Talk:Fuseki

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to fuseki. —Nightst a llion (?) 20:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the name

Fuseki doesn't mean 'opening', it means 'scattering of stones'. Therefore some openings would not count as fuseki, if there is an early fight.

Indeed, the title is not a good idea. The page should be moved to Whole-board go opening theory.

Charles Matthews 11:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, what Japanese wiki page should be linked to this "Whole-board go openings"? How do we establish an article for Japanese "布石"? In Chinese, Fuseki is 布局, meaning the opening arrangement. I think this article exactly introduces Fuseki. If Fuseki doesn't mean "opening", we should establish another article named as "opening" something, not rename this page. --Neo-Jay 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the article is on fuseki, it should be called such. Maybe there should be a merge between these and the Go_opening_theory and Go_opening_strategy articles. 128.6.175.15 14:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. The page is not about fuseki, properly speaking. We should use the Japanese terms more correctly than that. This has already been discussed in various places. There are a number of distinct topics. Charles Matthews 17:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the article currently stands, it is entirely about fuseki. —Nightst a llion (?) 20:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

As a big move of material was made on 4 March, I fail to see how this discussion was ripe for closure. Charles Matthews 22:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sides vs. Center

The article currently states "Although it requires more effort to secure the center, it constitutes the majority of territory on the board." This seems obviously false. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd line together constitute 4 x 3 x (19 - 3) = 192 points. This is more than half (361 / 2 = 180.5) of the points on the board. Can someone knowledgeable please correct this to explain why the center is actually important? 146.6.208.17 (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If one player (say Black) had a perfect square of stones on the 3rd. line, they'd score only for the vacant surrounded territory of 2 lines. This score would be 4 * (17*2) = 8 * 17 = 80 + 56 = 136 points.

If in the same game White had a perfect square of stones on the 4th line, they'd score only for the vacant surrounded territory of

(19-4-4)^{2}

= 11 * 11 = 121 points.

Whilst, on the face of the above, the centre would be worth less than the outside, it's a false & misleading simplification. White would have played 4 fewer stones than Black. S/he could say use 2 stones near the tengen point, to make an invasion by Black ineffective, and use 2 stones to break through Black's cordon, thus reducing Black's score.

Hope this helps for now - I'll have a think how to make the article itself clearer. Trafford09 (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]