Talk:Go (game)/Archive 5

message: Numerical estimates tell us that the number of possible games of Go On a 19×19 board, there are about 3361×0.012 = 2.1x10170 possible positions.  361 moves give a total of approximately 361!x0.012 = 1.7×10766 games. Allowing captures, and unlimited stones could gives as many as 2.1x102807 games, each having up to 47 million moves and 400 moves yield on the order of 1.2x101021 possible games.  far exceeds the number of atoms in the known universe squared to the fourth power. Because of Go's simple mechanics of play, all legal positionsA legal position is a board position in which each chain has at least one liberty; in other words there are no actually captured stones on the board. are also positions resulting from possible games.
* Ah, I see I have been [ reverted]. Allow me, then, to briefly note that I dispute this connection. If anything, this piece of information would be relevant to searches by computers. There are many games with absurdly large state space which aren't that deep. Whether a state space is ludicrously large, ridiculous large, or merely absurdly large, is just not a very important factor. Therefore it seems to me this not connected to elementary strategy, and probably not to advanced strategy either, and I would like to see more explanation. Thank you for your time. --216.183.151.123 03:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Level of complexity (take two) 

message: It should be noted about the world's best player. Oyo321 22:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: World Best Player

message: Korean players have had an edge in the major international titles, winning 23 tournaments in a row between 2000 and 2002. Can anyone provide a source for this. Is there something in gobase, msoworld, or a report in a magazine.--ZincBelief 16:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, it needs to be cited. —ptk✰fgs 17:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I must say I didn't notice that the Analects was actually mentioned in the article. I will take a look at this shortly. We should note that one citation is still requested to explain the contraversy surrounding the introduction of clocks into the game.--ZincBelief 13:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Remaining Citation-Needed

message: The 'See also' section is becoming very long. Certainly we need links to other articles about go, but surely we're not helping the reader by providing links to individual go organizations (when we already link to the list of go organizations), or to "List of board games". "Computer go", and "game complexity", and so forth are more appropriately linked from the sections that discuss those issues. —ptk✰fgs 18:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: Please. NO. Naked. U. R. Ls. Aside from the lack of title and author and whatnot, they also lack retrieval dates, which means that anyone trying to use a dead link will have abs--Rmky87 19:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, then. I shall get to reading it shortly.--Rmky87 22:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: I will give you this: the article is not the subject of edit wars, the images are mostly in the public domain and the one image that is not is used with the permission of the creator. That said, there are entire sections that don't have citations. And this sentence here, "Despite the fact that Go originated in Ancient China, Westerners first learned about this game from Japan, so it is commonly known in the West by its Japanese name." makes me, say, "Which ones were those?" A look at the history section did not tell which Westerner or Westerner introduced it to other Westerners or when that happened.
I'm sorry.--Rmky87 19:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many people are going to have to say this before you start to consider that it's true? How long is it going to take? The article is undercited! Instead of arguing about it — and since you seem to have access to reference sources we don't — why don't you just add <ref> tags to the statements that the sources support? —ptk✰fgs 20:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have twice asked for citations in a section without reading the citations there, which provided all the explanations required. Fundamentally, I don't understand this requirement for citations in every sentence. It seems appaling bad style. As somebody who has research papers published I find it odious. It is not true. Plain and simple. If it really the policy of wikipedia, then wikipedia is flawed in my opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZincBelief (talk • contribs) 21:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: ptkfgs, I am unable to comprehend how an article with 42 referenceds is undercited. Rmky87, I'm not sure what criteria this article fails. It is factually accurate and verifiable, it includes inline citations, it includes sources for information likely to be challenged. The Origin of the Name and the Basics Rules sections that you cite as unreferenced are so because they simply state facts that are unlikely to be challenged. --Yono 07:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks like we have to cite every sentence, sad. CanbekEsen 17:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just every paragraph? And really, would it kill you to mention that which Westerners first got into go and introduced to the rest of the Western world?--Rmky87 04:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oskar Korschelt is accepted as the westerner to introduce Go to the western world. There are no others that are known of. CanbekEsen 05:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this part was poorly written, but it's been changed already, just a minor edit. It does seem a pretty trite point though. If the game is known by its Japanese name in the West, it's pretty obvious as to why that would be. Maybe we should pile in with references as to where Lasker and others learnt the game from? All the early books refer to the game as Go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZincBelief (talk • contribs) 10:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there some way to appeal the decision? Yono 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have listed the article for Review of GA Nomination already. --ZincBelief 00:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, thanks for adding the name of one of the Westerners to the article. That really helps. And I see you've added more references.--Rmky87 21:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: The discussion of ratings seems a little unclear to me in one spot. "If an amateur does not know his/her rank then he/she is probably less than 10 kyu" implies to me that a numerical rating under 10 indicates someone who doesn't play enough to know/care about ratings. The rest of the context implies that someone with a lower rating is better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.15.77.156 (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: rating question

message: Does anyone know how the 19x19 size came to be standard?  I've heard that 17x17 & 21x21 boards have been found.  It makes sense that there should've been some experimenting.  I would find this interesting.Twslandlord 02:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of game 

message: The second paragraph seems to need a citation to me. Following on from this GA review, I've been trawling through the article seeking unreasonable material. The claims made here look like speculation. Also, if somebody could fix my botched reference on the first paragraph that'd be grand.--ZincBelief 11:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. However if we can't source something about this then we probably ought to rewrite this, otherwise it looks like POV.--ZincBelief 15:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually thinking about it, the new OroMedia series Train like a Pro (loaded as they are with korean terms) is probably good enough as a reference. What do you think?--ZincBelief 13:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well why else would a book entitled Train like a Pro: Pae appear on the international market, if not to thrust Korean terminology upon the world? OroMedia would have been well aware that 95% of western Go players were unfamiliar with the term Pae before. Besides, I can't think of another reference to support the claim made in this section, and nobody else has offered one up. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZincBelief (talk • contribs) 14:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: I put this small section in. And, no, I don't have a citation sorry. I just read it somewhere. Feel free to delete/amend it as you see fit. SmokeyTheCat 12:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Claiming that the game prevents Alzheimers is truly egregious without a citation. I've removed the section, as it made two scientific claims without evidence. —ptk✰fgs 15:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a {fact} might have been more appropriate than deleting the material. However I await it's reappearance with some citations. Could it be wedged into another subsection like the Nature of the Game? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZincBelief (talk • contribs) 15:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The article mentioned in http://www.usgo.org/EJournal/archive/20060227.htm is probably a good starting point.--ZincBelief 16:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link inside the link should also be useful. CanbekEsen 00:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have re-added this section with a reference.SmokeyTheCat 10:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exercising the brain 

message: Most of the issues raised in the GA review from March 3 seem to have been fixed.  Are we ready to renominate this?  --Selket Talk 17:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're feeling brave nominate it for FA status then, You get much constructive criticism from reviewers that way. :) --ZincBelief 13:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Strange assertion to make, only game commentary and rights to live broadcast are asserted with regard to games of Go. --ZincBelief 12:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right, Zinc. A game record, especially from a major tournament, is a public document. It cannot be copyrighted. kibi 13:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me mildly crazy that we devote as much space to time control arcana as to great players. Charles Matthews 12:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is very true Charles, length of elaborations on sidelines is one thing that should be addressed perhaps. There is still a lot of dull material only of likely interest to the hardcore player in the article, although it is very well written dull material. I wonder if a peer review might be useful for this article. --ZincBelief 13:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, that's because they are now on the archive section of that page. Outstanding problems... There is still one citation request to be provided. The references in general probably need a bit of reformatting. I don't think any other serious concerns have been raised about the article. GA status is acheivable with a little work. --ZincBelief 13:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I have added that reference into the article now. If somebody wants to nominate the article for GA status go ahead. As I've already nominated it once, I don't want to renominate.--ZincBelief 09:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA again? 

message: Looking over the article I identified 3 sections I thought were a waste of space
* Level of complexity , one line, therefore not worthy of its own section
* Terminology , very specialist and surely better siphoned off into the preceeding section in the article
* Software Assistance , contains some rather banal trivia
What do others think? I'd rather sort out how the article reads that fiddling about with formatting --ZincBelief 13:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read an article, which is misplaced, in the AGA Journal (?) (c. 1990?), that asserted that go is superior to chess in 10 ways: 1. Go is simpler than chess because, once played, the stones do not move; 2. Yet, go is more complex because of the size of the board, 361 points compared to 64 squares; 3. The Go game record is visually holistic. The game can be shown on one page; 4. One can find compensation for a loss by good play in another region of the Go board whereas a loss of a chess piece is a lasting handicap; 5. The system of incremental handicaps at the start of the go game can equalize the fighting strength between go players; 6-10. etc.) Larry R. Holmgren 07:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Is the variants section in the correct place, might it not be better placed after Rules ? --ZincBelief 11:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think if a reference can be found for the Time Control being contravertial, we can move toward GA nomination. What do other people think? --ZincBelief 11:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article will need a review for quality of sources. For example, this appears to be from a self-published source. This may not be a concern before GA, but it will take a while, so it would be worth undertaking soon, rather than having to re-source the whole thing during FAC. —ptk✰fgs 12:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that is a particularly good example to pick. You can observe the way people play stones at any Go tournament or any Go club. The need for this reference is pretty low in my opinion, since it is basically common knowledge. Having said that, I am open to looking at the quality of other references.--ZincBelief 12:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reader should not have to go to a go tournament to verify the claims in the article. They should be attributed to reliable sources. To assert that there is a generally agreed-upon way of grasping the stones is not exactly an obvious claim, particularly to most readers in English-speaking regions (read: the audience of this article).  —ptk✰fgs 13:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look pictures of a stone being played you will see the technique in action. In the context of querying the reliability of the source, what you're saying seems dubious. It is an easy claim to verify. That the source might be self published could be said to be a bad thing, but to then assert that it must be unreliable seems in itself questionable. The source is self published by the Nihon Kiin. To argue that the Nihon Kiin, the primary Japanese professional Go players association, is engaged in an act of misleading the world in how to play Go stones seems folly. Therefore I repeat, this doesn't seem a particularly good example to pick to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZincBelief (talk • contribs) 13:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I said it should be reviewed, not removed. The page that's directly linked does not mention the author, and neither does the footnote. —ptk✰fgs 13:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also a professional self published source on a non contentious issue.--ZincBelief 13:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, it's simply a matter of adding the author's name to the footnote, in this case. —ptk✰fgs 13:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ad hoc Review 

message: :Often, a comparison of Go and chess is used as a parallel to explain western versus eastern strategic thinking (despite the original forms of chess having Asian origin)... [Reference: Science, Culture, and the Game of Go (word document) Retrieved on 24 February 2007]
This reference does not support this sentence. The authors call them "facile analogies" in fact. 216.183.151.123 03:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear, some work clearly needed here then. Although, we should note that the reference provides an example of somebody using this comparison, not supporting the validity of this comparison --ZincBelief 10:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  East versus west 

message: I wasn't getting any response on the first one so i will post it in a new area.  Here is my idea for a section on the worlds best players.  Why don't we just have a chart that shows the last 10 years and has the top players of those years on it.  Say, 
                   1997: Bla Bla Bla (Where they are from)(number of titles)
                   1998: "    "   "  (Where they are from)(number of titles)
                   1999: Bloo Bla Bloo (Where they are from)(number of titles) and so on...
I just think that it would be nice to show the top players of recent years so that people can grasp what the standings actually look like. You don't have to just put the number of titles that this person has/had won, you can put the names of the titles as well.  go ahead and edit it to your liking. ORIGINAL POST(--Devildope 12:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possible, we'd have to show top titles in Korea, China and Japan though. If you find references let me know :)--ZincBelief 13:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a dead end, for Wikipedia. There is absolutely no reliable source for a world champion, or even a national champion in countries with pros. Charles Matthews 18:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait! I just fixed the link for the "List of top title holders in Go" link above.  It works now.  anyone feel like reconsidering? Devildope 01:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't want to sound like party pooper, but I have agree with Charles on this matter. I believe what we have now works well. Besides, this article was turned down from GA a few times, and one of the concerns was that the article was too "listy". CanbekEsen 19:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worlds Best Player (2) 

message: ...that someone would like me to research? Devildope 01:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any certain stubs... 

message: In the first info box at the beginning of the article, it is stated that the game is for two players, which i know is the norm, but i have also heard of pairs Go, which has two people on a side.  I don't know if it is something you want to mention.  Something like "Players: 2-4".Devildope 21:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, other than just for simplicity, the game is only ever played by two players. Pair go is two alternating teams of players on the same board, but they are not allowed to discuss the game under tournament rules and you always play against just one opponenent literally. Also, there is already a section on altenate forms of the game. VanTucky 21:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of players... 

message: The infobox gives playing time as 10 minutes to 16 hours, which I think is confusing. 10 minutes is too short (this is 5 minutes each), 16 hours is exceptionally long. Perhaps it should say something like:
informal games 20-90 minutes
amateur tournaments 2-5 hours
pro tournaments up to 16 hours
Note that the Chess page uses a similar contruct. HermanHiddema 15:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever you do please keep the caption short. Making it smaller would also help (250px perhaps)199.125.109.91 16:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 10 minutes is for ten apiece, and for regular casual matches is not uncommon. Ten mins is however the minimum before the time officially becomes a "blitz" game. That is also why it is the min. 16 hours are commonly for pro tournies, but it is technically incorrect to say it is always or only for pros. VanTucky 16:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the box should mention total playing time, not playing time per player, as this is the common convention on board game related pages (Chess uses this convention too). And although amateurs can play with longer time limits too, this is so uncommon that it does not merit mention in the infobox in my opinion (too much detail for a box that is supposed to briefly list the main game characteristics). HermanHiddema 18:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that only total time should be stated.  I think that too much information is included in the info box that should be relegated to the main article.  I remember how the 16 hours got added, but it always seemed to be a bit wordy. 199.125.109.91 18:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that total time should be what is included, but this article isn't just about amateur players. Limiting the time scope to only the average time of amateur enthusiasts is ludicrous. It's not comprehensive of the scope of playing times. Contemporary pro matches often take hours and hours; amateurs regularly watch the games via TV or internet broadcast. I don't think any Chess article editor would encourage not mentioning professional game times (especially if there was such a significant difference).VanTucky 19:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So you are saying it should say 20 minutes to 16 hours?  By the way I know that it starts with a blank board but it might be better to say "None" instead of "No setup needed" for Setup time - what no board needed??? 199.125.109.91 19:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, that would be my idea. And you're right about the "none" for set-up. VanTucky 19:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've updated the playing info, stating 20-90 minutes for casual play, 2-6 hours for tournament. I think mentioning realistic casual playing times is important, as this is relevant to the largest number of people (non players possibly interested in starting playing). 2-6 hours covers most tournaments (including many professional events using 3 hours per player). I've kept the 16 hour figure as a footnote, as this is an extreme (though interesting) case. HermanHiddema 19:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Clear, comprehensive, and concise. VanTucky 19:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any objection to reducing to 250 px, which allows a lot more room for the lead in paragraph?  Also "tournament" in the footnote is redundant. 199.125.109.91 20:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No objection, the page looks fine to me, but I have a large resolution screen. Also I agree tournament is probably redundant in the footnote. HermanHiddema 20:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've taken the liberty of reducing the image width to 280px, any smaller has no real effect, as the infobox title doesn't get narrower than that. HermanHiddema 17:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playing time 

message: :Whatever you do please keep the caption short. Making it smaller would also help (250px perhaps)199.125.109.91 16:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any objection to reducing to 250 px, which allows a lot more room for the lead in paragraph?  Also "tournament" in the footnote is redundant. 199.125.109.91 20:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No objection, the page looks fine to me, but I have a large resolution screen. Also I agree tournament is probably redundant in the footnote. HermanHiddema 20:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've taken the liberty of reducing the image width to 280px, any smaller has no real effect, as the infobox title doesn't get narrower than that. HermanHiddema 17:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please revert (to 250px).  Five hours was not long enough to wait for opinions.  HTML normally needs to be checked in at least four browsers to avoid making things painfully difficult for some users.  In the case of Opera I get these little skinny columns of text when you go even to 280px that make reading the article very difficult.  I suggest that instead of targetting the largest audience we target at least 3 sigma of the audience (99.7%).  Otherwise we get things like, don't worry about blind people, after all why would anyone blind be using the internet?  Just click on the image if you want to see it better.  You can do that, I can't make it smaller.  Do you see any text to the left of that infobox at Template:Infobox? 199.125.109.91 21:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, and I apologize for being presumptive.  I have no idea what Opera is doing.  However it I did note that Netscape does not get better below 280px.  I would suggest picking a photo that shows the go board better, I like ones that show the side of the board, or one that shows the stones closer up.  Also I like ones of historical game positions. 199.125.109.75 14:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox width 

message: I do not think that it can be a coincidence that the three strongest go-playing nations by far, (Korea, China and Japan) are the only three nations that still use pictograms. Go requires a subtle sense of visual space and it seems that using pictograms might stimulate this sense. I would like to put in a reference to this but fear it might be called OR. Is there anywhere that such a reference might be apt. I would welcome other opinions about this please. SmokeyTheCat 11:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictograms 

message: There is some evidence that that the playing of go prevents to the onset of Alzheimer's disease and dementia.  This seems to be because go uses both sides of the brain while chess only uses one. To play go one needs spatial awareness and aesthetics and as well a pure calculating ability.  -- preceding was moved from article to talk page for discussion. 199.125.109.23 15:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I almost completely rewrote the section to comply with a NPOV, and I also fixed the citation. VanTucky 16:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See my earlier comment under 'Exercising the brain' above, and the reference given there. The citation to Yomiuru Shimbun is not a very reliable one, being just a newspaper column by a go player with (AFAIK) no specific medical knowledge on the subject. HermanHiddema 17:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was not aware that my original contribution was POV but I am happy with the section as it stands now. Thanks VanTucky.SmokeyTheCat 11:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Solid scientific support can be found in Leisure Activities and the Risk of Dementia in the Elderly by Joe Verghese et al. (abstract, free registration required to see full article). I agree however, this does not merit its own section. I will try to find a way to incorporate a short note on this into the article later tonight. HermanHiddema 14:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However the abstract also says that it is not clear whether leisure activity reduces dementia or that those with dementia just stop playing games. Therefore the fact that no one who plays go has dementia is possibly non-consequential. 4.233.134.161 14:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promoting a healthy brain 

message: To me the current infobox image is rather stark and jarring, if we're going for a more arty, angled photo instead of something straightforward why not do something more along the lines of the following?
Maybe not this one, but I would like to explore choosing a different image. Here's a link to the Commons page for more ideas. VanTucky 00:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite like the current image and would probably have selected it from the commons set as a replacement.  It gives an idea of the size of the board but retains an artistic angle.  I guess I don't see anything better currently on commons, do you have one of your own?  ∴ here…♠ 02:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Image would better improve if camera f-stop was higher so all image was in focus at foreground and background. 4.233.143.116 13:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox image 

message: Found this as browsing: The Art of Black and White: Wei-ch'i in Chinese Poetry Zu-Yan Chen.Journal of the American Oriental Society.
If it's useful, email me (link on my user or talk page). Will send to you. Ling.Nut 22:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Ling.Nut 12:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  will email article