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

Moving toward FA

With the copy editing in place, it really shouldn't be too much more work to move for an FA nomination again. I can probably spend some time on it in the coming weeks. If anyone has suggestions on work that needs to be done, please post them here HermanHiddema (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

We are never going to get there, nobody does any work :)--ZincBelief (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Usage of CJK terms in the lead

Personally, I think the big problem with the article is the intro section, which has no narrative flow, and is encumbered by non-essential points (e.g. the whole of "Go reached the West through Japan, which is why it is commonly known there by its Japanese name. Additionally, many Go concepts for which there is no ready English equivalent have become known by their Japanese names." is not relevant to someone trying to get an overview of the game from the intro). The opening paragraph with all the CJK stuff is also really off-putting to the vast majority of English Wiki readers who don't know CJK. Perhaps the opening para should simply state that the game is known as weiqi/go/baduk in CJK (without any CJK characters), and give the details in a new section on the name of the game. In short, I think that the intro needs to be completely rewritten from scratch to give a succinct and readable overview of the game to the casual wiki-reader -- because it is the intro section that will be visible if it ever gets to FA status. BabelStone (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That is there because people question why Japanese terms are used, it can be moved downwards I suppose.--ZincBelief (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made an attempt. I've moved the complete Chinese traditional/simplified/pinyin/wadegiles thing to the Chinese history section, and have moved the Korean to the Japanese/Korean history section. I've kept the Japanese Kanji in the lead, as well as the mention about the terminology, to prevent people getting confused by Japanese terms before they know what's going on. HermanHiddema (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that is much better, but given that the intro section does not include any Japanese terminology I still do not think there is any need for the long "Go reached the West through Japan, which is why it is commonly known there by its Japanese name. Additionally, many Go concepts for which there is no ready English equivalent have become known by their Japanese names." section at this point. From the point of view of someone trying to get an overview of the game it is a not very useful distraction. Knowing that "Go is played by two players who alternately place black and white stones ..." is far more important, I think.

How about adding a new Terminology section as Section 1 before Rules ? BabelStone (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have made a further effort. I don't think the terminology issue is important enough to merit its own section. I have now added the note to the intro of the rules, since that is where the first such terms are introduced (ko, seki, etc). HermanHiddema (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I added back the single kanji for go because without it readers may wrongly assume that game is named after the English verb BabelStone (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

hello - I undid the kanji without reading here first - I believe that it shouldn't be there - seeing as "Go" is the english word for it and "igo" is the japanese word. I would say that reading the whole introduction would clarify that it is not based on the English verb. just out of interest - are the japanese and chinese characters used to represent it identical? Whitehatnetizen (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Chinese weiqi 圍棋 = Japanese igo 囲碁 (basically the same characters, just written differently and pronounced differently), but in Japanese igo is usually abbreviated to plain go 碁. BabelStone (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

also at the end of the second paragraph - there is an note refference explaining that the english word is based on the japanese reading. I'm of the (humble) opinion that if we're going to put any non-english characters in the intro, then it should be there for all three (CJK). thoughts? Whitehatnetizen (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a difficult one -- we just took all the CJK characters out because they are too intrusive in the opening paragraph, but then I feel that it is not right not to give the Japanese character for the English name. BabelStone (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

ahh - now I understand that the english is really a commonly abreviated japanese word, then it makes a whole lot more sense - you're probably right. perhaps if we move the second sentance of the second paragraph into the first paragraph ("Go reached the West...") with the footnote, then it would assist in clarifying? hmm it's a delicate thing... Whitehatnetizen (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Organization of sections

There are a few sections that might be better if they were moved around a bit. For example, the "Software Players" and "Software Assistance" subsections would perhaps be better placed under the "Computer Go" section. The sections on tactics and strategy might be better placed closer to the discussion of the rules. Captainfwiffo (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Damn. Well spotted. That was the way it was supposed to be, but someone (lyctc) reordered really badly the article it in december. I thought I fixed all that back then, but apparantly missed this one. Thanks! HermanHiddema (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

History paragraph in the lead

I expanded the history paragraph to add some (hopefully) interesting and informative details, and also casually mentioning the transmission of Go to Korea and Japan. I also moved it the end of the intro section so that it does not interrupt the discussion of how the game is played (starting with "Go is noted for being rich in strategic complexity despite its simple rules ..."); and also because mention of the historical board size needs to go after the basic description of the game. BabelStone (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The addition, reading "by the 5th century BC it was already considered a worthy pastime for a gentleman, as indicated by a reference to the game in the Analects of Confucius" is perhaps a bit dubious. The mention in Analects is actually not very positive about the game, is it? :-) HermanHiddema (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Although Confucius is not positively advocating playing bo 博 and yi 弈 (personally I'm not convinced that in the time of Confucius yi does refer to the game of Go, but I seem to be the only one in world who has any doubts about that), he does say that playing such games are much better than being idle, which is some sort of an endorsement of the games as worthwhile activities for a gentleman (君子). I guess changing worthy to worthwhile might be an improvement. I ought to add a reference as well. BabelStone (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead should not contain references. It summarizes the article, so the appropriate content and reference should be in the article. In this case, the content is in the "Origin in China" section, and the reference is John Fairbairn's "Go in Ancient China". JF's translation of the passage in question: "It is difficult for a man who always has a full stomach to put his mind to some use. Are there not players of [liu]bo and go? Even playing these games is better than being idle." The way I read that, playing go is just one step up from doing nothing. Not as bad as idleness, but not very good either. I don't really see a very strong case here for calling it a "worthy/worthwhile pastime for a gentleman". :-) HermanHiddema (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

JF's translation is rather inaccurate, but I'm not going to argue about Confucius' attitude to Go from a single sentence, so I changed "it was already considered a worthy pastime for a gentleman" to "it was already a popular pastime", which I think is appropriately neutral. (I hope that you agree that it must have been a popular pastime or Confucius would not have used it as an example). BabelStone (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, popular is an appropriate term there, I'd say. I've updated it to read "3rd century BC" instead of "5th century BC" to stay in line with the content of the "Origin in China" section and the reference used there. HermanHiddema (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that 3rd Century is a very late possible date for the passage in question given the putative dates of Confucius (551 BC – 479 BC) and the fact that the Analects article states that the book was written sometime during the period 479 BCE - 221 BCE. BabelStone (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The reference for this, Bruce E Brooks, estimates a date of 270BC for book 17 of Analects, which is where the passage occurs. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

ALT tags for board representations

Currently SVG icons are used to represent the board states in diagrams. These have ALT="", which is extremely unhelpful.

Please add (say) ALT=" " for an empty position, ALT=" O " for white and ALT=" X " for black, with parens ALT="(O)" to show the current move. This is in line with the representation used by gnugo's character-cell interface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.7.155.64 (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As I remember it, according to web protocol the alt tag should simply say "Diagram of a <insert subtype> position" --ZincBelief (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Each diagram is built up with dozens of images, each representing one intersection. So although an alt text of the form "Diagram of..." would be the right way to go for the entire diagram, it does not make sense a the alt text for every intersection. The above suggestion might work, but would still require something to be though up for empty intersections (of which there are 10 types: corner (4), edge(4), center and star point). One way to handle them would be to us something like " " or " . " for all of them, but then there would be no way to distinguish between corner/side and center diagrams. Then there's markers (triangles, squares, circles) and letters on either stones and empty intersections, further confusing the issue. A genuinely hard problem, I see no easy answer. HermanHiddema (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

names of "go"

4 points here:

1. the kanji in the intro have been a part of the article for an extended period of time; now they have been dropped almost unilaterally, without proper discussion.

2. "go" is almost certainly the dominant/most common english name for the game, but it is NOT the only one. the fact that "go" is easily confused with the common english verb, to which it is unrelated, also makes clarity & precise definition more important here (what abt adding an IPA, and/or ogg file, to illustrate the subtly different pronunciation?).

3.standard wp & common practice allows for the use of non-english characters in articles like this.

4.given the complex history of the game & names for it, the fact that ALL the common names used for the game in english are transliterations from east asian languages, & "go" is not the original name of the game, this material belongs in this article. if somebody wants to do a separate article about "names of go", feel free; i'll be glad to work on it.

this is the main article about the game, & this is not simple english wikip; taking out this material diminishes the quality of the article considerably. this is moving us AWAY FROM feature article status, NOT toward it.

(the intro, as a whole, is kind of a mess actually; recent edits have not made significant improvements. i'm sorry, but it's true... )

Lx 121 (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Largely disagree -- the recent changes have made the intro much more readable in my opinion. However, I think that you may be right that the CJK should be put back, but in a less intrusive way than it was previously. BabelStone (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

1. What constitutes proper discussion? Babelstone proposed it, ZincBelief supported moving it down, and I implemented it. Given that those are three of the most active editors of the article, I don't really see a problem.

2. Go is, in fact, the only official English term for the game. I do not think you will find baduk, weiqi or igo in any English dictionary. Those terms are used sometimes, but almost always in a context which has to do with the country of origin of the term.

3. Yes, and they have not been removed, only moved down.

4. The material is in the article, but I do not think it needs to be in the lead. The lead should summarize the article, and not go into detail on anything. Mentioning weiqi, igo and baduk in the lead is proper because those are redirects to the article, but the lead is not the place for going into detail on those names.

Note that the material has not been removed. I have only moved it around, so that now the Chinese name is mentioned in the section on its Chinese history, and the Korean/Japanese names in the section on Korean/Japanese history of the game. Seems to me that that is the proper place for it. HermanHiddema (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

On reflection I think that it is important to address the name of the game in the opening paragraph, as readers will want to know where the name comes from and what it means (cf. the articles on Xiangqi and Shogi), so I'd like to propose the following text for the first paragraph of the intro:

Go is a strategic board game for two players. The Japanese name for the game, igo (囲碁), usually abbreviated to go (碁), as well as the corresponding Chinese name from which it derives, weiqi (simplified Chinese: 围棋; traditional Chinese: 圍棋), means the "board game of surrounding". In Korean the game is known as baduk (hangul: 바둑).

and move "Go is noted for being rich in strategic complexity despite its simple rules" to the start of the second paragraph. I think that the above suggested text is informative without the CJK being overly intrusive. BabelStone (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the French Article on Go which has a nice infobox with all the names of Go in various languages and orthographies. I think that it would be a good idea to add such an info box to our Go article -- it would make all the details of names easily accessible at the top of the page without cluttering the prose of the article. What does everyone think ? BabelStone (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Too much space?

Why is there so much space between the intro paragraph and the TOC?

kibi (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this, so I guess it is a browser issue. I do remember that some versions of Internet Explorer have some kind of problem where they refuse to put some boxes next to each other, and push the TOC to below the infobox and the foreign character warning box. Which browser are you seeing this with? HermanHiddema (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Summary style

With the article at 90K, further efforts should be made to place material in subarticles with a correct use of "summary style". This main article shouldn't be getting into certain detailed matters, such as ko fights (for example). Charles Matthews (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I found the discussion of the difference between area and territory scoring rules to be one candidate for streamlining. Equipment and the muddy waters of the Strategy and Tactics sections are other safe bets. --HogweedRapture (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

History of Scoring Systems

I don't know whether HermanHiddema or Reagle is correct, but I have reverted Reagle's latest change as it makes no sense to me. If territory scoring is the older system (as Reagle's latest edit states) but it was only invented in the 15th century (as Reagle's latest edit also states), them what scoring system was used before the 15th century, and when was area scoring invented? You can't make the changes you did unless you address these two questions. I suggest we try to achieve consensus on this issue here before making any further changes to this paragraph. BabelStone (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The quoted reference for the paragraph, http://www.gogod.co.uk/NewInGo/C&IP.htm, goes into much detail on the usage of Territory Scoring in ancient China and the introduction of Area Scoring around the 15th century. More on this can also be found in "THE HISTORY OF RULES CHANGES IN BADUK" by John Fairbairn, presented at the 4th International Conference on Baduk (ICOB). Unless someone comes up with better references that claim differently, the paragraph should remain as is (content wise, if someone wants to improve the language or readability, by all means go ahead). HermanHiddema (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is a good reference, and the content of the paragraph should not be changed unless there is a reliable source that disputes Fairbairn's conclusions. Incidentally, I have added a section on "Group Tax" to Rules_of_Go#Variations as it does not seem to be mentioned anywhere, but I'm not sure if that is the right place to put it. BabelStone (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My edits were only an attempt to clarify confusing introductory text. I'm no expert on scoring, and came to this page to learn about it, but was confused by three things:

1. "very occasionally" is poor English, and sounds equivalent to "frequently." I've tweaked this accordingly.
2. In an introduction, I was frustrated to be reading two paragraphs of history with references to scoring systems not yet explained. We should include as concise a definition as possible.
3. And those references were used inconsistently within those two paragraphs, as they were called by their descriptive and geographical names. We should call them by area/territory (following the Davies convention) to avoid any confusion.

To the actual substance, when I looked at the provided reference, I’m not sure where the “15th century” claim came from. Most all references of a switch over are to books printed in the 1500s, so that’s the “16th” century. Perhaps this is the relevant text: “This book (also known as Riben Difeng, Japanese customs), was published in 1592~1593. It seems that the Chinese author had no memory of Chinese go being played the Japanese way. That pushes the date of the completed switchover, according to Yang, to around the middle of Ming (say, 1500).” Even so, when I look at other sources, this seems quite beside the point, for instance Olli Salmi says: “According to the available evidence this way of scoring was used throughout Chinese history until the first half of the 20th century, when Japanese go entered the country (Hé Yúnbō 2001). The modern Chinese scoring is a compromise between original Chinese scoring and Japanese scoring.” So I find the historical claims to be a muddle in any case.

All that said, here are my offerings for improved text. Aside from fixing “very occasionally” I won’t mess with the article text further and will let someone else tweak this and port it over if appropriate. Note, because I can't find a clear source about the history, I haven't included the 15th century claim here but I think the text is otherwise improved. Please use it, even if you want to add the 15th century claim to it.--Reagle (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two basic scoring systems used to determine the winner at the end of a game; they almost always give the same score. Territory scoring counts the number of empty points your stones surround plus the number of stones you captured. While it originated in China, it is most used in Japan and Korea today. Area scoring counts the number of points your stones occupy or surround and is used in China today.

In Western countries, players have in most cases customarily used territory scoring, though practice varies, particularly at an official level. New Zealand has long used area scoring, while national Go federations in the US, France and the UK have shifted more recently to an area scoring system. The later countries have adopted a counting method (a method of calculating the score) designed to resemble that of territory scoring—while nonetheless giving the same result as if the normal area counting method had been applied—so as to minimize the practical effect of the change.

Note that Olli Salmi mentions: "The score can be calculated before all the possible stones have been placed on the board, by territory, which was the custom in Tang and Song dynasties, or by area, which was the rule in Ming and Qing dynasties."", supporting the assertion that area scoring was introduced during the Ming dynasty. But anyway, I have no preference for 15th or 16th century, the evidence seems to be somewhat vague on exact times, so either one will do, or a phrasing like "around 1500 AD" or "in about the 15th or 16th century" might be better. But anyway, as I've said before, I have no objection to improving the text like above. The reason I reverted was because your edits seemed to me to combine a rather small textual change with an outright factual error. So I thought the reason you edited was to make that factual change, and I did not understand from your edit summaries that you were merely trying to improve on the "very occasionally" phrasing and other textual matters. Please feel free to make further improvements. HermanHiddema (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, one suggested improvement: Instead of "they almost always give the same score", write "they almost always give the same result". The scoring methods give each players very different scores, but the "net score" (ie: difference between the scores of the players) will generally be very close, and in those cases that the "net score" differs, the result (win/loss) will very rarely be effected (I would estimate that the "net score" differs in about 50% of games, but that this affects the result in less than 2% of games). HermanHiddema (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your help. --Reagle (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Psychology and go

I was bold and removed three statements (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Go_(game)&diff=296689814&oldid=296687620);

Given the large search tree, knowledge and pattern recognition seem to be more important than look-ahead search.

"Seems"? To whom? Important in what sense? This seems like original research, that the editor is writing about his own impression of things, instead of attributing it to a source.

[source does not show difference between chess and go], probably due to the fact that both games engage pattern recognition mechanisms.

Who estimated the probability? Where is the estimate? Again seems like the editors own hypothesis.

[source shows right hemisphere used more for go], which suggests that Go calls upon intuitive functions more.

This seems like a controversial claim. Is intuition the only function which uses the right hemisphere more? Also, the word "suggests" seems like poor prose. If the source really shows that go calls upon intuitive functions more, we can just attribute that directly, without such words.

I could not access any of the sources mentioned to check what they are actually saying; if they do indeed make claims as indicated in what I removed, this should be added back in, but with much better wording. I intended to put this talk section here when I made the edit, but forgot, thanks to sampi for reminding me. W (talk) 05:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well like I've said before, I think the first sentence should be changed to:

Given the large search tree, it is likely that knowledge and pattern recognition are more important in Go than in other strategy games, such as Chess.

It is clear that given a larger search tree, look-ahead search will be less effective than in other games with less possibilities. In recent developments in Computer Go we have seen programmers move away from brute-force methods (which partially worked in Chess) to pattern recognition and heuristics(for example). I would refer you to the Computer Go article but unfortunately it doesn't have many sources either :) I have found this source that supports the claim that look-ahead search is less effective in Go than in Chess. Please let me know if you find the reference appropriate.

About the second statement, I agree it should be removed. Both games do engage in pattern recognition algorithms but that doesn't mean that similar brain activity is associated with that fact. The study does not make this claim.

The third statement is just a matter of simple association of the right hemisphere with intuitive functions. This is supported by neuroscientific consensus. Just look at the (thoroughly sourced) graph found in this article. It is clear that right hemisphere activity is associated with: holistic, prosodic, intuitive, estimation and non-literal use of language skills. Linguistic, verbal and similar skills are not commonly associated with any strategic board game. If you want, you can add holistic and estimation skills.

Last but not least I would like to thank W for removing weasel words and looking for unverified claims. I fully support changing the wording. We are a little closer to WP:FA status now.

Thats my input :). Cheers--– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 02:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The neuroscience seems not to be culture-independent, though. The last I heard, they had found that Asian players used their brains differently from Westerners in playing. Whether or not that is then latest research, this kind of speculation is way off what should appear in a main article about a topic like go. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Well, if y'all are looking for criticism about that section... The statements are entirely unobjectionable from a computer Go standpoint, but Sampi seems to have that covered. What I'd really like to see is any information about kids playing Go; there's a slew of studies about teaching kids chess with various benefits redounding, but I don't think I've ever run into any study conducted using Go instead. --Gwern (contribs) 02:46 26 June 2009 (GMT)

Neuroscience is not known to be a culture-dependent discipline. If Asian brains function differently in certain situations, it is more likely that they are using a different mix of rational/intuitive thought than that they actually employ those sections of the brain for different functions.

And yes, a study of the impact of Go on kids would be great! And not necessarily that difficult. No need for time-intensive special testing; just analyze data from report cards and achievement tests. The challenges would be, identifying valid Ss and controls, and getting consent from parents, and before that getting consent from schools to ask parents for consent. However, while we await those studies, there are enough similarities between chess and go to lend a certain "face validity" to the proposition that Go students would enjoy similar benefits. kibi (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, just correlating grades and Go-playing isn't very interesting. One knows in advance the answer: the smart kids play Go more than the others, and they get better grades. What one really wants is what the chess studies are doing - teaching one group chess and having a control group (perhaps doing extra classwork), so you can get some data on actual causation, and not just obvious correlation. --Gwern (contribs) 02:35 2 July 2009 (GMT)

Putting the children playing go subject aside, I re-added one of the statements with different wording. I noticed that the citation I was gonna use to support it is already added to the article so I just used ref name. The specific pages of the book that talks about pattern recognition and look-ahead search are 18-20. Let me know if anybody has any objections.--– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 09:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Random chance

Why is random chance said to be "Virtually None" in the article's infobox? I see that the one on the Chess article just says "None". Go is a deterministic, perfect information game. I think this should be changed. Any comments?--– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 05:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"None" was changed to "Virtually none" in this edit by an IP. In the same edit they also changed setup time from "None" to "1-3 min", which I think is not reasonable as placing handicap stones only takes a few seconds, and in non-handicap games there is nothing to setup at all. I think we should revert both setup time and random chance back to "None". BabelStone (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

agree with BabelStone. Make it so. RomaC (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Skills required: Strategy, tactics, observation

The line appears in the infobox. But observation? Really? I think that kind of goes without saying. Should we include it in the badminton and bull fighting articles too?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Baduk disamb.

I suggest that Baduk redirects to this article with an 'other uses' thingy in this article. It currently goes to a dab article with the game and a movie. Certainly 99.9% of searches intent to come here and not the obscure film, therefore a big waste of time for many. If nobody objects within a day or so, I will just go ahead and do it. Please forgive me if this has been covered before. Thanks.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I had waaayyyy too much coffee when I wrote that.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy

The section starts with A comparison of Go and chess is often used as a parallel to explain Western versus Eastern strategic thinking. Go begins with an empty board .... As if Go were the only game in the "East" and Shogi did not exist. While the claim in itself is strange, it is corroborated by one source only. The second part of the section, "three games", refers to another idea that comes from one source only, a Westerner, and neglects Shogi again. The musings and projections of some Westerners hardly deserve the caption "Philosophy", nor are they relevant. -- Zz (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• I also don't see a reason why his point of view is relevant presented as it is. You could also argue that the use of specific types pieces in chess reflects how alchemy played a large role in Western thought (as did the opposition of the king and queen / male and female as two elements of nature). So that chess isn't so much 'man vs. man', it just reflects a belief in different elemental forces that all keep each other in check. The author thats cited seems to be a Japanophile so naturally he looks at the game in a particular perspective. If his perspective on this is popular and influential he should be cited as a popular and influential author on the game, instead of how it is with his views cited but his name absent except in the footnomtes.

Age

The article claims that Go is mentioned in the analects of Confuzius. Quotes are missing and the sources hardly refer to the claim as such. Further, no evidence is presented, that the reference to a boardgame is a reference to Go. The claim should be corrected or corroborated. If not, I will tag the article. -- Zz (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Take a look here, thats the part of the Analects of Confucius where most people claim he mentions Go. The moder-day word 围棋(weiqi) is obviously not used. This was written thousands of years ago in Traditional Chinese. In order to understand the problem with the quote, you have to understand that translating the 2500-year old use of the word "弈" is kind of hard. It is the general consensus that he was talking about some form of chess. Based on the fact that Go seems to be the oldest chess-like game, historians and translators usually credit the Analects as the first historical reference to Go. I agree that this needs a more sources to support it, but I doubt we would find them in English. – sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 13:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering why (and when) this source was removed. It talks specifically about Go in the Analects. Is it not a WP:RS? – sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 14:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)