My son’s middle-school has a fall-festival fundraiser event where people (parents and teachers) setup and run various carnival games. I’m planning on making some oversized 9x9 Go boards for this event this year (if it isn’t canceled due to covid-19).


So it seems possible to get a better result than 1 in a 1000 learning about go and sticking around longterm.

Indeed you can, that is why I think that children are the key to the promotion of ANYTHING. That is the age where you are more likely to pick something and stick with it regardless of how time-consuming it might be :slight_smile:

But if we are talking about campaing ads and promotion to adults? Things get much much harder.

But it takes considerable effort.

This is true and very very admirable. Especially if you take into account that what you do needs talent and skills. Inspiring people and making them want to learn anything, are skills that few people have.


You can reach some adults through their children.
3 years ago I offered an adult beginners course in my village, but nobody registered.
But since about 2 years ago a few parents of the children club became interested after being badly beaten by their children at home. Before the pandemic we got together about once a month in a bar. Two mothers got to about 25k and one father got to about 13k.
Some families now have multiple players and a go board and similar befriended families.


That’s exactly the reason why I am playing go now.


I’m worried that the literature debate is derailing the thread to unnecessary degree. The example of the Russian LotR only goes to show that you can ruin a good book with poor presentation. My point is that the quality of the underlying story makes an amazing movie possible, not that any movie made from the story will be amazing. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Of course, movies are themselves creative works, and directors and screenwriters can change the story enough to make it better, but that’s a different question.

The fact that you did not enjoy GoT says very little about its merits as a story. It is indeed impossible to please everyone, but, while literature is subjective on an individual level, it is relatively objective at massive scales. The success of both the book series and the show are empirical facts. I think it’s far more constructive to assume that the average person can recognize a good story and try to work backward, even if you didn’t enjoy the story, than it is to assume that people are ignorant, seeking only sex scenes and violence. They could find far more of both of those sorts of things on the internet than in the weekly GoT episodes, let alone in the books. Why then did GoT capture so many imaginations? How else can you define the term “good story” than as a story which is good to many if not most people?

I happen to agree that the Stormlight Archive and many of Brandon Sanderson’s stories would make great movies, and I would bet money that they will eventually get adapted. Of course they would take significant investment. I don’t see how that’s relevant.

Go is not uncool or unpopular. It’s just a niche board game. You won’t be mocked for playing it, and many people will be curious about it if they see it for the first time. Most of those people will not be compelled to play it though. Fantasy had a reputation as non-serious because many critics thought they knew what a good story looked like, and tried to convince themselves and others that a fantasy story was less than other types of stories. Maybe that carried over and gave it a bit of a stigma. I admit that I was homeschooled and never experienced any issues from liking fantasy, so perhaps the issue was worse than I know, but I don’t think fantasy fans spent effort and money making their hobby more cool. Rather, it had merit and slowly grew until it was normalized, simultaneously becoming a safe thing for movie studios to invest it. The making of the LotR movies could then be seen as a consequence of the rise of fantasy in human culture, and not the cause of it.

Creative Writing Debate

There are many lords and leaders in history who have been outmaneuvered, trusted the wrong people, or were simply stupid. Why would fantasy be any different? In fact, a hereditary title being passed to someone not quite up to the task is pretty common in history. Ned Stark was a good general, and an inspirational leader, but he was very bad at lying and seeing through lies. He trusted Catelyn, who trusted Littlefinger on the basis of their childhood relationship. He hired Littlefinger. Who else could he have hired? Was that stupid? Yeah, especially in hindsight. But it’s entirely plausible in the world that GRRM presents. You may have especially strange and set ideas about what kings and lords MUST be like, but that doesn’t mean GRRM is a bad writer.

As an example, Rudolf Hess, a person of some authority in a nation far larger and better organized than any feudal holding, flew the England in the middle of WW2 to negotiate peace, with almost 0 chance of success. Neville Chamberlin, before the war, constantly refused to confront Hitler to the great downfall of the whole country, and he was the prime minister of one of the greatest empires in history. Do you really think that feudal lords, who attain their position by birth, are always smart and cunning? Caesar himself was killed by treachery at the height of his power. If you had read his story in a book, would you say that he was too stupid to have been a roman politician?

Actually, Ned Stark is just the sort of person that in history was favored by fortune for awhile but brought down eventually. Charismatic, honorable, bold in warfare, and capable of making allies and inspiring loyalty. He made the mistake, like Napoleon in Spain or in Russia, of putting himself in a position in which none of his strengths could be brought to bear. I could even make the excuse that many of his biggest mistakes were made after he had been wounded and drugged. But the truth is that a good plot with good intrigue does not involve flawless savants.

Btw, suspension of disbelief is what you want. Maybe you mean resumption of disbelief?