Talk:Go (game)

Archives
2001-June 2004 June 2004-January 2005 January 2005-July 2006 July 2006-December 2006 January 2007-June 2007 July 2007-December 2007 January 2008-June 2008 July 2008-December 2008 January 2009-December 2010

Title

I'm not too thrilled with the fact that this article is currently located at Go (game) rather than Go (board game). I counter the argument that the latter is unnecessarily specific with one pointing out the unattractive fuzziness that comes with "game". -- Dissident (Talk) 23:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It is particularly confusing that when one enters "go" (and nothing else) in the edit box, nothing shows up. You have to enter at least "go (g" before any reference appears. The user should never have to guess what needs to be entered! "Go" (by itself) should be an entry, with disambiguation (if needed). WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That does happen already, William. If you just enter Go, it takes you to Go - the disambiguation page - where Go (game) is the second entry down. Also, to bypass the disambig. page, one can enter 'go g' - the ( is not needed. Trafford09 (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

computer Go

To the best of my understanding, the problem with writing Go software that plays at a low-kyu level is not the complexity of the evaluation tree, but rather judging the strengths and weaknesses of the players' positions. This is easily done in chess. It is not so easy in Go. This perhaps needs more discussion. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me restate this more clearly. The reason even "slow" personal computers can play chess at a high level has less to do with there being (with respect to Go) far fewer possible choices at each move, than the fact that it's easier to make positional judgments in chess. Without those judgments, the decision tree is of little use. The article needs to emphasize this. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"Go markers" in Unicode

Unicode includes four Go markers:

⚆ U+2686 white circle with dot right
⚇ U+2687 white circle with two dots
⚈ U+2688 black circle with white dot right
⚉ U+2689 black circle with two white dots 

What are these and where are they defined?--92.78.99.50 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know the answer to your question, but you could repost it at either of:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Go, or

wp:VPT

for a quicker answer. Trafford09 (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Query re liberties

72.214.5.135 (talk) placed a marker "[95]" after the following sentence in the article:

• Placing stones close together helps them support each other and avoid capture; groups of stones must have at least two liberties (open points) to be "alive.".

S/he then asked:

• "Are you sure about that? A stone or group with 1 liberty may be alive by snapback or a special seki in which the first to capture loses the resulting semeai. (also I'm not sure if this is the proper way to format this, so feel free to put this elsewhere or something)".

I've undone the IP's edits, as they should have been here in Talk, not on the article page itself.

My answer (I'm about 3-to-6 kyu) is that the article text is correct. A stone or group with just 1 liberty can always be captured. The only real exception to that, that I can think of, is in a ko fight, when the first capturer leaves a stone with one liberty, but must be given the opportunity of course to then connect up the stone, making it alive.

Trafford09 (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Definitions missing for links and groups

This article attempts to provide an overview of all aspects of Go. In doing so, it discusses concepts such as tactics and strategy. Go tactics and strategy cannot be understood without precise definitions for liberties, chains (strings), links, and groups. Of these fundamental related terms, only liberties and chains (strings) are defined. Links are not mentioned at all, and groups are mentioned many times but are never defined.

I would suggest that a precise definition of a group is possible (roughly: a set of strings of the same color connected by non-threatened links). Links are defined by a specific list (diagonal, single-skip, small-knight, double-skip, and large-knight).

An understanding of links and groups is only slightly more advanced than understanding stones, intersections, and strings. Such an understanding is basic to playing the game of Go. It is only slightly less advanced than an understanding of the finite list of "dead shapes", which also seem to be missing from this overview article.

It's perfectly okay for a complex topic to be presented as a related set of articles, but the Go article also attempts to stand on its own (as it should) as an overview. If this article is to be a good stand-alone overview, I would propose that it needs to define all the basics of Go necessary to play at, say, a consistent level of 28? kyu, which includes definitions for links, groups, and perhaps also the dead shapes, with a brief illustration showing how dead shapes can be collapsed to contain only one eye. Fuller explanations already exist in the referenced additional "main articles".

To those who advise 'be bold', I don't wish to do these edits myself, not having the stomach to see my work be deleted by any editor who dislikes change. Let's see if there are any good objections first. David Spector (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no point in describing the exact mechanics of the game in the main article. Rules and definitions can be provided in sub articles. --ZincBelief (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree as a general rule; I'd have thought it's better to stop the top-level article becoming overly large
- thus it helps if detailed content is held in the other - lower-level - articles. Trafford09 (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is really misleading

"The object of the game is to secure (surround) a larger portion of the board than the opponent."

You win by either resignation or by having more points in the end. Surrounding a larger portion does not mean you have more points. (for example: you have less territory than your opponent but you win by komi)

"When a game concludes, the controlled spaces are counted to determine which portion is the largest, as exact territory size is not easily apparent during play."

At the end the spaces (territory) are counted along with captures in Japanese rules, komi is also counted for white. The player with more points wins. (it's different for Chinese rules) Not just controlled spaces are counted in scoring.

the "as exact territory size is not easily apparent during play" is confusing and misleading. Fafas (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're confusing a helpful heuristic remark with a pedantic recitation of the rules. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted an edit from an anonymous IP which made this change because it was (IMHO, of course) useless: It changed the sentence to say "The object of the game is to have more points than the opponent when the game concludes." which is useless. You might as well say "the object of the game is to win the game." - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Image

The one thing I dont like about the mainstay top image is that the lines are hardly visible. I took a different image to see if i could get a better balance, and it shows the grid more clearly, but it fails in other areas (cheap board and stones). -161

External Links

Alexf has suggested that external links be discussed with respect to WP:ELNO. After reading those guidelines and looking at the links remaining after recent changes, I thought I'd go through them and start the discussion on the value of each one below. Please feel free to disagree or make comments under each heading: Tudotou (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Go Associations

I think the current links all add value beyond what is available on WP and are a good place to send people who may be interested in Go. There are other associations that could be linked to of course, but the current list (IGF, EGF, USGo, NHK) are, to the best of my knowledge, some of the better and more major Go Association websites.

Sensei's Library

There is no direct link to Sensei's Library. Should there be? There is a link to a list of Go Servers on Sensei's Library (SL). After reading the guidelines on external links (what not to link to) in particular:

• Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked.

I actually think that SL qualifies as a wiki that can be linked to. This is because it has a large user base and is, I believe, relatively stable (as far as wiki's go - occasional vandalism is considered normal right?).

I think it's likely that SL will always have a lot more content about Go than WP, partly because of its narrow focus and partly because it has Go diagram functionality built in, which makes it more friendly for writing about Go.

I have to admit some bias here, because I have used and edited SL over many years, though I was not a particularly active editor. I imagine some of the other editors watching this page have also been involved in SL. I'd be interested to hear your views either way.

Also, is there a project to move content over from SL onto WP? That seems to be what's happening, but I'm not sure if it was planned or not. In any case WP is a more accessible place for Go information and hopefully more people will discover Go through WP.

Go Game Guru

This is a smaller site, but it also seems to have a consistently high level of content not found elsewhere. I have seen this site popping up a lot recently. There seem to be various references added by quite a few different users in the SL recent changes, particularly from An Younggil 8p's series about top Go players (because he knows them in person I believe). I have also seen references to Go Game Guru on WP, but I can't recall where right now. Alexf suggested that this site could stay because it uses a Creative Commons licence. After reading the guidelines:

• Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)

I'm not sure if that site qualifies as a blog or not. It seems to be using blogging software, but blog software for all kinds of things these days. An Younggil, who could at one time have claimed to be one of the top 10 Go players in the world, seems to meet the notability criteria for people. Another one of the contributors, David Ormerod, is a top amateur player in Australia. I don't think that makes him notable by WP standards, but still somewhat authoritative perhaps. Does anyone else have views on this?

GoProblems.com

I've rarely used this site, the link says it's an open database of Go problems. I've heard it's quite popular. Again, since it has functionality that WP will never have, it seems to add value beyond what we have here. I'm not sure about the quality of the problems and I couldn't find any obvious information about licencing. Perhaps others who have more experience with the site could comment?

Josekipedia.com

This site isn't currently on the list. I'm not sure how long it's been around as I've only discovered it recently. It seems to be quite good and I believe it's run by the same person/people behind the goproblems.com site. It's meant to be a 'wiki' for joseki. I'm not sure how established or stable the site is, but it's interesting. The same comment about extended functionality applies here. Again, I couldn't find any information about licencing.

Good notes. I agree that all of the above mentioned sites deserve a listing. -SC (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Terminology for shapes of go bowls

I think that the section describing go bowls and their shapes needs revision. The terms "Go Seigen" and "Kitani" as applied to the shapes of bowls are not standard and, in fact, are not used anywhere but in the USA as far as I know. These terms were coined somewhat arbitrarily by Janice Kim for marketing purposes when her online store Samarkand was in operation. In fact shapes vary widely in all countries and are not specific to China or Japan. RMcGuigan (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'd never heard those terms before reading this page and had wondered where they came from. Maybe it's not necessary to go into so much detail about the shape of bowls on this page at all? Can't we leave that to the Go equipment page? --Tudotou (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, for both reasons. Go ahead and make the change! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. RMcGuigan is correct. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Asian characters notice

The following notice was added to the article:

Unfortunately it causes formatting problems with other boxes in the introduction, so I removed it. It may fit above the main topic box, rather than underneath them. It should be noted that now all major operating systems (including Mac and Windows) automatically add UTF-8 Asian character support, either in their installation or in their updates, so the Asian character notice may not be necessary. -SC (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Young players

'Age range PCs: 3+; real board: 6+ (Some professional games, especially in Japan, take more than 16 hours and are played in sessions spread over two days.)'

I know that you don't get many very young players, but why are players aged from 3-6 able to play on the computer but not over the board? The time limits for professional games don't really have any relevance, as young children aren't likely to be playing in them, and if they're able to manage a 9x9 on the computer they can manage one against a human over the board.

I would suggest removing the footnote and changing it to just 'Age range: 3+' --82.70.156.254 (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Gah, OK - the footnotes are unclear, and it actually just links to a board being sold on Amazon which recommends 6+. But the point still stands; if a child is able to manage a game on the computer, why would they not manage OTB? --82.70.156.254 (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)