Talk:Rules of Go

Use the + or new section tab above to add a new comment section at the end, which is where new comments are placed.

Boundary Conditions

Does the boundary count as a liberty? If I have a piece on the boundary and it is surrounded by opposing pieces, is it always alive, or is it dead? 128.171.31.11 (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The boundary does not count as a liberty. A stone at the edge which is surrounded on all other sides is captured. HermanHiddema (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Remarks

I delete some of my outdated remarks. Jasiek 2006-03-10

Sorry Robert - I'm going to have to treat you as a complete newbie on this. You should not delete talk page material like this, normally. The comments are not addressed just to you - if I had wanted to explain just to you what is happening here, I would use your user talk page (well, you aren't a signed-in user, but that is the correct way). So, the history on this page is to explain to everyone what has been happening here; otherwise tomorrow exactly the same discussion might occur. Charles Matthews 18:07, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Robert - really:

(a) you are posting your opinions on go rules as factual, when they are just opinions;

(b) you are now posting your opinions on Wikipedia policy and etiquette as if they also mattered more.

Considering seven years of my reading your posts to rec.games.go, and I suppose vice versa, I am trying to explain things gently. But it seems to me you have to try to understand something about this large project, Wikipedia, to which 1000s of people contribute, before you begin to be helpful, rather than just making a mess which will need to be fixed up later.

Charles Matthews 18:34, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The go rules page is in a process of being edited these days. I hope that afterwards the degree of facts is higher again.

As you seem to indicate, you have more experience about Wikipedia here. I was not aware of that. Since you say that talks are not deleted quickly, I may as well not delete them quickly. May I ask who deletes them or are they expected to grow larger and larger despite a 32K per page warning?

Old talk is generally "deleted" (though it remains in the history) or archived (moved to another page) on an ad-hoc basis when the page becomes too large... Evercat 19:09, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK, I was getting a bit depressed about stone counting. I think, clearly enough, we should segregate scoring/counting from the essential (outline) rules, saying that there is more than one recognised method of proceeding when the game is over, but for learning the game it doesn't matter so much. Charles Matthews 20:04, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think that's best - not to pretend to have a complete rule set, but links in particular to the ko rule section (so we don't have to distinguish superko from ko, which are equivalent in practice about 9999 times out of 10000, I suppose) and to something on scoring and counting (which ought to have diagrams). Charles Matthews 10:16, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think my solution would be to create SGFs and use the filters at http://gobase.org/software/sgf2misc/ to get images. I mean, this means in principle the same SGFs can be re-used to get different styles and standards of images. As I have not created any diagrams for Wikipedia, I'm not very confident in this area. Charles Matthews 12:25, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So by counting the stones do you mean that you actually count them or is there any multiplying factors?--Grigoryev 17:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Chain vs Group

This article now uses the word chain where it used to use group. The few Go books I've read used "group", and I think "group" is the more common word among Go players, but I'm not certain. Are there any objections to changing it back to group instead of chain? ~leif ☺ _HELO 11:39, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes - it is completely confusing if you use group when you mean chain. After the introductory stage it doesn't matter so much - but initially one must be clear.

Charles Matthews 12:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, prior to just reading the Chain article at SL, I didn't realize group and chain meant different things. The definitions there are that chains are always connected, while "group" can sometimes refers to groups that are not strictly connected but just share a liberty. Perhaps this should be clarified in the article here? ~leif ☺ _HELO 12:32, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One problem is that 'group' has no definite meaning, at a tactical level. Basically one assumes a group is well connected; but the usage of 'group' really is as a set of chains that cooperate well for a particular purpose. Charles Matthews 12:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I find it interesting that on the go (board game) page and this article, it mentions the thinking times policy, both linking to the other . "See GO Rules" "See GO(boardgame)". THey both seem to have the same information on this particular point.

So what is a difference between one and another (chain/group)? Do you really have to have a "group"? In the game that I know you use grouping exclusively for the defensive purposes.--Grigoryev 17:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The thing is that no one uses the term "chain" when discussing the game. So however ambiguous the word "group" is, that's what one would use to describe a strategic unit on the board. I am unable to imagine a situation in which one would confuse a "group" of connected stones with, say, a "group" that's under attack.Mimson 05:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The only time you would talk about chains is when teaching a person or a computer to play go. When talking about strategy the group is what is relevant. But in teaching, the difference is important. If we use the word "group" to mean both the thing that is solidly connected (and is captured when surrounded), and also the thing that must contain two eyes, novices (who are the audience for this series of articles) may think you are saying that you must use a single solidly connected group, or chain, to surround two eyes. Whereas in fact most of the minimal groups use two chains; see diagram.

I freely admit that "chain" is not standard terminology, but then, there is no standard terminology for a set of strictly connected stones (probably because it isn't usually useful to talk about it). The AGA rules use "string" which is just as good as "chain", and so do Tromp-Taylor rules. New Zealand rules don't have a word for the concept at all. British rules say "solidly connected group" three times (i.e., there are seven white groups above), then they say just "group" to mean that same thing, then they say "These two separate spaces within the group are known as eyes", then they say "a group of stones which is unable to make two eyes, and is cut off and surrounded by live enemy groups, is called a dead group"; here they are back to using "group" in the usual strategic sense, in which there are four white groups above. This is exactly the kind of ambiguity that will mess with people learning the game. DanielCristofani 11:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just eliminate the terminology and say "solidly connected groups"? I think it would be better than having new players going out and talking about "chains", which may cause unnecessary confusion. Mimson 05:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

On another thought, who came up with the terminology of chains? How about a citation, at least on the discussions page? Mimson 23:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

How remarkable -- more than 200 books have been published in English without the need for distinct terms for "group" vs. "chain." The Japanese make no distinction per SL. How is it then that we cannot seem to do without this confusion? Go is confusing enough for new players. And if there is a need for a second term, "chain" isn't it. A "chain" is "a series of objects connected one after the other" (Dictionary.com) how does that describe an eyeless clump of stones? "String" has the same problem. Face it - the word is "group." kibi (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Most books can freely assume a basic understanding of the rules, and can use the informal "group" without confusion. Beginner introductions and official rules sets do not have that luxury. For example:

• Official AGA Rules: String
• Official EGF rules (Simplified Ing): Chain
• Official Japanese rules: Group
• Official Chinese rules: Unit

Any of these is a valid choice, group is the choice with the highest chance of confusion. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Herman, are you disputing or agreeing? You seem to make the point that these terms are interchangeable; none of the books uses more than one for different concepts. Since "group" is the term one will encounter later on, it seems natural to use it from the start. "Chain" and "string" both imply a straight line, so I don't see how you can defend your unsupported assertion that they are less confusing than the term we all use.

kibi (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My point above is that these terms are pretty much interchangeable, but that group is the only one that is ambiguous. I have no problem with changing the terminology to any of the options except group. I oppose the use of group in this context.

The usage in most books is meaningless, as those books assume a basic level of go understanding in their readers, an assumption we cannot make here at wikipedia. The material should be accessible to all, not just those that already know how to play go. The only books which are an exception are beginners books, where the reader is supposedly not familiar with go yet. I don't have a collection of beginners books at hand, so I do not know what terminology they use. The only English beginner book I own is Learn to Play Go, by Janice Kim, which deftly avoids using any term for this at all, not once does it use any of the words "group", "chain", "string", "unit" or any other term to indicate solidly connected stones. (The text of this book can be found here, see the section named capturing). HermanHiddema (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this article necessary?

I hate to throw cold water on so much work, but speaking as an enthusiastic (if crummy) Go player and a longtime wikipedian, I would urge people to change this article radically.

We can't make it so comprhensive that it could be used by a newcomer to learn the game. For one thing, trying to explain eyes and liberties and all that will make it FAR too long to be read on most browsers. ("The Way of Go" by Ishi Press is about as simple an introduction as you can get, and it's many pages long.) For another, and on a more general level, Wikipedia is not, and shouldn't try to be, a set of rulebooks or instruction manuals.

The role of this article (if it should be an article at all, which I doubt) is to (a) give people a sense of how Go is played and how it differs from chess and other similar games - a feel for Go, not a lesson - and (b) to explain the history of how the rules have developed and a general feel of how they differ around the world.

At least, that's my opinion! - DavidWBrooks 20:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chess is massively irrelevant. 'Rules of Go' means two or three things: (a) instructions on how to play, (b) 'tournament rules', i.e. practical rules to deal with potential unclarities and potential disputes, (c) the arcana, namely close reading of rules sets, the slight regional differences and implications, and rational design for sets of rules. You say (a) matters most (I would agree really), and is impossible to cover sensibly here (not really true: life-and-death is derived from rules, not part of them. Under WP general policy this article needs to indicate something about all of these. Charles Matthews 06:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Representing positions

I mainly created this template to play games under Wikipedia sandbox/userspaces, but it can be used in articles out of convenience as well. The talk page there documents it. For smaller sizes than 20 pixel fonts, for now you have to use the no coordinate version. Oh anyone up for a possible game of go at Wikipedia:Sandbox/Chess? Could hold one there, or from a separate page. -- Natalinasmpf 03:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I am in the process of documenting a manual for using the template. -- Natalinasmpf 01:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Alternatives to play with the game

Back in high/school (in Ukraine), I used to play something of this game (we call it "the estate" or "the lands"). We used pens or pencils and regular "math" paper or construction design paper, the last one - almost never. One chose either a cross or a dot.

When a player would cut another one from the adjacent intersections, "the cutee" would connect his chosen objects around the number of the opponents objects that were cut, thus marking his territory putting the surrounded opponents objects out of play. This game doesn't have a concept of Ko. Wins one who has more "estate" or "land".

Another thing, I don't consider that the size of the board depends on a level of play. It's really not such a difficult game to understand. There's a saying "all genius is simple". The size of the board depends on time you would like to "kill" while playing the game.

--Grigoryev 17:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Well it depends - a larger board allows you more freedom, but the enemy as well - hence you must plan ahead. With a smaller board it's harder to recover from a debacle or a mistake, but you have to plan ahead less. A larger board can be viewed as more advanced because both sides have to plan ahead more, in contrast to the smaller one. -- Natalinasmpf 06:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Area vs. Territory scoring

The previous version of the Winner rule was completely wrong; it pretended that the winner would be the player with more empty intersections surrounded by only his stones. If you do not notice what is wrong with that: either the stones on the board are missing for Area Scoring or the opposing prisoners are missing for Territory Scoring. To end the competition about which scoring to describe on the rules page, the only promisingly lasting solution is to describe them all, what I have done now. -- Jasiek

I believe that the philosophy behind Japanese scoring can be seen if it is compared to a war. First, consider each stone to be a soldier or group of soldiers. If Area scoring is used, then when a player places a stone in a dead terriritory, they have wasted a life or lives of people on their side of the war. These incongruencies only matter at the end of the game when the average scoring between white and black is similar. Obviously if one person has a huge advantage, the scoring methods are not a matter of consequence. Though I understand that the chances that white and black have very similar scores is small, I still think it is an issue.

Theoretically, a person in the lead can potentially lose using Territory scoring if he constantly puts stones in the opponents territory that are well under the opponents' control. Obviously a better player that is in the lead would unlikely do this since they've gone so far into the game and are winning. But the problem is if both players are of equal skill. If this is the case, then every point is critical. If one player thinks that trying to capture a questionable area is risky, he would attempt it under chinese rules and wouldn't attempt it under japanese rules, unless he evaluated it as profitable. If a position is profitable, then of course a player would capitalize on it, but if it isn't or if it is really hard to determine, then the scoring method matters.

If you consider yourself the General or King of all the soldiers represented by your stones, then you do not want to sacrifice lives in a war that is already won or lost. Before the endgame, with either scoring method, you are penalized for placing stones in your own territory. This isn't done explicitly, but it can be shown by you "wasting" a turn, where you could have put your stone somewhere else to capture more area or territory. During the endgame, most fights have determined a winner except for a few leftover risky manuevers. Territory scoring would penalize you for making the mistake if the risk you took was not good, and Area scoring wouldn't. This doesn't make sense.

It is in this way that the Japanese scoring method is more elegant; not because it is the tradition or that there is a "beauty of omission." Lives matter, and that is why in the game of Go, we consider things Alive or Dead. It doesn't make sense that a ruler would risk any more lives of his people if the war is over. In conclusion, Area scoring allows for riskier play and Territory scoring allows for a person to balance offense and defense, while agreeing on an end of the game sooner too.70.111.251.203 14:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Further analysis of Chinese vs. Japanese scoring has lead me to believe that both are roughly equivalent. Because of their equality, Chinese scoring is superior due to it's simplicity in counting compared to the Japanese territory. The only special case where Japanese scoring is particularly different is when one player is winning slightly and has the opportunity for a big risky move. Since close games would usually occur between two equally skilled players, they should both have the same chance of making mistakes and taking varying sized risks. 71.250.68.205 15:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Basically in Chinese, you get to keep going without penalty, and in Japanese you try to end the game when it seems like it is done or you could risk losing points.

AGA rules

The AGA rules are basically the same as the Chinese rules. They have modified the Japanese territory scoring so that whenever a person passes they have to give one stone to the opponent as a prisoner and also that white has to be the last one to pass to end the game. This makes both area and territory scoring equivalent. Though it is not elegant, it cancels out the need for territory scoring and keeping track of prisoners at all for AGA rules. I think that this is a great simplification but it loses the value that Japanese scoring has instantiated. 128.6.175.17 13:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

9x9 and other boards

I can't find what are proper Komi values and handicape for other boards. Do they have same Komi/handicap as 19x19?

I don't know, either. But, on the Kisedo Go Server, the "default" number of handicap stones on a small board is less than those on the larger boards.

Tibetan rules

These have been pushed onto the page, but should they really be on Go Variants? -Zinc Belief

Star point positions on smaller boards - wrong?

In the section Optional Rules -> Compensation -> Handicap there is a discussion of star points, or hoshi, which states:

Smaller boards such as the 13x13 and 9x9 also have star points. The 13x13 has 9 at the 3-3 points, 3-6 points, and the center.

It seems to me that if the 13x13 board has 9 hoshi then the right position for the side ones must be 3-7, not 3-6, as 7 is the centre line. A quick net search suggests to me that the 13x13 board commonly has only 5 hoshi so the 3-6 points should be taken out of the list, not altered. But being new to Wikipedia AND not a Go player I'm not game to change this; could someone familiar with the game check that the description is right? -Medb 17:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ing Rules

It should be Ing Rules, not ING, since they are named after a person, Ing Chang-Ki.

The article states that Ing rules use a “Super Ko” rule. However, Ing tried to create a ko rule that would avoid the need for players to keep track of whole-board positions. The result was a ko rule that classified a ko as either “disturbing” or “fighting,” and also created the term “hot stone.”

The Ing rules ( http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/SST.html ) seem to have problems. The definitions/terminology section contains arguments in favor of his rules; the definitions/terminology section uses terms that aren't in the definitions/terminology section; some of the terms are defined in other parts of the rules; some of the definitions simply refer to a diagram which gives an example of the term being defined.

I don't think there is a clear definition of “disturbing ko” or “fighting ko.” If, in fact, there is no clear definition, the result may be, in effect, that Ing rules use the “super ko” rule.

In order for Ing counting boxes to work, Ing stones were of uniform thickness. 206.53.197.12 16:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The Ing Rules were named after Chang-Ki Ing, and are not an abbreviation for Intelligent Go. I started making the change from ING to Ing. SlowJog (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The section on Ing rules stated that this rule set used "super ko." I edited it to match what was stated in the section on ko. SlowJog (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Counting up points

Sorry but I'm a complete newbie when it comes to GO and I have a question, when your counting up points at the end of a game how do you count them?

I added to the Chinese method of scoring to describe the actual method used at the Chinese Go club in Monterey Park, California in the 1990's. It's fun to make the rectangles and count by tens, especially when you win. Larry R. Holmgren 15:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent article

I think this is objectively one of the best articles, even better than India, and other articles; it may not be as important, but is very well written just like Chess.

Differences section

I really like this article except for the very last section which talks about the differences bettween diffrent rule sets. I would remove it beacuse it contains repetition of information already in the article and what appears to be orgional research. First it says the two rule set are almost the the same. Besides being somewhat obvious, this is stated peviouslly in the scoring section. If it is retained it should be in the introduction to the section not at the end. The second part of the section appears to me to be conjecture about how the diffrent rulesets alter play style, and that needless extending the game is dishonerable. I think this should be verified or removed. Lotu 20:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Equivalence of scoring methods

The article says:

"If the game ends with both players having passed the same number of times, then the score will be identical no matter which method is used."

But isn't this technically incorrect?

Consider a game where neither player passes and in the end they take turns in filling the dame points as usual. Under Japanese scoring the dame points don't increase the score of either player but under Chinese scoring all stones, including the ones placed at dame points, increase the player's score. Now, if there's an odd number of dame points, one of the players get one point more, which could theoretically be the difference between victory and defeat.

Or have I misunderstood something? Ossi (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's correct as I understand it: there is a difference in that case. White must end in even games for the number of stones to be equal. Furthermore, the handicap stones (if any) make another difference. But the main difference is probably with sekis, since the territory is nil in that case, but the number of stones may be widely different. Filling the dame points simplifies the count, that's all. Michelet-密是力-Me laisser un message 07:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Chinese rules?

I have seen a few mentions of the ancient Chinese rules of Weiqi or Yi which are distinct from the modern Chinese rules. But I cannot find an English text for them. Apparently there was a two point tax on each living group. This suggests to me that originally one's score was the number of stones of one's color which were on the board at the end of the game. This would require you to capture all enemy stones within your territory and then fill it up with your own stones except for two one-point eyes to keep it alive. Does anyone know any more about the ancient rules? JRSpriggs (talk) 09:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, ancient rules were territory scoring like the Japanese rules, and area scoring wasn't invented in China until the 15th century AD. At its introduction, there seems to have been a period where the "group tax" applied, but this was later dropped. HermanHiddema (talk) 11:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Ikeda, "It would have been natural and easy to start from the simple rules of placing stones alternately on the board and removing stones that became surrounded, and arrive at the conclusion that the player who could place the most stones on the board should be the winner." [1] and "A player's score is the number of that player's played stones." [2] (his Area Rules I). JRSpriggs (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It may seem natural, but the evidence is against it. Ancient rules were territory rules, area rules were not used until Ming dynasty times (15th century AD). Stone scoring (with group tax) was only in use a short time at the beginning of that period. HermanHiddema (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Dishonorable???

The subsection Rules of Go#Differences says "It's because of the design of the Chinese rules that players using this rule set will be more able to take greater risks than compared to playing under Japanese rules; this may draw games out a little longer and at certain times seem dishonorable." (emphasis added). I cannot see how playing by the Chinese rules could encourage dishonorable behavior. Can anyone explain this? Or is this an improper POV statement? JRSpriggs (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically, that whole section is crap, I'm deleting it. HermanHiddema (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Suicide

Currently most major rule sets forbid playing such that a play results in that player's own stones being removed from the board,
[...]
in certain circumstances a suicidal move may threaten the opponent's eye shape, yielding a ko threat.

Emphasis mine. Shouldn't that be a snapback threat? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, shouldn't the threat be left general, with no mention of ko, snapback, atari, or other particular kinds of threats? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

All rule sets forbid suicide of a single stone; rule sets that allow suicide permit it for more than one stone. I forgot where I read that, so I added the "fact" tag when I edited the article. (Suicide of a single stone would be the same as a pass, anyway.)

As far as I can tell, there is no reason for a player to suicide his/her stones except as a ko-threat. SlowJog (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Suicide can sometimes grant life, kill or make seki, see:

• http://senseis.xmp.net/?Suicide for an example of making seki with suicide
• http://senseis.xmp.net/?SuicidalTendencies for an example of a suicide life & death situation

HermanHiddema (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Aga Rules

Is it me or is there an exception to territory and area count-scoring giving an equal result.--ZincBelief (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Is a stone connected to itself?

This is not an extremely serious question, since the rules can accommodate either interpretation. I have a preference for saying a stone is connected to itself. I think connectedness should be an equivalence relation. Two editors have expressed objections, or at least seem to dislike the idea. Here are the alternatives:

Definition 1. In a given position, two stones of the same color (resp. two empty intersections) are said to be connected if it is possible to pass from one to the other by a succession of stones of that color (resp. empty intersections), each one other than the first being adjacent to the one before it. Any stone (resp. empty intersection) is understood to be connected to itself.

Definition 2. In a given position, a liberty of a stone is an empty intersection adjacent to at least one stone to which that stone is connected.

Definition 3. In the final position, an empty intersection is said to be a point of a player's territory if it is not connected to any empty intersection adjacent to a stone of his opponent's color.

Definition 1'. In a given position, two stones of the same color (resp. two empty intersections) are said to be connected if it is possible to pass from one to the other by a succession of stones of that color (resp. empty intersections), each one other than the first being adjacent to the one before it.

Definition 2'. In a given position, a liberty of a stone is an empty intersection adjacent to that stone, or adjacent to any stone to which that stone is connected.

Definition 3'. In the final position, an empty intersection is said to be a point of a player's territory if neither that empty intersection nor any empty intersection connected to it is adjacent to a stone of his opponent's color.

I actually think a stone is connected to itself under Definition 1', since you can take the succession consisting of just that stone. Of course, in everyday life, when you see "two stones," you usually assume "two distinct stones" is meant.

HermanHiddema proposes a change to Definitions 1', 2', 3'. Since this would necessitate changes in a number of places (including commentary on the rules), I am temporarily reverting the change, but I am certainly amenable to the amendment if after discussion it appears most editors are favorable to it. 136.152.224.6 (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Although the concept of stones being connected to themselves is mathematically elegant, I fear it will confuse too many readers, and I think the usage can be avoided. I've proposed a change which would probably work. An alternative is to define a new term like chain or string for a set of connected stones (including a single stone), and define that all members of such a chain share their liberties and that a liberty is an empty point adjacent to any member. This is an approach which many rule sets follow. HermanHiddema (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Split proposal

In the last few days, I have expanded the article a good deal, in large part by adding examples and diagrams. Most of that is directed at people looking for a basic idea of what go is. The page may be too big now, so I suggest splitting it into two articles, one for the basic rules and one focused on differences between rule sets. I can't think of good names, but two possibilities that come to mind are Basic rules of go/Rules of go and Rules of go/Variation in the rules of go.

The first article would contain:

• The statement of the basic rules.
• The explanation of the basic rules. (This part is probably over half the length of the current article.)
• Something along the lines of the current section "Comparative features of the basic rules" but with links to the appropriate sections of the second article.

The second article would contain:

• A link to the first article in the opening paragraph.
• (Possibly) a brief statement of the basic rules.
• Complete information about differences in rule sets.

I would like input on this, including suggestions for the names of the articles if the split seems like a good idea. 136.152.224.59 (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)