From: Chiaki Ito MAIL COM> Date: 16 dec 2002 Subject: Re: "art" There has been a lot of discussions in the Japanese literature why Shogi is not just another game like a computer game, but is an art and culture and thus is not measurable in numbers. Please correct me below if I am wrong because this is entirely based on my 20-year experience as a player, and association with pros and the Shogi world. From what I know, pros think that their primary job is to produce a good kifu or moves and they do not always come with a win. Of course, they have to make a living so they need to win, but they really think their ultimate "strength" is reflected on and exists in the kifu and moves, not in the outcomes. For instance, pros often make "katachi zukuri" and resign in a position which seems there is still a chance for a turn-over. They do this because they don't want to mess up with their kifu by making moves which do not show their "strength". Some of such games actually could have been won, if they had refused to resign, but they didn't. I think what this implies is meaningful for what we have been talking about, the relationship between ratings and strength. In fact, players who are considered with "strength" are not always winners with big titles. Players such as Hirofumi Serizawa, Nobuyuki Oouchi, Keiji Mori, Satoshi Murayama, and Motoji Hanamura (and even Jyumei Koike) got only a few titles, but they are remembered as players with "strength" and their artistic moves which people still love. In addition, moves have different values depending on who plays them in what context. You cant be a really strong player without an individuality and character. In this sense, high ratings do not mean very much, sometimes. Of course, this may be to do with our cognition, philosophy, or ideology towards Shogi. I understand some people think Shogi is just a game without any artistic element in it, or it is an art, but the outcomes are, after all, everything, and ratings simply reflect one's strength and tells who is better than who. They don't sense it, don't have an ability to sense it, or don't believe in it. That is fine with me. But from what I know, among experts of Shogi, it is agreed that ratings are one thing, while strength is another. What is interesting in Larry's comment is about chess as "sports". As far as I know no one has considered Shogi as sports, although I am not very sure what the definition for sports is and why chess is sports. Perhaps, one of the reasons for this is that Shogi has never been politicized unlike chess, because of the lesser number of players and thus less business opportunities. Chess needs to be sports so that it could be regarded as something to be pushed to enter the Olympics. Best Chiaki ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Kaufman" COMCAST NET> To: TECHUNIX TECHNION AC IL> Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 8:21 AM Subject: "art" > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chiaki Ito" MAIL COM> > To: TECHUNIX TECHNION AC IL> > Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 10:37 AM > Subject: Re: Ratings and grades (was: improve your shogi) > > > > I loved the title of Tony's book, the Art of Shogi. If in fact Shogi is > > art, it should be something which cant be quantified in numbers, right? > > > > Chiaki > > > There has been much discussion over the years as to whether chess in a > game, an art, a science, or a sport. Perhaps the same discussion occurs in > Japan over shogi, but since I can't read much Japanese I wouldn't know. > Anyway, although clearly chess has aspects of all four, the concensus > opinion now is that chess is primarily a sport. There are even serious > efforts being made to include it in the Olympics, though I don't expect that > to actually happen. > Shogi is sufficiently like chess so that the answer to the above > question should probably be the same for both. Can you tell us if the shogi > magazines discuss this question, and what the concensus of the pros is on > it? > If it is primarily a sport (which is my view), then numerical measures > are quite appropriate. > Your comments remind me of the late Chess Grandmaster Eduard Gufeld, > who constantly emphasized the artistic side of chess. His practical results > were not impressive for a grandmaster, but sometimes he played spectacular > games that people loved to play over. Often he would play a beautiful game, > but ultimately lose on time or due to a time pressure blunder. Perhaps > there are similar characters in the shogi world? > > Larry >