NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/games/go/2325

Text File | 1992-11-20 | 6.0 KB | 116 lines

Newsgroups: rec.games.go
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!watdragon.uwaterloo.ca!yychen
From: [e-mail] (Youyi Chen)
Subject: The Mysteries of Weiqi (part 11) ---- On ranking system
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:52:16 GMT
Lines: 105

======================================================================
!!! Warning !!! I myself do not like some of the points in this article.
I thought I could have plenty of time to change it, since it was finished
last weekend and I intended to make it as part 11 of my series.
While I am still waiting for my friend [e-mail] (Jim Yu)
to ask his Japanese teacher the English spelling of Qiao3 Ben2 Yu2 Tai4 Lang2,
I decide to post it before I finish my series. "timing" is surely one
of the most important factors when making moves. The topic "ranking"
or "Re: Change my strength?" is very hot now, may be not later.
======================================================================

I started in my first article and mentioned several times in my series
that some ancient Chinese legends can be rated as 13P.
Since then, I have always been questioned through emails by "is it real? ".
This reminds me another question ---- "Is he a real 6d?" which
has become quite a popular question on IGS these days.

So, are they real 13Ps ? Of course not! according to the ranking
system they invented. The topic, ranking system and it's inflations,
has been discussed here on Rec.games.go. I cannot avoid it this
time since I myself bring this 13P thing up to the newsgroup.
So, let's now look into the origin of the modern ranking system and
find out who to blame for the inflation.

In Chapter 12 of his "Thirteen Chapters on Weiqi", Xue-Si Zhang
(Chinese, Song dynasty), defined what we now believe to be the ranking system.
(the ancient Chinese rankings may possibly date back another 1000 years)
The strength of the players were then classified by 9 levels from 9 Pin
to 1 Pin. With the highest rated as 1 Pin (now modern 9 dan), Zhang wrote:
      1 Pin is Ru Shen
Ru4 can be understood as "entering" and Shen2 can be understood as "God",
meaning that players can claim 1 Pin (or 9 dan) only when others feel that
the God is entering their games; and
      2 Pin is Zuo Zhao
(Zuo4 Zhao4) meaning that 8 dans should be able to win almost without
calculating when making moves. Consider the potential effect that too many
people may start to feel offensive, I rather not mention the rest of
the definitions here :-)

Such kind of systems was some what well preserved even in Japan until
early this century when there was still only one 9 dan allowed
in the professional circle.

In the 60s, when the Chinese Go Bible ("Xian Xian Qi Jing", which includes
"Thirteen chapters on Weiqi") is re-translated by the great Japanese player
(Qiao3 Ben2 Yu2 Tai4 Lang2), he wrote "1 Pin Ru Shen" should be
understood as "one who has attained Meijin's lofty realm"; and
"2 Pin Zuo Zhao" should be understood as "one who has attained the highest
level in strength"; 3 pin to 9 pin are equivalent to 7 dan to 1 dan accordingly.

Now a day, unfortunately, not only the ranking order has been reversed in
the modern system i.e.  9 (dan) became the best in stead of 1 (pin),
but the inflation has caused the whole ranking system (both professional and
amateur) meaningless to some degree. Perhaps, had the best been 1 (dan)
not 9 (dan), the inflation could have been controlled a bit and the 13P thing
wouldn't have come up at all.

The evolution of the ranking system appears to be very much irrational
when looking into the history of Go in both China and Japan. The ancient
system's 1 pin to 9 pin (or 9 dan to 1 dan) is reasonable and acceptable
at the time when almost no tournament is available. It is perhaps time for
us to accept this traditional 1 to 9 measure with some discount when the
communication and transportation have started to allow us to organize
tournaments and title matches.

While I do agree that IGS should look for a better or more scientific
ranking system, I, for one, would like to suggest to everybody out there
that as an amateur player, please don't take rankings too seriously.
As I always like to compare Go with other things surrounded us,
wouldn't it be funny if someone try to rank the famous tenors like
Luciano Pavarotee, Placido Domingo, or Jose Carreras according to their
performance on the stage?

If you agree with what I say, please don't look by ranks when look for
players. Remember the Chinese proverb

        "Yi Qi Hui You"

meaning that use Weiqi (go) to meet friends. Look for those who have
the same understanding as you do (understanding of go and other things)
although who may happen to be a lot weaker or stronger on the board at the
time when you meet.

Many of us, as Go players, have forgotten the real meaning
behind the word "pin" used in the ancient Chinese ranking. The Chinese
character "pin3", reminding us Pin3 Ge2 and Pin3 De2,
indicates one's CHARACTER and MORALS rather than one's strength.

Finally, back to our original question, how do we compare
the top ancient player with the top modern one? Here is what I believe.
If they played by the ancient rule, the ancient player will win;
If they played by the modern rule, the modern player will win.
And, in terms of the understanding of the game go in general, the ancient
players are as good as modern players, and in some aspects the ancient
players are actually better.

So, what? We made no progress but caused ranking inflation in the late
1000 years !!??!! No, we did better than that. The modern Fuseki theory
(Bu Ju, in Chinese) practiced and developed in early this century in Japan
(mainly) and later popularized to the rest of the world is surely
a very significant contribution to the world of Go. Without that, perhaps
we couldn't have met here on Rec.games.go or IGS.


Youyi Chen