Talk:Park Junghwan

International titles

1. The biggest difference between 'major' and other international titles is time control. All 'major' title are 'classical' tournaments ( >= 2 hours) while Asian Cup and Mind Games etc. are 'blitz' matches. It is not suitable to treat World Chess Championship and World Rapid/Blitz Championship in the same way.

2. Strictly, Asian Cup and Nihon-kiin backed 'World Go Championship' are both continental tournaments because there's no entrance for European or American players.

3. Since there is no official 'World Go Championship' and a corresponding tournament system, I propose an entrance criteria for the most prominent international tournaments as follows:
(1) main draw spots >= 16
(2) time >= 120 minutes + 30 seconds byo-yomi
(3) prize money >= $100,000

4. Some special invitational play-offs like China-Korea Tengen do not deserve separate titles as there are only two players.

@WindCaliber

PSR B1937+21 (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

My problem with trying to distinguish what is and is not a "major" international tournament is that, by extension, you should then distinguish "major" or "minor" domestic tournaments. When you get to that point, one starts to wonder what's the point of these distinctions. I don't think it's necessary, and it makes things needlessly messy, e.g. Lee Sedol will no longer have the oft-quoted "18 international titles", but instead he'll have 14 "major international titles" and 5 "other international and continental titles". Then it follows that we'd have to update the title leader charts to include leader-boards for major international titles, other international/continental titles, major domestic titles, minor domestic titles. What's the point of being so granular?

Two expressions about Lee's achievements do exist, i.e. 18 or 14 'international titles'. Notice that 'international title' = 'major international title' under most situation. PSR B1937+21 (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

As to your fourth point, I think those are definitely legitimate titles. The two competitors have to win an entire tournament to take part. It's still a "title".

Different Go associations may have different standards. At least Nihon-Ki-in does not include Agon Cup playoffs in their lists. (See [[1]] Iyama Yuta's 48 'タイトル' (titles) does not include his match against Huang Yunsong). -PSR B1937+21 (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Finally, please remember to check your spelling. You misspell "tournament" as "tounament", and "continental" as "continential" repeatedly(and proceeded to undo the correct spelling to replace it with a mispelling. WindCaliber (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

If you want to make that distinction on, say, the List of professional Go tournaments page, then by all means do so. I think included all that other detail is unnecessary for player pages. Some Go players pages used to have a separate section for defunct titles, which is ridiculous because in 50 years, all of those titles could be defunct, which again begs the question: what's the point of these distinctions?

In my opinion, our arbitrary definition of major/minor titles would be best suited to the page I linked above. As for player pages, I think it should be kept as such(although I'll take the point about the Asian TV Cup being continental.) WindCaliber (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I cannot agree with your point of view that it is not necessary to distinguish title classes.

(1) Classical and rapid/blitz matches are radically different.

(2) To the second point above, players need to win 9 matches for a major title like ENN Cup while in special invitational tournaments like CCTV sponsored New Year Invitational only two matches are enough. This difference is even larger than that between a Grand Slam and ATP 250.

(3) For the viable with a CONTINOUS spectrum, it is unnatural to set up an artificial cutoff. But this is not true for my first two criteria. Individual matches only have two types of time control: >= 2 hours or <= 1 minute byoyomi. The 'major' classical international tournaments have 24, 32 or 64 spots while all other invitational tournaments have no more than six.

(4) I don't think defunct tournaments like Fujitsu Cup will be a problem. In tennis pages we just treat ATP 1000 and Super 9 series as they are equivalent.

(5) I do think we shall include separate statistics for major international titles, other international/continental titles, major domestic titles, minor domestic titles at least for Japanese domestic titles. Four basic classifications are not redundant, as compared with other games. To include all info in a mess is not constructive.

-PSR B1937+21 (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

(1) There isn't and never was any system that kept track of rapid/blitz ratings. Even how you define "rapid" is subjective. To Japanese players and other players from a few decades ago, 2 hours/player might be a rapid game. 2 hour Go is radically different from 40 hour Go that they played many decades ago.

(2) My response to this is that it's still a title.

(3) I have no idea what you're trying to say—your first sentence doesn't make any sense.

(4) I was using that as an example of arbitrary distinctions.

(5) My counterargument is that three basic classifications aren't a "mess. Besides, your 2nd category still doesn't really make sense. It's not even really a category, it's half of one category arbitrarily split and arbitrarily added to another category.

I think I can work with you on the H2H section, but this is something I fundamentally disagree with. I think we should get a third opinion. WindCaliber (talk) 08:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

H2H

There is no need to include all H2H records in an elite player's biography. I suggest we follow traditions of other sports e.g. Mikhail_Tal#Score_with_some_major_grandmasters and Rafael Nadal career statistics#Record against other players PSR B1937+21 (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

As we can clearly see, not "all" records are included in players' biographies. The way it's done on the tennis pages is way too detailed and unnecessary for Go(and Chess). I already thought about including only "major" players, but there's not a good definition of that. The one you proposed: "only major tournament finalists, top-ranked pros and players who have positive record against Ke included" doesn't really work. Suppose there was a weaker pro that only played weaker pros and had positive records. That would mean that said pro would not have a H2H section at all, or we would have silly things like Lee Sedol having dozens in the H2H, but some lesser pro having maybe 2 or 3. I'll admit that the way I did it was somewhat arbitrary as well, i.e. selecting the first X number of players with the most game records, but it generalizes to all players.

If we can propose criteria that is logical, consistent, and generalizable, then I'll happily go along with it. --WindCaliber (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

First, it does not seem strange for me that stronger players have more detailed H2H info. I think the biggest problem is that we have no official world ranking as chess or tennis.

I propose following criteria for H2H section partial based on previous works and equivalent tennis pagesList of tennis rivalries:

(1) select the first X number of players with the most game records with at least Y meetings

(2) if someone never enter top 10 on CWA / KBA official ratings (I don't know where is Nikon-kiin's equivalece if you know please tell me the website) then remove it from the list

(3) And add a supplementary section 'Players with winning records against XX' for weaker players with exotic H2H records against top pros

Thanks for your constructive criticism and advice about Go related articles. -PSR B1937+21 (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems strange to me if one player has 20 H2H records and another has zero. I like Remi Coulom's system on goratings because it's 3rd party, and if you read his paper on the WHR algorithm, it makes a lot more sense than some of "incremental systems" used, e.g. KBA's.

(1) Fine, that makes sense. Let's say 24 and 5 for argument's sake.

(2) I don't like this because as far as I know, we don't have easy public access to that information via CWA/KBA/NHK. For example, let's say Nie Weiping, how can we tell if any of the first X players weren't in the top 10 in September 1989? This would be feasible if we had access to the data at every point the ratings were updated, but as far as I know, we don't. The person who made "The history of the world's best Go players" video on Youtube appears to have gotten that data from Remi Coulom of goratings somehow though, as I don't see any other way that video could have been made. So I would say, barring obtaining access to such data, this is a not a good criterion.

(3) This one is also problematic because it's not consistent and generalizable. Firstly, as you said, this would only be on top pros' pages(and not others). How do we define top pro—using your previous top 10 criterion? Again, this only works if we have comprehensive data of the top 10 at every point in time. It also looks silly if there we have something like:

H2H Record against Selected Players

Player A 8:2

Player B 4:6

Player C 3:7

Weak Pros with Winning Records

Player D 4:6

Player E 3:7

As we can see, players B-E have the same records. Once again, we run into the problem of what defines weak and strong. How many people should be on that list(and so on)? It's another unnecessary complication, in my opinion.WindCaliber (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggest we invite someone from wikiproject board and table games, 19x19 forum, reddit or wikiproject chess to join the discussion.

Links to the two versions for newcomers:

[2] [3]

-PSR B1937+21 (talk) 08:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

RM for the footballer of the same name

Related to this article, there is a requested move at Talk:Park Jung-hwan (footballer)‎#Requested move 24 October 2021, to move that page to Park Jung-hwan (footballer). Interested editors can participate there. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)