Talk:Go (game)/Archive 4

message: What is roughly the average margin of victory (difference in point's between white and black) and how often roughly are Komi point's a decieseve factor in games between the strongest players. I think it might be a good idea to put this in the articile.
:I don't know if I can find statistical data to confirm this, but the margin of victory should be close to zero, since komi is usually adjusted if the margin becomes big enough. From the article Komidashi:"At first, komi started as low as 2.5 points. It was later increased to 4.5, and then 5.5 points. 5.5 points was used for a long time, but recent research found that 5.5 points was insufficient to compensate for White's disadvantage. It was then raised to 6.5. Some use as high as 7.5 points".
:As for komi's decisiveness in games between the strongest players, I'd say it is very decisive, since professional games a lot of times end with a half point or one point win for one of them. Before there was no komi, the white player usually had to play more agressively, and one player in particular (Honinbo_Shusaku) supposedly never lost when he played as black. 
:Oh, and please sign your edits on talk pages. Phelan 14:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is considered rude to win by a wide margin. Many games won by half a point are in fact not as close as they appear. If komi was increased or reduced, the margin would be the same. Stephen B Streater 21:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By margin of victory I meant in percentage of won games(I must have have not have read the question right, sorry). I think the Nihon Kiin and other associations keep a record of victory-loss for white and black in all games. If one of the colors begins to have a win percentage larger than 50%, they increase or decrease komi accordingly. Phelan 15:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: As far as the description for picking up a stone goes, as I understand it the proper method invloves first picking up a stone between the middle finger and thumb...and then you slide the index finger under the stone as you place it on the board. this is what creates a real click sound instead of just a loose rattle or thump. I think the misperception that you just pick the stone up with the index and middle fingers derives from westerners primarily. I can try to source my claim if anyone is interested. -VanTucky
:No, never come across that in over 30 years of playing. Charles Matthews 06:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt you can source a wrong thing. -- G.S.K.Lee 20:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Two references, one from  Sensei's Library, and one from the Nihon Kiin. Hope this helps. Phelan 22:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stone Etiquette 

message: Why are English capitalization rules not followed? Why is go written Go?. I mean, look at chess or checkers articles. Shouldn't it have to be arranged? Or at least explained! --83.43.172.167 18:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One reason: conflict with the common English word go. Capitalizing Go can make it less confusing to the reader. This is not such a problem with chess or checkers. --IanOsgood 16:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Proper nouns are typically capitalised in English. Who defines when the name of a game should stop being capitalised? Should I refer to Monopoly as "monopoly" now that it's become so popular? Surely both Go and Chess should be capitalised if no such definition exists. -- Rickyp 11:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, that makes perfect sense to me. Perhaps the main article should contain a "Spelling" section with a brief summary of this rule. I'll make a bold unsubstantiated claim and say that the lower-case spelling is counter-intuitive to most people, and I think a prominent explanation would benefit the uninformed reader. I'll add this when I have time to word it well, unless someone beats me to it. Rickyp 11:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there a WikiProject that could make all of these game names standard across different articles? --DDG 19:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: This article has way too many external links. I request editors knowledgable to the subject to review and retain only high quality external links. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: It's funny to use Chess vs. Go to compare western to eastern strategy. In all aspects Chess is actually a Eastern game, since it is probably derived from xiangqi (China) and/or Chaturanga (India). How come a comparison of Go and Chess be a parallel to western versus eastern strategic thinking? Chess trace it's history to eastern games, and, by extension, to eastern strategic thinking too. Perhaps this part of the article could be refined or changed. Regards Loudenvier 18:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparing Western vs Eastern philosophy (Chess vs Go) 

message: I feel that this article will need to go through a Featured article review. I am concerned that this article is terribly low on references, and overdoes external links. If I don't see any progress (or an assurance) made in a couple of days, I would be recommending this article for FAR. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps some more of the external links could be moved to lists, and replaced by stub internal links. This would also make the article shorter and more focussed. Stephen B Streater 21:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Go server would be a good article to create. Any server not warranting a mention in such an article can be treated as a spam link here, surely. Charles Matthews 12:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for FAR 

message: I have heard conflicting information on amateur ranks. The article says that 7d and 8d amateur ranks are possible, but I have also heard that 6d is the highest rank recognized for amateur players. Also, while the article says it's possible, I have never heard of a pro having a 10-dan rank.  Could someone with more info on how Japan, Korea, and China deal with ranks speak up? (Note, I'm not talking about the US Go rating system, which gives numerical ratings that look like kyu and dan ranks, but are only presented as numerical ratings as opposed to ranks). --Zippy 19:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re Pro 10-dan, I found a cite: Kato Masao that describes how this rank is attained. Unlike other pro ranks, you can drop back down from this rank (to 9-dan) --Zippy 19:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The rank of 10-dan, or Judan is not a permanent rank, but rather a tournament that is open to all players in Japan. Korea has a similar tournament, the Sibdang Cup. 7 dan and 8 dan ranks for amateur are usually attained through a special diploma given by the Nihon Ki-in. —Canbek - 张 - Esen 21:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for the Judan link. This helped me to understand the pro ranks. Do you have more information on the amateur 7d and 8d certificates? --Zippy 23:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's a little thing here. "Amateur high dan diplomas are often reserved for players who has achieved an exceptional standard. For example, in Japan, the amateur 8 dan diploma is issued to the winner of the World Amateur Go Championship, Amateur Honinbo? and the national champion; it is hardly possible to achieve a 8 dan diploma through other means. In some countries, such as Japan, rank diplomas up to the low dans are said to be rather easily acquired, and results in rank inflation in those countries."
In China, for example, they'll have amateur players near pro rank as "probation" professionals, where there are given 1 dan pro diplomas temporarily until they prove that they have earned the dimploma. —Canbek - 张 - Esen 02:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Go ranks 

message: In regards to "The Name 'Go'," who are "some Chinese people," and why do we care? This seems like a prime example of weasel words. In fact, if you look at the weasel words page, it is in fact the first example.
In fact, I do not see the point of this bit at all.  Lots of things have different names in a foreign language than in their nation of origin. Go seems entirely unexceptional in this regard.  - Stellmach 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The weasel words should be removed.  Rules are made to be followed.  In this case a simple sentence saying there is a dispute and citation reflecting that dispute is what is needed, not weasel words like "some chinese". 2005 19:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, "I don't see" and "this seems" weren't meant as assertions. But yes, if there's a significant debate going on in Go organizations, it's poorly described as "some Chinese say". -Stellmach 13:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words

message: Is it really accurate to cite Go as the Deepest Game based on the span of the ELO ratings. Unless every known game uses an ELO rating I don't see that we can verify this. Which games currently have ELO ratings at the moment? -ZincBelief
I'm very comfortable with this description. ELO is a nice proof of the depth, but all you reall need is a little common sense. Considering the size of the board; the additive nature of the game (more complex as each stone is added); and the fact that 99.999% of all moves are possible at any time, unless you can suggest a specific rival game, let's leave it at "the Deepest".
kibi 14:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't just assert 'deepest', certainly. The depth of the game has been established by very long practice. The wording needs an overhaul. Charles Matthews 10:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deepest game? 

message: The article discribes the rank of computers here as 8-10k. Which is true, al be it a bit on the high side if you ask me, but the explanation of kyu and dan level is lower in the article. If anybody sees a way to solve this problem...HichamVanborm 17:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rank in Computer go

message: Even though Go is experiencing a bit of a resurgence, I'm still surprised when I stumble upon acquaintences who know how to play.  In other words, I suspect that for most people, finding someone to teach them Go may vary from extremely difficult to virtually impossible, though they still may be able to locate others who have a mutual interest in learning the game.
I have seen a couple of different techniques that seem to be fairly effective at teaching someone the rudiments of Go, and in many circumstances they don't really require much feedback from the instructor once the student is set on the right path.  It might be worth having a section in the Go page or a related page that discusses some of these (like First to Capture).
:Capture Go is mentioned in [Go_Variants]. To be honest there are probably too many sections in this article already.  --ZincBelief 09:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teaching/Learning Go 

message: What exactly is the merit of this section? With the recent addition of one tournament in the USA uses Fischer Time, it seems to be getting increasingly niche. What is wrong with simply stating that, like most other mind games, Go competitions are played with a clock. To be brash, it seems overly long for such a trite sideline.--ZincBelief 15:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that there is a time control article already. I suggest that, yes, this be reduced here to a small item, and the bulk of the information be moved to that article, where its style won't be cramped. Charles Matthews 09:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it would be appropriate to summarize this section here, and create a new article, perhaps go time control. It's interesting material, and in my opinion, it's encyclopedic, but I think you're right that it's too long and detailed of a discussion for the main article. The small amount of go information in the time control article can be removed from there and merged into the new article; eventually, [[time controll] will probably become a disambiguation page once there are more articles about time control in specific games. —ptk✰fgs 21:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia policy says similar articles should be merged. Methods of time control for board games are similiar, the overlap in content is large.
Zinc, I see your point.  perhaps the go article can make do with a statement somwhere - "Nature of the game" section? -- that in tournament play, unique feature of go make some special time control options available, and then point to an expanded time control section. But I don't se a ned for a special "Go time control" section -- I'd rather see the special go options discussed in the main time control article.
kibi 17:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Certainly a possibility, but I think it does belong in the competive play section. I'd prefer a short concise summary and work done on augmenting time control. Any other opinions?--ZincBelief 12:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time control 

message: I have started Wikipedia:WikiProject Go, not before time. Charles Matthews 16:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Go

message: Tell me, for these infoboxes inserted into gaming articles, what basis is being used to determine things like "rule complexity" and "strategy depth"? Is it purely subjective? In any case, I for one would like to see a category page related to this so that games can be cross reference via their complexity.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.3.109 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 29 October 2006  (UTC)
: I don't know about other games, but the enormous strategic depth of Go is clear compared to other games, as is made plain in the article.  Similarly, the rules of Go are low complexity compared to Games like any modern multi-user networked computer game.  New Talk page comments are to be written at the end of the page, and signed by using four tildes ~~~~ for automatic ID and time-date stamp. Hu 08:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a big problem with all infoboxes everywhere, that they are a way of making assertions that are not even argued for, let alone referenced. Charles Matthews 10:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: I don't pass or fail articles, but if I did I'd fail this one as it stands. The article is just too listy and whole sections remain uncited. LuciferMorgan 03:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps lists are the clearest way to describe and explain a complex game like Go. Such explanations would be hard to follow in essay format. Citations are not wholly necessary - there are enough Wikipedians who play Go to verify the validity of statements. To be fair, however, it is not difficult to find sources for citation so some effort should be put into this.--Lapin rossignol 14:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citations are absolutely necessary. The article is clearly under-referenced; that's one of the major reasons it was removed from FA. There are not "enough Wikipedians who play go to verify the validity of the statements" -- please see WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS. There is no verifiability policy relying on a large number of Wikipedians to vouch for statements. —ptk✰fgs 16:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Nomination 

message: Only Japanese traditional equipment is described. Go equipment used by other cultures should also be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.97.226.120 (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional Equipment 

message: Go Stones are flat in their country of origin, China, aren't they?
the most widely used stones are the biconvex japanese style ones, which have been used for hundreds of years. but yes, in china the stones are single convex (i.e. flat on one side). This is all addressed in the main "go equipment" article. VanTucky 06:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stone shape 

message: There is a request for a reference on this, which I find rather tiresome because it's very easy to prove. Take two objects the same size, paint one black, paint one white, the darker one always looks bigger. Can anyone find a cite for it, I'm damned if I can. You can try it out in Paint or some other software tool. Do we really need the one about the goban grid being non square? That seems too trivial to demand a cite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZincBelief (talk • contribs) 11:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Optical Illusion