Talk:Go (game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Go (game) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 13, 2004.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  Quality: C-Class
 Mid  Importance: Mid

Women players[edit]

I have a copy of Shotwell's book which is referenced in the sectionTop Players. I have looked through the book twice, and I was unable to find any page specifically referencing women players or their special tournaments, as represented by this paragraph:

  • Historically, as with most sports and games, more men than women have played Go. Special tournaments for women exist, but until recently, men and women did not compete together at the highest levels; however, the creation of new, open tournaments and the rise of strong female players, most notably Rui Naiwei, have in recent years highlighted the strength and competitiveness of emerging female players.[1]

I also noticed that the author of this reference did not list a specific page number... TheGarnet (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


  1. ^ Shotwell, Peter (2003), Go! More Than a Game, Tuttle Publishing, ISBN 0-8048-3475-X 

Date of Invention[edit]

This article claims that “Go … originated in China more than 2,500 years ago.” However, Go and mathematics claims that “Chinese scholars of the 11th century already published work … based on the go board.” So, when was Go invented? -- (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  • That "11th century" means 11th century AD; this article claims Go originated in about 400BC. There is no contradiction here. Reyk YO! 23:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
And evidently the traditional date is more like 4000 years ago... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization of "go"[edit]


I've noticed that this article always capitalizes the "g" in "go" even in cases where it is not being used as part of a proper name or the first word of a sentence. Is this based upon something in the MOS or is it simply common convention? Other game articles, such those for chess, backgammon, checkers, card games, etc., do not capitalize the first letter when the word is being used as a common noun and I think this is consistent with commonly accepted rules for capitalization. So, in my opinion, "I play go" is correct while "I play Go" is not for exactly the same reasons that "I play poker" is correct and "I play Poker" is not.

Is "go" being capitalized because it is a foreign word or for emphasis? If that's the case, then I think it's better to use italics instead such as "I play go."

Is there concern that people will mistake "go" (the game) for "go" (the verb)? I guess that's possible if no context was provided at all, but since the article is about "go" (the game) that seems a little bit unlikely.

I am interested in this because I am currently working on some articles about shogi. "Shogi" is also a foreign word and is also a board game. "Shogi" is capitalized when it is part of a proper name, e.g., the Japan Shogi Association, or used to begin a sentence, but otherwise it is typically not. So, I am trying to understand how it is different from "go". Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, i found some things on this both on the WikiProject Go's Talk Page and in this talk page's archives here and here, but it doesn't seem to me that a solution was found that was acceptable to all. Was a consensus eventually reached? - Marchjuly (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I personally prefer the capitalized version, to distinguish the name of the game from the rather common English word. Reyk YO! 10:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey thanks for the reply Reyk. I can see the merits of that approach. On the other hand, the card game "bridge" is not capitalized each time it is used even though the word is also rather common. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Good example. Another (less good though) is "solitaire". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC) p.s. And I think there might be a lot of them. (E.g. "fencing" is both a sport, and a material for fences.)
Sure, but I think people would be more likely to use the verb "go" when talking about the board game than use "bridge" as in "thing for crossing the water" when talking about the card game. That said, I don't feel particularly strongly about it. Just a slight preference for the capitalised version. Reyk YO! 11:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Seibu Museum[edit]


I only noticed this because it showed up in this diff for an edit made by somebody else to the same sentence.

I believe that seibu in the sentence He said in the French book Arman, un entretien d'artiste[125] that the picture of him published in the Go newspaper was more important for him than his exhibition at the seibu museum. should be capitalized, especially if this is the Japanese word seibu. The Japanese word can be used as a common noun, but in this case it seems to be referring to the name of an actual museum [1] in Tokyo. I don't read French and don't have access to the source this references so I may be wrong. However, if the two seibu museum are the same then, not only seibu but also museum should be capitalized. Furthermore, the actual name of the museum should be probably used since this is the first and only time it is referenced in the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

9x9 Ko Fight picture[edit] In the article, E is described as a ko threat. It may be a ko threat, however it doesn't work - white will just connect the ko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fafas (talkcontribs) 20:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually it says "possible" ko threat. I think the picture is fine other than the point E being suggested as a ko threat. Fafas (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Fafas is right, it is not a ko threat. I think a new image should be made which shows a clearer threat for black. --– sampi (talkcontribemail) 05:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

E is indeed not a ko threat for white. However, it is one for black. NathanWubs (talk) 06:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
No, it is not a ko threat for black. I think we need a picture were it is abundantly clear to beginners why it's a threat. --– sampi (talkcontribemail) 09:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
How is it not, it threatens to kill the left white group. But if you are not satisfied with it. The easiest thing you can do is upload an image to wikipedia creative commons and replace this one. As I do not think anyone would object to a more clearer example. NathanWubs (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I might make a better image and upload it later. In any case, I can assure you E is not a threat (if it helps, I am 3 dan).--– sampi (talkcontribemail) 21:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I played it out, you are right in the end its not beneficial even if black gets the left side. Also being 3 dan, does not help a lot as there are way to many different rating systems these days. Depended on country, or depended on client you use. NathanWubs (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I just mentioned that I was 3 dan (on KGS, for example) to clarify that I am not beginner, and that I know what I'm talking about. No, if black plays E as a threat he does not get the left side (he doesn't get anything, really). I have created an SGF with some example variations here. It is indeed more complicated than I though, but in any case I think a clearer example is better. I am making another image now to replace the one in the article.--– sampi (talkcontribemail) 06:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I replaced the file with the new image. I also restored the comment about E previously removed by Fafas. let me know if you have any comments.--– sampi (talkcontribemail) 06:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


Go was seen in the 60s in the British television series, The Man in Room 17, ( about two men who, rather like Mycroft Holmes, solved crimes without leaving their office, but preferred to spend their time competing against each other at Go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schollard (talkcontribs) 00:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Good Article nomination[edit]

I see someone has nominated this for good article status. This game definitely deserves a GA article. But in my opinion this article is still quite a way off. It is disorganized, and the sourcing could be much better. We should develop a plan for a more coherent article. What do you all think? Reyk YO! 11:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, @Reyk: I am currently working to fix that a little, so what do you suggest?TheQ Editor (Talk) 14:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, I noticed in the middle of the article, there is a random{{GoBoardGame}} template. It is kind of irrelevant to the subject and I think it should be moved to the bottom and make it something more similar to the {{Chess}} template.TheQ Editor (Talk) 14:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this article is more than a little off. Some terms aren't used consistently throughout the article. But, I'll try my best to help improve it. HowardEzW (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your responses @TheQ Editor: and @HowardEzW:. I think it will take more than just adding a source here, fixing some terminology there, to get this article up to a reasonable standard. You'll see in the edit history that I have made some incremental changes of this kind too, but IMO the article will need an extensive rewrite starting with a coherent plan regarding the structure and layout. The last time I worked on a major rewrite of an article, we started with a subpage of the talk page where we first decided on sections and listed every source on the topic that we could get our hands on. Then when we had everything together we started writing. This seemed to work well. I suggest starting a subpage Talk:Go (game)/Rewrite where we can do the same thing. What do you think? Reyk YO! 22:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure, why not?@Reyk:. So do we just copy the whole article or section by section?TheQ Editor (Talk) 22:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've started a basic outline. Feel free to tweak it. Now I'll start collecting all the sources I can get my hands on. Reyk YO! 00:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll also help on the outline. HowardEzW (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
@Reyk:, @HowardEzW:. Should we remove the Strategy and Tactics section. Wikipedia is not a guide. And in the article, it contains a lot of original research, mostly from Go players themselves. TheQ Editor (Talk) 15:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree the strategy and tactics section reads like a how-to guide, and has too much original research as it currently is. But I think this is an important part of the game that should be covered in some form, though not the way it currently is. Reyk YO! 00:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Go in Vietnamese[edit]

What is the significance of Go in Vietnam? In the opening paragraph, the name of go in Vietnamese is given. Go is significant in China, Japan and Korea; and often go terms in English come from Chinese, Japanese and Korean. Also it's quite common to refer to go as "weiqi" and "baduk". So it makes sense to put the name in the game in these languages. But, as far as I know, go isn't that popular or culturally significant in Vietnam. If there isn't a reason, I'll remove it. HowardEzW (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Since there was no response for over a week, I've removed the name of go in Vietnamese. HowardEzW (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Modern and low-cost alternatives[edit]

This paragraph contains no citations all and I can't find anything on the web about this. If no references are provided, I would have to delete it. TheQ Editor (Talk) 19:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

' "Wei-chi" redirects here. For the Chinese word, see Chinese word for "crisis".'[edit]

What? I can see how Go might be romanized as "Wei-chi", but the Chinese word for crisis has nothing to do with it. (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I get what you mean. The Chinese word for Crisis is more like WeiJi. But on the other hand, Go in chinese is weiqi not weichiTheQ Editor (Talk) 00:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Both are wei-chi in Wade-Giles. Turned the link into a dab per WP:TWODABS and deleted the hat note. — kwami (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

improving reasons why go software is not so advanced[edit]

It would seem of fundamental importance to discuss how much money has been invested in developing good quality go-playing software. For example, IBM dedicated massive resources to developing chess playing software. I presume no comparable amount of money or resources has been dedicated to developing go-playing software (and hardware support) I believe this section would be greatly improved if this topic were addressed — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

If you find reliable sources go for it. NathanWubs (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Why this article would fail Good Article review as of now[edit]

@TheQ Editor: This article clearly fails Wikipedia:Good Article criteria 2b/2c due to numerous unreferenced paragraphs and sentences. For example, the entire section "Komi" is unreferenced. All four paragraphs in "Capturing tactics" are unreferenced save the first sentence. Almost the entire section "Strategy" is unreferenced. "Phases of the game" is unreferenced... I think you get the point. "In popular culture and science", in addition to being not fully referenced, is rather disjointed, and needs to be rewritten from the current list of trivia facts into something that flows logically (failures of 1b, and probably 3a and 3b). Virtually all notes are unreferenced. Finally, reference section is a in need of a cleanup, (2a), at least one book is missing page number entries. This article is not ready for a GA by a long shot, through if anyone wants to do a major rewrite of this, I can wait a few days. I'll check here in a week, and quickfail this if no editing has taken place, unless there's a reason for me to delay further. PS. Most of those issues were pointed out almost five years ago: Talk:Go (game)/GA1. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We started a major re-write from the ground up, but it will be a long time before that is done. Reyk YO! 06:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I am glad to hear this article will be improved, but the GA nom should take place when the work is finished (or at least, almost finished), not before. Perhaps rather then me failing the article you'd like to have it withdrawn from the review queue? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect statement, in the first paragraph[edit]

Baduk does not mean 'encircling game'. I currently do not have my Korean etymology dictionary but it has a completely different etymology based on native roots. 'Encircling game' would be 'Wigi' or 'Duleossagi Noli', it should be obvious to a native speaker like me. It seems the editor knew 'weiqi' and 'igo' meant 'encircling game' but didn't know what 'baduk' meant and so inaccurately assumed that 'baduk' also meant 'encircling game'. Also, because of errors like this I seriously doubt that this article is ready for GA status.--Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Talk with me) 13:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Increase in IQ[edit]

At the moment this section is dubious at best. Its gives two sources, a user discussion at sensei library and, a blog post at rail spikes. the first sections says. "Studies show" while in the source that is given no studies are shown. With one link to a study about internet addiction and how go maybe could prevent that from happening. The second statement comes from a programmer and is a guess nothing substantial but anecdotes are offered, which all once again lead to further speculation that does not seem relevant. While it would be lovely that the wonderful game of Go would increase our IQ. There would need to be at least some WP:RS in a relevant field making that claim, to add it to the article. So I suggest for now at least that this section is removed. Or at least to remove the first sentence if consensus is that the speculation of the programmer should remain. NathanWubs (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

recent results in computer go[edit]

I was surprised to hear recently on the radio that Go software have started beating professionnal players on 19x19 boards. I was expecting this to take decades more. Yet this article still says only amateurs can be beat, while Computer_Go has a fairly extensive records of professionnal level players being beat (although often with handicap) by go software.. maybe this should be clarified? --TheAnarcat (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Those recent wins are from 4 or 5 stone handicap games, NOT from even games. Go software are certainly capable of beating professional go players -- with handicap stones. Even 20 years ago, go software could beat professional go players as long as there was enough handicap. The only area where go software is as strong as professional go players is on smaller boards such as the 9x9, where professionals have occasionally lost in even games. HowardEzW (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Go and Philosophy[edit]

The article says that " There is significant strategy and philosophy[2][3][4] involved in the game...". The source cited for this is Sensei's Library, which is a wiki for go. Also, there is no mention of go and philosophy throughout the rest of the article. I think this bit should be removed. HowardEzW (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


This article has a long-standing template that says it is being rewritten, but Talk:Go (game)/Rewrite hasn't been touched in six months. I would like to remove the template, since it scares off other people from editing, and have asked the two editors involved in that project (judging from history) their opinion. I have been editing this article lately, because it really needs pruning and tightening. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the template, which points to Talk:Go (game)/Rewrite = DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


I have removed a section titled "pedagogy" which had unsourced opinions about the best way to teach or the "common method" of instruction. [[2]] notes that we aren't an instuction manual. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Page doesn't work in Google Chrome[edit]

The main page works fine (text only) in lynx, but comes up blank in Google Chrome and then issues repeated pop-ups that the page is unresponsive. (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)

Number of possible games[edit]

According to this video, there are far more possible games of chess than 10^120. 10^10^50 is the most recent number somebody came up with, although it is still a very rough estimation.

If you have reliable sources, free feel to add the information. A video like this is hardly a reliable source. A “number somebody came up with” is irrelevant unless he has a sound augment; blind guesses don't qualify. Regards. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC).
There are have been several considerations of the number of possible Go games. (E.g., see NumberOfPossibleGoGames at Sensi's Library.) The size of some these numbers – e.g, on the order of 10^(10^170) – is mind boggling. That makes the more realistic estimate of practical games of "only" 10^800 seem rather mundane.
For a more comprehensible notion of the complexity of game play consider how quickly the game trees expand. Chess has 20 possible first moves, and for each the second player has 20 possible replies. So after the second move there are 400 possibilities. A game of Go usually starts with a "move" in a corner, and usually on one of about eight locations. To which the second player usually responds on one of the similar positions in one of the other three corners, which is roughly 500 possibilities. At this stage the game tree has about 4,000 branches (and those are just the "reasonable" moves). Any time symmetry is broken the rate of game tree expansion can go up by a factor of over 300. All this is why the very notion of "number of possible games" seems incomprehensibly transcendent. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

An online little tool for editing goban[edit]

Isn't it nice? (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Chinese or Japanese?[edit]

It's interesting that this game is referred to as go (the Japanese name for it) and identified as a fundamentally Chinese game (which the Chinese call wéiqí). Article should have some comment on that; if it's here, I didn't see it. Obviously, the origins are in China, but the English word for it is go.

Kortoso (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Software Solution to Go.[edit]

Google recently built an AI which beat an expert go player. This article should be updated to reflect that. (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. But note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. So while the event is significant, we can probably wait a week or two until the Nature is more available (it's paywalled) and people have a chance to look it over. Till then the best commentary seems to be Google's official blog at ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
P.S. For anyone not familiar with AlphaGo (the program referred to above), it is a neural network that uses pattern recognition. It was trained (in part) by having it play thousands of games against copies of itself. An interesting development to watch for is whether the trained network can be examined for heuristics on how to play. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

How long do games last ?[edit]

At social, serious amateur, professional level ? Good to be in article. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Most tournaments give each player 45 minutes (plus some overtime), allowing three, sometimes four, rounds in a day. In social play, where players are not trying to work things out to the utmost, or may be trying some new approach that quickly hits a wall, a game may last only a half hour. At the top professional levels games can be carried over into a second day. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)