Talk:Go (game)/Archive 3

message: I found these on a list at Amazon.  I don't have time to verify and add these to the article myself, so here are the data... :-) --Ds13 22:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the fantasy book series Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan the character play game called 'Stones' that is described pretty much like go. In the book series by Margaret Ogden written under alias of Robin Hobb the old woman teaches Young Fritz a game of stones; however this variant uses stones of three colors and slightly different ruleset. A comprehensive explanation of the game isn't given in the book. Khokkanen 21:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in popular culture 

message: If the earliest surviving references come from the 6th century BC, why does the start of the article give a date as late as 200 BC? Since I don't know which is right I haven't changed either.
In "Overview of the game":
"battle to maximize the area of their territory and the number of their soldiers (in Chinese rule)."
This would be likely to mislead newcomers; "territory" in the military sense includes the space occupied by one's soldiers, and newcomers would not know the technical Go sense. Also, "in Chinese rule" is bad English, as are some other things. Plus I don't think the difference between Chinese and Japanese scoring goes in an "overview". I've tried to clean and tighten this overview.
("strategem" is spelled "stratagem", but is probably intended to mean something more like "strategy"; "stratagem" has a much narrower meaning.)
DanielCristofani 11:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several things. 

message: As a Go newbie, I'd like to lend my perspective on part of this article that I find vague:
A player may pass instead of placing a stone. Two consecutive passes end a game, beginning the scoring
Does this mean two consecutive passes by one player, or does it mean that if one player passes, and then the other passes also, the game is over? What happens if player A chooses to pass, player B drops a stone, and player A passes again? I think this should be clarified. Thanks --Malathion 23:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "points" is used very often. E.g. "3-3 point", not "3-3 intersection". Besides, "intersection" is a big clunky word. Replacing "point" with "intersection" through the rest of the rules would not be an improvement. DanielCristofani 12:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The American Go Association calls these "strings", but they are not often mentioned except in teaching the game to beginners. See longer talk on Talk:Rules_of_Go. DanielCristofani 12:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I must comment about komi - in my experience, this may not be optional in many social situations, but komi is generally an agreement between two players on skill differences, I have played many matches without komi. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 06:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: But what happens when there's a "tie"?Mimson 06:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When there's a tie, there's a tie, i.e. neither player is considered to have won the game. DanielCristofani 12:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rules question 

message: What's with the playing time being described as "> 1 hour"? Sure, in tournaments you do play with long times, but in clubs times such as 10min+10min (fast) or 20min+20min (slow) are quite usual, and both are well below one hour. 10 July 2005 17:42 (UTC)
[SandBoxer]: Usually those +20min and +10min are per stones such as 10 minutes per 25 stones placed. That could make an endless repetition if you keep playing.
Why is the maximum playing time 3 hours? I think in top-level tournament play 8 + 8 hours is not uncommon. If no-one objects in a couple of days, I'll change the maximum time to two days.
The Knights of the Square Table (I think now defunct organization) came up with a system for playing GO by mail, a system that I think could be easily converted to playing by Internet or e-mail.  In such a case of someone making a move on a shared map, then opponent later making a move, in which the players can be in several concurrent GO games, such games can last years, depending on typical time intervals between the moves. User:AlMac|(talk) 23:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  playing time 

message: I don't know the mentioned book, but "maoist revolutionary strategy" seems to be a rather special topic. Wouldn't a selection of books for beginners be more relevant? -- Zoegernitz 6 July 2005 11:53 (UTC)
:I added two good books for beginners from my own collection. Tree&Leaf 19:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books 

message: Don't you think the time should be upped a little? Even beginner and amateur games often go past 1 hour, 30 minutes is actually the average time for a 5~15sec. per move blitz game.
Also see my reply on playing time
:This kind of things is flexible I will say. -- G.S.K.Lee 02:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is that for most players, there are many familar situations that don't require any thinking. So the average time estimate, while correct, is quite deceptive. Anecdote: the professional entrance tournament in China allows one hour per player, which breaks down into an average of 24 seconds per move, assuming 300 moves.Mimson 05:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time of game 

message: Where does the 0.012 come from in " 3361×0.012 = 2.1×10170 possible positions ".
I know that there would be less than 3361 possible positions as some positions would be impossible to ever reach in the course of a game, but why do we multiply the total valid and invalid positions by the number 0.012? Is there an obvious reason? If not is there an external referance to some math?--Fergie 13:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible positions- why 0.012? 

message: The propoganda site of North Korea claims that Go was invented in Korea.  This isn't really surprising, since everything good in the world supposedly came from Dear Leader, but someone who knows more about the issue may wish to address it. --Carl 11:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  history 

message: The following paragraph has recently been added:
:Currently, Korea has taken the lead amongst East Asian countries in developing the distribution of the game around the world. Thus, the term "baduk" has become the most popular in reference to the game.
1st sentence may be correct (I don't know); 2nd sentence I find very hard to believe. Comments?--Niels Ø 19:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only heard "baduk" as "the Korean name for Go". The only time I've ever used the word is when buying a set in a Korean grocery store. Every native English speaker I know just calls it Go. (I'm in the US.) kwami 19:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First sentence actually doesn't make sense in English because "developing the distribution of the game around the world." is too vague. If this means "production of Go pieces", I highly doubt Korean companies make more Go equipments than Chinese companies. If this means "Korean government and other Korean organizations are promoting Go abroad using the name of baduk.", then that's how it should be written. Using Google, "baduk" gets 240,000 hits, but if you subtract "go" and limit the language to English, almost all of relevant search results are Korean ones. Try guessing why anyone would write that the Korean name of "go" is becoming popular. --Revth 07:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think most of the go equipment in North America is made by Ing anyways. Of course, this would fall under "personal research", but almost all of the go sets I see at the U.S. Go Congress are Ing. Mimson 05:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: "Baduk" certainly isn't the most popular way to refer to Go except in Korean. In the West it's universally called "Go", and there aren't even any indications that that is going to change. Even if some would like to change it (outside of Koreans), there would be huge inertia to overcome. 130.233.22.111 16:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baduk 

message: I understand this is not the most adecuate place to ask this.. but I dont know where to. Would be most thankful for answers in my talk page. Anyways, I had stumbled over a wiki with a number of go games being played, and I can't find it again. I wanted to start playing and in spite of being in Japan, finding someone who will play with me is harder than one would think. Anyone can link me there? thanks --Lacrymology 03:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm adding this here rather than on your own talk page in case other readers are wondering the same question. There are many possible places to find out more about playing Go in real life or online: the wiki I suspect you found is an excellent place to start: Sensei's Library. From there you will find links to local Go clubs and national institutions, and to various other online locations where Go can be played and is taught. Good luck with your future addiction to the game! --JennyRad 01:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have been directed to the Sensen's Library already, and learned a lot there, but I am talking about somewhere in wikipedia where people played go games. I guess it doesn't matter anymore.. might have been part of the dead wikigames? --Lacrymology 04:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can play on KGS or one of the various other Go servers. 128.6.175.80 19:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  playing go 

message: I think that the number o possible chess moves is vastly underestimated in this article. I've read that after only 50 moves you could have ~10^160 possible situations on a chess board. The thing is: no one really knows how many chess positions there can be.
:The only way to get an estimate like that is to define "situation" or "position" as including a listing of all previous board positions as well. Granted, that can be relevant for draw by threefold repetition, just as it can be relevant in go for ko rules. Basically, the 10^43 to 10^50 estimates for chess are comparable to the 2.1*10^170 estimate for go, not to the 10^(10^whatever) estimates for go. DanielCristofani 01:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong numbers for chess 

message: There's a paragraph in the article intro that may be slightly incorrect or possibly out of place:
:Weiqi is definitely an important part of the Chinese culture, but the Japanese copied it and promoted it though comics and animations. That's how the name "Go" became popular in the west and this Chinese boardgame weiqi is even misunderstood as having originated in Japan.
Two questions/concerns:
* I believe the name "Go" (from the Japanese "igo") was used in the west long before any Japanese comics or animations were imported and became popular.  Therefore, if there is any confusion about the game's country of origin, it's not for the reason stated.
* Is confusion over the game's country of origin (if there is any) significant enough to be included in the article's introduction?   The history of Chinese invention and migration to Japan and Korea is made clear later in the article.
Thoughts? --Ds13 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, so I zorched the paragraph. DanielCristofani 02:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. It is not ruled out that China took it from Tibet, even ... though chances are that there will not be evidence to settle the origins (cf. chess,up to 1000 years later, with no clear answer). Charles Matthews 10:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concern about intro paragraph 

message: Go boards, or gobans (btw, could someone add a redirect for goban? There isn't one currently), are quite important pieces of equipment for players of Go. There are various different types and qualities of boards. Some have achieved a historical, even legendary status. This all of course applies to stones as well, but since they aren't generally considered as important, the stones article as such could be incorporated into Go boards article.
In another words this is a request for someone to start either a Go board article (currently a redirect) or a Go equipment article. Khokkanen 12:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about this. There already is Go equipment article. I had misspelled it earlier. Khokkanen 12:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Go boards 

message: What do you guys think the name of the article should be? I think it should be either WeiQi or Go. There are basically two deciding factors: place of origin or superior rules. If we regard place of origin as more important, then WeiQi. There is a debate about the Chinese or Japanese rule systems, but essentially, Chinese is simplier and applicable if the game isn't a close one. Japanese, though slightly more time consuming and complex, is probably more accurate. Shall we take a vote? 70.111.251.203 23:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, 'go' is the common name in the West. Charles Matthews 23:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Charles, Go it the western name, and should be used on the English Wikipedia. --Falcorian (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name: Go, WeiQi, or Baduk 

message: I've nominated Moku for deletion; the info it contains is:
"In Go, one moku is a point gained by surrounding territory of one intersection, or by capturing one enemy stone." Mikker ... 04:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Moku]] 

message: I have a photograph here that I was hoping a go historian could help me intrepret (or ideally, translate).  To me, it appears it may be a 10x10 goban with three colors of stones: black, brown, and white.  The photo was taken in old Matsumoto Castle.  Translations?  Theories?  Or is this simply not go at all?  --Ds13 22:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Black stones were made from Nachi Black Stone, white stones were made from clam shells, uncoloured pottery stones were supposed to be used as white. -- G.S.K.Lee 17:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historic Japanese example of three-color go? 

message: *Computers and Go section talks about the "virtually unlimited placement of each stone". Perhaps this should say "large number of possible moves" as the number of moves is very limited to perhaps 362. Stephen B Streater 17:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computers and Go 

message: How come there aren't any chinese words for the terms? They all seem to be japanese: komi, fuseki, joseki, seki, etc. Are there even chinese versions of the terms? 70.111.216.118 17:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same in America. Wasn't go most popular in Japan, and weren't the best players Japanese, at the time when people in the West started becoming aware of Go? DanielCristofani 19:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even some of the Chinese and Korean players use Japanese terms in the UK, in my experience, making life easier for all of us. (Hi, Stephen, long time no see!). But while I don't know that the Japanese were strongest when Go started spreading to the West, it was, I'm fairly sure, them who actually introduced the game to Westerners. I'm fairly sure that the Go Almanac in our Club library says something to that effect; that the Chinese kept the game to themselves, but the Japanese were prepared to pass it on to the rest of us. --JennyRad 23:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting notes.  One thing I've heard about the game is that it was "invented by the Chinese and perfected by the Japanese".  I think I saw it on the cover of a book.  It could be in part relevant to the topic at hand.  --Sivak 00:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Perfected" is a bit much, specially considering how Korea has been doing recently. Maybe "developed further"? DanielCristofani 02:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jenny :-) Also, Chinese is a tonal language. At least our Japanese pronunciation is vaguely correct. Stephen B Streater 08:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What would make the most sense is to just use the English equivalent of the terms.  Komi, fuseki, joseki, and so forth all mean something to even the average Japanese speaking lay-person.  To your average English speaking person, they mean absolutely nothing.  I feel that by continuing to use non-English terms in Weiqi, we are doing more than paying homage to its Eastern roots, we are propagating the idea that Weiqi is a game only of the East, when it could be a game of the world. --BenjaminTsai Talk 09:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Be that as it may, Wikipedia should conform to prevalent terminology, because Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a publisher of original thought. 130.233.22.111 16:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese and Japanese 

message: Looking around the net you will find many instances of loan words from Japanese used for describing elements of the game: situations, strategies, shapes...  I find that this article is lacking in these, despite their importance in the go world.  Maybe the use of Japanese itself should be researched and included in the page.  The term I missed the most was "atari" - the situation where a chain of stones has only one liberty, often referred to in go rules.  Someone should include this.  I noticed it was present in the German article (while reading) and someone should try to have it included here as well as more of these words.  For an extensive list of Japanese Go terms look here.  You'll find much more useful Go info and discussion also on that Wiki site. --Jason Bell 22:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese Terms? 

message: "Low". Heh. Heh heh heh. Stevage 12:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The complexity of the rules you actually have to know to play the game is quite low. Some rulesets are very complex, of course, but I don't know that there's a good reason for that; it looks more like an artifact of history. DanielCristofani 13:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's possible to teach someone the rules well enough to play a game in 5-10 minutes. The rules are very, very simple. The complexity comes on a higher level; in the same way, basic arithmetic is dead simple, until you start worrying what "addition" is. The sort of stuff that, say, Robert Jasiek gets in a twit about on the rec.games.go newsgroup - in some senses those aren't rules direct - they're consequences of the rules, meta-rules, not fundamentals. The rules are very, very simple. --JennyRad 17:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is precisely because the rule is simple hence the game is complex, for the rule gives minimum restrictions on possible game developments. -- G.S.K.Lee 12:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I think you're half right.  All else equal, simple rules might widen the search/move space of a game, which increases complexity.  But simple rules do not guarantee a complex game.  Go is typically played on a massive 19x19 board.  9x9 Go is far less complex but has identical rules.  At the extreme, tic-tac-toe has simple rules but very little complexity.  The potential width of a game's search tree (and how long it can sustain that width) is a good proxy for its complexity.  --Ds13 16:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rules complexity

message: Weiqi is in first sentence because Go originated from China, NOT Korea; baduk is not widely used in English. RevolverOcelotX
:Look up the word prominence. Go is the most common name for the game, and Weiqi and Baduk are secondary names for the games. Google search indicates 700,000 for Weiqi and 460,000 Baduk. That is a "prominent" name. A "Prominent name" does not mean the game necessarily originated from Korea. I think you are confusing two words together ; Prominence and Origin. See Wikipedia: Manual of Style. Deiaemeth 00:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My view is that if we are going to have foreign names (as is the trend on English Wikipedia, which has an international audience), we should have both Weiqi and Baduk which are both widely used worldwide. The origin of the game is not relevant when you consider this naming policy is widely applied eg Falklands. Stephen B Streater 13:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baduk is not as prominent as Weiqi 

message: Hi, I'm a newly registered Wikipedian, please excuse if i don't know all the proper behaviors yet!
A few days ago I edited this article, changing "Go" to "go". A few minutes later it was reverted with the comment, "Why not Go?"
Answer: the usual convention is to capitalize copyrighted games such as Monopoly, Boggle or Trivial Pursuit, and not to capitalize classic games like chess, backgammon, or bridge.  Wikipedia follows this convetion: please note that none of the latter games is capitalized in their Wikipedia entries. Capitalizing the name trivializes the game.
It is sometimes argued that "go" should be capitalized because the English language contains a verb that is spelled the same; however, context cues make it easy to tell the difference. Please note in the Wikipedia entry, "bridge" is not capitalized.
So I'm hoping that my edits can be reverted.
----
Dear anon,
It would be nice if you could sign your comment next time. To sign your comment, simply type --~~~~, the system will auto-generate the signature. Thanks for your co-operation.
Back to your question, it doesn't matter as both are acceptable, but capital "Go" is preferable as it makes it more distinct that "Go" is a game, not to mean the English word "go". This is why some authors advocate capital "Go" more than "go". Sensei's Library uses capital "Go" too. What's more, "go" is a word of high frequent usage. It helps in some situations as when we mention "Go" and "go" in the passage. I realise you mentioned "context cues". Content cues helps, but why not make it easier for newbies and readers?
The only reason to use "go" (to mean a game) is to follow other traditional conventions (but go can be capitalized or not, so it's a bit different). Apart from this, it has no practical benefits. 
Anyway, I deem it is trivial in my view. I'm not a hypercorrect person. Instead of focusing on trivia, I'd better spend my time to add contents or improve the quality of the articles. After all, it's just my two cents. Don't get me wrong. I'm not criticising you, or make you angry. Don't take it too seriously. 
After all, welcome to this family. It doesn't matter at all even if you made wrong edits. Here encourages "editing". :) --Wai Wai 16:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  capitalizing go? 

message: This page is 62KB long. Should we archive this page and start a new one?--Wai Wai 10:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to archive?