Talk:Go (game)/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Women players

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.

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

References

Date of Invention

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? --76.24.2.149 (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)

Seibu Museum

Hi,

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gokof.png 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 (talk • contribs) 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 ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 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 ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 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 ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 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 ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 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 ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 06:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Television

Go was seen in the 60s in the British television series, The Man in Room 17, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

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

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

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".'

What? I can see how Go might be romanized as "Wei-chi", but the Chinese word for crisis has nothing to do with it. 68.166.166.18 (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

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 87.16.56.1 (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

@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

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

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

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

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)

Go

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)

Pedagogy

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

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. 198.144.192.45 (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)

Number of possible games

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

http://q4w56.github.io/wikipedia-goban-editor/36.229.143.93 (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Chinese or Japanese?

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)

Yes, a short sentence should be added in the Internationalization section noting that Go spread to the West from Japan and hence Japanese terms are used to describe the game. I don't have a good reference offhand. --seberle (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Software Solution to Go.

Google recently built an AI which beat an expert go player. This article should be updated to reflect that. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7587/full/nature16961.html 205.175.98.133 (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 https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/alphago-machine-learning-game-go.html. ~ 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 ?

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)

Oldest board game??

The article states go is the oldest board game. I think backgammon is olderPlozort (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC).

This is debatable, and if you want to add something to the article, you could. Backgammon is perhaps older, however it is fairly certain that the game we know today as backgammon is rather different from the ancient game of backgammon. In fact, there are at least three different games of "backgammon" played today, and several different backgammon games in antiquity. Though they are similar, they are not the same game, nor are the modern games the same as the games played in antiquity. Go, on the other hand, has changed very little over the millennia. It is basically the same game today as it was in the earliest known descriptions. A few minor details have been added or changed, but the rules have changed so little that a Chinese player from 2000 years ago could probably sit down and play against a modern player with little difficulty other than how exactly to count the final score. The strategy would be very similar. In fact, the oldest known record of a go game (from the 2nd century CE) appears to be a perfectly normal game by today's standards. The same cannot be said for backgammon. --seberle (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I have always thought that mancala was the oldest continuously played board game, one wooden board from Africa being carbon dated at approximately 7,500 years ago. The oldest mention of go I heard of was from China in a scroll dated about 2,600 BC. Unfortunately, I have lost the references to both of these facts. Sorry. Marithong (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I have also been under the impression that mancala is very ancient. I believe there are also archaeological records of game boards carved in stone from prehistoric times. However, like backgammon, mancala is a family of games with a very wide variety of rules that vary from place to place and time to time. The games have some underlying commonalities, but they're quite different games with very different strategies. It is difficult to compare such a family of games to go, which has been a single game with only very minor rule variations for as long as we have written records of the game. The earliest writings about go show that players two millennia ago used the same strategies we use today. We have no way of knowing if any current mancala game has been played for more than a few hundred years. I guess it's all a matter of what counts as a "game" when discussing such historical questions. --seberle (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

At the very least, I propose that the sentence be edited to say "oldest continuously played board game that has not undergone major rules changes" so as not to spread blatant lies. Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Is it "Go" or "go" mid-sentence?

Is the title of the game a proper noun? There seems to be a mixture in Wikipedia articles of capitalised and uncapitalised usages. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Since "go" is such a common English word, the convention is to use "Go" for the game, despite this not strictly adhering to the usual rules around proper nouns in English. Tayste (edits) 19:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent results in computer go (AlphaGo)

As WP is not a newspaper I believe we do not need to day-by-day coverage of "breaking news" regarding the AlphaGo versus Lee Sedol match (currently being played out). Nearly all observers are greatly impressed by AlphaGo's play, and this appears to be a significant advance in AI, which may eventually have profound effects on Go. But, again, this article does not need day-by-day coverage of current events. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

related is this article speaking to Google's AI beating Chinese Master: Reuters --Billymac00 (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

As I said before: WP is not a newspaper. To which I will add: a topic as broad as Go does not need, nor is improved by, coverage of the latest tournament results, even if they include a computer player. For the hot topic of a computer beating (again!) a top-rated human I have started an article at AlphaGo versus Ke Jie. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Complexity" of Go vs chess

I removed this paragraph from the lede:

There is significant strategy involved in the game, and the number of possible games is vast (10⁷⁶¹ compared, for example, to the estimated 10¹²⁰ possible in chess), displaying its complexity despite relatively simple rules.

First, these numbers are probably meaningless. According to Go and mathematics, the number of Go games depends enormously on what restrictions you place on game length. 10¹²⁰, the "Shannon number", is a lower bound (not an estimate) for chess based on a game length of 40 moves. A real estimate would be dominated by long games and would probably be vastly larger.

Second, game tree complexity isn't complexity in any ordinary English sense. In the Go variant where there is no capturing of territory and you just place pieces until the board is full (at which point black wins 181–180), there are still 361! ≈ 10⁷⁶⁸ possible games. That's dwarfed by the number of possible games of Super Mario Bros. (which is finite if you add a no-repeat rule), and that's in turn dwarfed by the number of possible games of tag (which might be finite if you take quantum gravity into account).

There's clearly some sense in which tic-tac-toe is easier than chess or Go. I think that sense is that if there were tic-tac-toe rankings, a very large fraction of players would be top-ranked and consistently play each other to a draw. I see no way to argue that Go is harder/more sophisticated than chess where human players are concerned. They are both hard.

Computers tend to do badly at games with large branching factors, but that's because we don't know how to do AI. Even average humans easily outperform computers at, say, reading printed text. You could react by being proud to be human, or by being embarrassed that we can't even figure out how to replicate the functions of our own brains. -- BenRG (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No, those numbers are not meaningless, though they are so wild and crazy they seem to verge on fantasy. (See http://senseis.xmp.net/?NumberOfPossibleGoGames for details.) I don't know what you mean that a "real estimate" on would be "dominated" by longer games; I believe that 40 was taken as a representative game length for chess. But even you doubled that, Go games are still longer (typically around 150–200 moves). And Go has many more options per move, so the relationship is (crudely) something like 80^≈35 << 150^≈250 35^≈80 << 250^≈150. If you (or anyone else) can come up with a better illustration of the relative complexity of these games, fine, but until then let's stick with what was there.

The reason computers "tend to do badly at games with large branching factors" is because when those "branching factors" (game trees) become freakingly LARGE it becomes computationally infeasible to search them. The "branching factors" in chess are flat enough that Deep Blue could use brute-force search of the game tree to beat Kasparov 27 years ago, but that won't work in Go. The awesome thing about the new AlphaGo program is it uses a different approach (neural networks) that does pattern recognition. And already it has beaten a world champion three times running (see AlphaGo versus Lee Sedol) with moves that are hardly short of stunning. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond except with what I wrote above. You don't seem to have understood any of it. You could read the Go and mathematics article, which has a table of the number of possible Go games as a function of maximum game length, with values ranging from 10¹²⁸ to 10¹⁰¹⁷¹. The same thing happens in chess, which is why the total count is dominated by long games. -- BenRG (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Funny thing, from what you have wrote I get a feeling that you don't understand any of this. Particularly, you seem to have missed that the sentence you cut was not about the longest possible game of Go (for which this universe has not time enough to play), but of the comparative size of the game trees (as a measure of complexity) for any reasonable game of chess and Go, however you want to define "reasonable".

BTW, your Go game analysis above, and particularly that black wins, seems faulty. The way I see it, after the 358th move each player has 179 stones on the board, with three three points left. Black plays, then white passes, in order to avoid self-atari. Ditto for black. At that point, by Chinese scoring black has 180 points, and white has 179 points. By Japanese scoring, each player has zero points. By AGA scoring each passed stone is a point, so the score is black 2, white 1. However, under all systems white gets komi of any where from four and a half to eleven and a half points. So white wins. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You guys are off to a bad start so let me jump in. The paragraph that BenRG removed and that J. Johnson restored is factually incorrect (10⁷⁶¹ and 10¹²⁰ are not the number of possible Go/Chess games), so the paragraph must be fixed or removed. BenRG removed it claiming that the hardness of both games cannot be compared, but I tend to disagree with that. I think that Go is more complex than Chess by any reasonable measure, so it looks reasonable to me to make that claim in the article and to briefly support it with numbers. Now if we decide to fix the paragraph, then changing the figures to the correct number of possible games is not what we want to do because the number of possible games depends more on details of the termination rules than on game complexity. Indeed, a minor chess rule change made in 2014 decreased the number of possible chess games from infinite to about 10^30,000 according to [3]. So to fix the paragraph I would recommend any of these 3 possibilities:

• compare the number of possible board positions: 10^170 vs 10^47 (easily understandable by people),
• compare game-tree complexity: 10^360 vs 10^123, or
• compare game-tree complexity, but call it "the number of possible games of average length" (less scary than "game-tree complexity" and still factually correct). Egnau (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I concur that that sentence could use some work, and particularly that "the number of possible games" is not simply "vast", but rather an absurd concept with little connection to ordinary experience, and offers little insight into the character of these games. Neither the number of possible board positions, nor the number of possible games of average length" does much better. I think the relation I gave above (80^~35 << 150^~250 35^~80 << 250^~150) would serve for "wow", and is resonable accurate estimate that can be sourced (e.g., in the AlphaGo article in Nature). For the edification of readers who are not familiar with either Go or complexity theory, a simple description of how quickly the game tree expands should be sufficient for purposes of comparison. This could be done in the "Nature of the game" section, but it seems to me this is of interest more generally, so ought to be mentioned in some way in the "Game theory" section. Either way, this could support a summary statement in the lede that Go is deemed more complex than chess. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, 35⁸⁰ = 10¹²³ and 250¹⁵⁰ = 10³⁶⁰ are the number of possible games of average length, so if you think that the calculation is absurd then you'll have to find some other calculation, but if you change your mind about the absurdity, then I agree with the calculation since it was one my 3 possibilities. Note that the AlphaGo article isn't the original source: the AlphaGo article cites Allis's Ph.D. thesis. The game complexity article contains the same figures in the table and also cites Allis's Ph.D. thesis. Egnau (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with going back to original sources. And I see that Allis' thesis is on-line, so it is more accessible than the AlphaGo article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The number of possible games or possible game positions is nearly irrelevant, as even a mediocre player can discard 99.99999...% of these as irrelevant to realistic play. What convinces me Go is inherently more complex and more human-friendly/computer-hostile than chess is this (but of course we need sources, not my opinion):

1. A game of Go typically has 4 different openings (one in each corner) that interact with each others throughout the game - a game of chess has only one opening. Arguably, each opening in Go is simpler and shorter than most chess openings, but the possibilities stemming from the combination of four openings (and play switching back and forth between them) result in greater complexity.
2. In Go, the influence of one game piece is mostly local, decreasing as one looks further away on the board, though there are notable exceptions such as ladders and ko's, and other concepts involving sente and gote. By contrast, in chess, many pieces can move quickly across the board, or threaten to do so. In my mind, chess is like a Go board folded up like puff pastry, which is confusing for humans but no problem for a computer that excels at combinatorics. Thus, though chess is probably the less complex for a computer (and thus in an objective sense), Go is more accessible for human intelligence and (geometric) intuition - i.e., in Go much more than in chess, human intelligence (and now neural networks) can take some shortcuts through the complete combinatorial complexity to arrive at nearly perfect play.--Nø (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The numerical comparisons aren't as bad as you think. The number of possible games or possible game positions works just fine for comparing two games if the fraction 99.99999...% that you have to discard as irrelevant to realistic play is the same fraction for both games, or the same power of the base number for both games. Shannon and Allis discard games above average length which discards a lot of unrealistic play and does a lot towards making a fair comparison. Then as long as the number of realistic moves at each turn is some power of the number of legal moves at each turn, the comparison works. It's not perfect and if the numbers were 10¹²³ vs 10¹²⁴ then it would be unwise to call Go more complex, but it turns out that Go's exponent is about 3x as large which is enough to withstand inaccuracies. Egnau (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is any basis for assuming that the percentages are even remotely similar. Is it 99.999999999999 % ? Is it 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999 % ? I've got no idea (but probably still more 9's)! The length of the game is of course a factor, but (maybe especially in Go) the vast majority of the possible average-length games will be completely silly. Just try placing stones of alternating colours at random allowed points; it will not even remotely resemble a real game of Go. I suspect the percentage may be smaller (fewer 9's) for chess than for Go, but I really don't know.--Nø (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that the number of possible games is "nearly irrelevant". I am inclined to think that length is of game is rather irrelevant, especially for purposes of describing Go to a general readership, that a useful comparison can be made in just looking at the first several moves for each game. E.g., out of 20 possible first moves in chess perhaps only ten are generally seen, and likewise for the second move. In Go there are 55 unique possible first moves (disallowing symmetrical duplications), of which only about four are "realistic". But as symmetries get broken the game tree starts to go wild: typically around 30 responses for move 2, and I estimate a hundred or more for move 3. Taking this out another step or two I think it would be more useful in demonstrating the relative complexity of these two games than a bunch of really big numbers. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You're having a hard time estimating the number of silly games, but can you try to estimate the number of realistic games instead? It looks easier. Egnau (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If Egnaus comment was for me, that's exactly my point: It's virtually impossible to estimate the distribution between silly and meaningful games among the astronomic numbers of possible games ind the tree. 0.000000000000000000000000 % ? 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000 % ? I like J. Johnson's approach - but even more, I'd like reliable sources.--Nø (talk) 06:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes the comment was intended for you, please don't change my indentation level which conveyed that. You find it virtually impossible because you're thinking about the fraction and it feels hopeless. What I was suggesting was to directly estimate the number of realistic games which is the number we're really after. The total number of games is usually estimated by (number_of_legal_moves_per_turn)^{(length_of_the_longest_game)}, so the number of realistic games would be (number_of_realistic_moves_per_turn)^{(length_of_a_realistic_game)}. Egnau (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

"Number of legal moves per turn" is a very, very non-trivial number that varies widely as the game proceeds - and "length of longest game" is theoretically infinite with ko fights. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Allis comments that the "average branching factor" (see my comment below) could be taken as an average, or varying (generally increasing) as the game proceeds. It is because of all these complications of trying to quantify realistic games that these numbers are so wildly inaccurate. But, as long as the estimate for each game is calculated with roughly equal "wildness" (i.e., on comparable bases) the inequality should still hold. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hypothetically, comparing estimates of the sizes of the trees of realistic games of Chess and Go would be relevant, but I think it is immensely difficult to create such realistic estimates, and we'd need a valid source for them (and for comparing them) anyway. Unless someone has a good source, I think all these numbers are moot.--Nø (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion got a little deep so let's step back and talk about reliable sources. Allis's thesis discusses game complexity, and he uses these two measures:

1. the number of legal board positions (technical term: state-space complexity), and
2. the number of games of average length (technical term: game-tree complexity).

In the AlphaGo Nature paper, the authors chose the second measure to compare the complexity of Chess and Go. That article passed a stringent review process, so measure (2) is a clear winner, and backed by authoritative sources. J. Johnson called the measure "not much better than absurd" and its numerical outcome "reasonably accurate" in the same breath, so I'm not sure what it means. Nø thinks that the measure is meaningless and that counting the number of realistic games is the only meaningful thing to do. My personal view is that Nø's suggestion would order board games in roughly the same way and I wanted Nø to make some estimates in order to reach that conclusion too, but we didn't get that far. Definition (2) has the benefit that it doesn't require a definition of "realistic" which is somewhat subjective. This might be why definition (2) is preferred by the game complexity specialists. So please, let's trust these people when they claim that (2) is a reasonable way of comparing the complexity of two games, even if it might not appear to be the case at first glance. Egnau (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Egnau, you are incorrect. Allis uses average game length (in plies, or pairs of moves) AND the "average branching factor" (p. 160). Silver et al. express this as b^d where b is the game's breadth (number of legal moves per position) and d is its depth (game length)." From Allis (pp. 171, 174) we get the estimates used by Silver et al. for 80³⁵ << 150²⁵⁰ 35^≈80 << 250^≈150. I think this suffices for an authoritative comparison of game complexity at the technical level. (See also Allis' figure 6.1, which shows that, for chess and Go, that state-space and game-tree complexity are comparable.)

However, I think we need to provide a non-technical comparison that works for general readers, such as I outlined in a prior comment (20:24 15 March). Unfortunately, I am not aware of any sources for that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not incorrect. Allis discusses state-space complexity (1) on p158. Your two items (call them 2a and 2b) are simply ingredients Allis uses to compute game-tree complexity (2). Figure 6.1 is a plot of the two measures I mentioned. I agree that definition (2) is a bit unsettling the first time you see it, and might require a footnote to preemptively answer the questions "why not simply the number of games?" and "why not the number of realistic games?". Definition (1) might be a reasonable choice after all because it is also sourced and it feels less technical. By the way, if you plug the correct b and d in b^d you should get 35⁸⁰ and 250¹⁵⁰. It's the third time in the thread that you get it wrong. Egnau (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right in that I've been getting b and d reversed. (Corrected. Dealing with such immensities made me bit dizzy.) And I am glad you recognize that BOTH are "ingredients" for Alliss' measure of "game complexity". Which is not shown in your #2, where you have left one out.

You seem to be arguing that state-space complexity is a better measure than game-tree complexity. That could be argued, but why? Is there any reason we can't mention both? That one "feels less technical" (because it doesn't use exponents?) seems irrelevant: it's still a number so big as to lie outside of human experience. Which is why I have been suggesting that (in addition to any technical measures of complexity) we need a simpler, more intuitive, non-technical statement. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I mean "better" for the purpose of the third paragraph of the article where the goal is simply to support the claim that Go is a complex game. Conciseness is a big factor, so I assumed that we would use only one measure and pick the simplest one that does the job correctly. If you think that we should mention both of Allis's measures and go as far as describing the ingredients and the calculations behind (2), then go ahead and write up something, but I think there's a risk someone will revert your change, claiming that it's too detailed for the article's introduction. Egnau (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Not just too detailed, but too technical for the introduction. Which gets back to what I keep saying: for the introduction we need a simpler, more intuitive, non-technical statement. A more detailed explanation can be put into a more appropriate section. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

So if we change the 3rd paragraph to say "the number of legal board positions is vast (10¹⁷⁰ compared, for example, to the estimated 10⁴⁷ in chess)", then are you satisfied? Egnau (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

How about a simple descriptive statement like this, with no math to scare people away:

Go is considered more complex than chess, having both a larger board with more scope for play and longer games, and, on average, more alternatives to consider per move.

That concisely covers both kinds of complexity, and the gory supporting details can be put into a note:

References

I think that covers all of the points and considerations raised so far. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

These estimates of "complexity" should be explicitly related to the assumption that game-tree exploration is the method of solving. It is perfectly conceivable (though it doesn't seem likely) that there is some computationally efficient algorithm for solving the game that does not require game-tree search. AlphaGo, in particular, is clearly not exploring the game tree in the straightforward way. It was said that AlphaGo estimated that one of its surprising moves had 1/10,000 chance of being played by a professional. I wonder what the fanout of moves with > 1/10,000 chance of being played is? --Macrakis (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Why? That AlphaGo doesn't depend on game-tree search in no way makes the game less complex. The issue that we have been exploring here is how to present the relative complexity of Go and chess to the general reader. How this complexity is to be tackled (and solved??) is independent of the existence of the complexity. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I can think of a few minor fixes and improvements to the supporting details (for example, "plies" are half-moves in chess, not pairs of moves), but I can make these minor changes in a later edit. Egnau (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Glad you like it. But "ply" needs to be resolved. My understanding was as pairs of moves, what I have also heard called "rounds", which I believe I picked up from a game theory book without reference to Go. (I'll check that source tonight.) I see that Alliss (p. 5) defines it as "a move by one player", without reference to any specific game. Ply (game theory) is interesting: it explains the chess "half-move" on the basis of one move being a turn by each player. All that seems to come together, so I'll probably revise accordingly. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Yup. Don't know where I got that double-move idea, so I am revising accordingly. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

And the fix is in. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

A break

@Egnau: Regarding your replacement of "comparable to" with "much smaller than": what I was trying to communicate is not the magnitude of the relationship (which is certainly evident as it stands), but that it was a fair comparison. That is, these estimates are derived on the same basis for each game. The "much smaller than" is only the result, not the basis. If this wasn't clear, perhaps we could try some alternatives? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC) I didn't notice the ping was incorrect because your link is always red. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I see what you intended now and you can try some alternatives, but I don't think that it will work well. I think that if you don't say anything then by default people already assume that it is a fair comparison, so anything you add to make that explicit will be unnecessary or confusing. The "much smaller than" might be evident, but it makes the sentence flow well.

If you want to improve something, then my main worry right now is that you use Allis as your reference for everything, but Allis's thesis is from 1994 and it doesn't have the latest numbers (for example it has 10¹⁷² instead of 10¹⁷⁰ for Go). I know you spent time finding all the page numbers, but I think it would have been better to simply use Game_complexity#Complexities_of_some_well-known_games as the reference because that table has the latest numbers and is sourced. What do you think? Egnau (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

In the first place, we do not cite Wikipedia. If you mean to suggest using the refereces used in that table, I note that (for Go) the first reference is (!) Allis, 1994 (same as I used here), the fourth reference is from 1983 (oops), and the third is Tromp's own web page (and not peer-reviewed). So perhaps what you really meant to suggest is using the inadequately cited second reference to Tromp and Gunnar Farnebäck (2015). (And why couldn't you just say so directly?) The problem is, they examined only Go; there is no comparable examination of chess. They may indeed have a more exact figure fo Go, but the point of the comparison is how Go and chess match-up. They don't address chess, and your table provides no basis for a fair comparison, done on similar assumptions, etc. Allis' numbers were good enough for Silver et al. just a few months ago, and your desire for "the latest numbers" serves no purpose. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

What I meant was linking to the Wikipedia table to benefit from its references without having to copy-paste them. This is done sometimes in Wikipedia. For example in Cosmic Calendar the phrase "13.8 billion year lifetime" is a link to the Age of the universe article, not to the original source of the number. In other articles the references are copy-pasted, so that's certainly also an option.

The number of legal positions is a self-contained question for each game, so I don't understand why you'd accept an estimate for Go only if the same person also did it for chess. Your concern might be valid for something subjective like the number of realistic games, but here we're talking about a thoroughly objective definition.

Since you brought up the topic of "fair comparison", let me point out that Allis calls 10¹⁷² a bound (not an estimate), so right now you're the one being unfair by using an estimate for chess and an upper bound for Go.

If you have issues with the references given in the Game complexity article concerning 10¹⁷⁰ then I suggest that you first bring it up in that article's talk page and we'll see what happens. Allis' numbers were good enough for Silver et al. simply because they do not discuss state-space complexity. Egnau (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Egnau, are you trying to pick a fight? It sure sounds like it. If you and everyone else working on Game complexity are happy with the sources you have there, then I am happy for you. Where I do have an issue is with your petty, niggling objections of no merit. E.g., you say that Allis's state-space complexity numbers are "unfair [for] using an estimate for chess and an upper bound for Go", apparently because Allis explicitly says "upper bound" for Go, but only "estimate" for chess. What you seem to have missed is that state-space complexity is intrinsically an upper bound to game complexity, and that both figures are estimates of an upper bound. That someone has trimmed the figure the figure for Go by two magnitudes is quite inconsequential, in that the difference between the respective figures is on the order of 120 magnitudes.

As linking to other parts of Wikipedia "to benefit from its references without having to copy-paste them": that it is sometimes done shows only that guidance is imperfect. I commend to your attention the Citing sources#Say where you read it section, which says: "Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself." Note also that if you take a figure from one source, and another figure from another source, and then compare them, you violate the WP:SYNTHESIS rule. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

State-space complexity is not "an upper bound to game complexity". We called it a measure of game complexity earlier and that's what it is. See 6.2.4 from Allis for a confirmation. The reason you know that 10¹⁷² is only two orders of magnitude off is precisely because of the 10¹⁷⁰ estimate. Without it, you wouldn't be able to tell how accurate 10¹⁷² is. My argument is that since you need 10¹⁷⁰ anyway, you might as well just mention 10¹⁷⁰. This is not a case of WP:SYNTHESIS. Allis is a single source that says that it's ok to compare the state-space complexity of chess and Go. Once that's established, we own it to our readers to plug the most accurate numbers that we know of into the comparison, just like nowadays we plug modern estimates of the masses of planets into Newton's equations, and not Newton's values from 1687. I'm sorry if pointing out flaws in your arguments feels like a personal attack. Double-check your facts and your logic and I won't be able to do it. Egnau (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Allis, §6.2.4: "The main application of the state-space complexity of a game is that it provides a bound to the complexity of games that can be solved through complete enumeration." But, gee, he doesn't say upper bound, so you must be right, those numbers are NOT upper bounds. But wait, he does say (§6.3.9): "In our calculation of the state-space complexity of chess .... an upper bound of 5 . 10⁵² was calculated." [Emphasis added.] So what is unfair about the comparison?

And no, I do not "know" that "10¹⁷² is only two orders of magnitude off" because someone else came up with a different estimate, calculated on some slightly different basis. What you seem to be consistently missing is that the comparison of these figures for chess and Go does not depend on their absolute accuracy, but on their relative accuracy, that they are calculated on similar ("comparable") bases. That Tromp and Farnebäck came up with a slightly different figure for Go is irrelevant, as they did not produce a similar figure for chess. BTW, Allis does not say that it is okay for us to plug in someone else's figures, and especialliy not when it is done for only one game. You should mind the flaws in your own arguments. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok I admit that state-space complexity can be seen as an upper bound on game complexity, but mathematically that doesn't give you permission to add upper bounds on top of upper bounds, as you seem to think. The statement "upper bounds on state-space complexity are 10⁵² for chess and 10¹⁷² for Go" would be fair, but that's not what the article citation is currently saying. I already showed that for state-space complexity there is no concept of "comparable base" to worry about, so stop bringing that up. The article citation currently contains the statement "state-space complexity [...] has been estimated at [...] 10¹⁷² for Go". All I'm saying is that a more accurate estimate is known, so the number should be updated. The fact that it doesn't change the result of the comparison is not a justification for rejecting improvements. Allis does not say that it is wrong for us to plug in someone else's figures either, so obviously this is a completely fruitless line of investigation. Let's look at what is done elsewhere. Do you think that the numbers in List of highest mountains or List of tallest structures in the world were measured by the same person? There are tons of Wikipedia articles comparing estimates from different sources. Doing this is completely reasonable and simply not a problem. Egnau (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The whole point of the text in question is to give a general reader some idea of how complex Go is relative to chess. You keep wanting to polish up an absolute, stand-alone measure of complexity, but for the average reader such numbers are effectively (as BenRG said way back at the start) meaningless. So we compare it with chess, which (to be fair) requires comparable figures. I keep bringing it up because that is the essential point you don't get. What you also do not get is that substituting 10^170 for Allis' figure would be a misquotation of Allis.

Let's try an example. Suppose that a thousand years ago someone measured the lengths of two boats using a ruler that has since been lost, and found that one boat was a hundred times longer than the other. Suppose also that recently someone found a historical record of one of the boat's length in terms of hand spans. Note that these are two entirely different datums. The first gives us the length of one boat relative to the other; it is a comparison, based on comparable measurements. The other gives us (assuming some notion of a hand span) the actual (but approximate) length of one boat. That you can get a better estimate of the length of a hand span, and thus of the one boat, says nothing about which boat is longer. Is that clearer?

That we accept numbers from different sources for (say) highest mountains is because everyone is using the same measuring stick. The problem with comparing game complexity figures is that there is no standard ruler: each author has a different basis for estimating (e.g.) what proportion of all possible moves are actually legal moves. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Promote "Pebble game" as a generic name for wei-go-duk

Pebble game has a kind of working, phonotactically. I think. -Anam.saion.ocuana (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

As media coverage shows quite clearly, this game is generally called "Go" in English - and hence on en.wikipedia.org. I've even seen it described as "the Chinese game Go" (which actually isn't entirely wrong). If someone succeeds in changing the commonly used name in English into "The Pebble Game" or something (starting perhaps with the Go associations?), of course it should and will change here too.--Nø (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. This is an encylopedia. We follow; we don't promote. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

'Computers and go' section out of date

This section is out of date now, especially in the light of the recent outcome between Lee Sedol and AlphaGo. A Miller (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, Wikipedia is not a newspaper; we don't need to follow "breaking news". At any rate, it will take days, perhaps even months, before the significance of the AlphaGo is threshed out. And the challenges are still the same, and the history of past attempts unchanged, so it's not a matter of "out of date" so much as there are new developments (still unfolding) which will eventually get folded in. Anything late-breaking and really, really important can be linked to via an external link. Meanwhile, let's not get ahead of the assessments of the experts. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Chinese characters solo?

In an early paragraph, we have:

A basic principle of Go is that stones must have at least one "liberty" (Chinese: 氣)

Here, and again several places later in the article, we have a commonly used English concept followed by a Chinese character, but no pinyin or other indication of Chinese pronunciation. This seems odd to me; we are not writing for scholars of Chinese. Perhaps (I don't know) a reason for this is that the character applies in Chinese, Japanese and Korean, which would require three pronunciations/translitteration. Still, I think that if the Chinese character is relevant at all, it should follow or be followed by at least one translitteration.--Nø (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that someone was trying to be helpful in adding more information, but that seems rather excessive, and it clutters the text. But it has occurred to me that perhaps we should have "Terms" ("Glossary"?) section where we could list the common terms, and there Japanese/Chinese/Korean equivalents. These could be wikilinked from where they first occur in the text. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that we already have a List of Go terms article, which provides Japanese equivalent terms (as that language is the primary source of the terms used in the West). I could see wikilinking to the pertinent sections there, though I don't know if adding Chinese and Korean equivalents there would be entirely satisfactory. We could also have a small section in this article, dealing only with the terms needed here, with a brief description and the various transliterations. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Number of players

The last paragraph of the lead section states "As of mid-2008, there were well over 40 million Go players worldwide." This is rather out-of-date, and the reference does not seem to be working. This source indicates about 60 million. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

That source (the British Go Association) doesn't provide any source or basis for that statement, so I would be cautious in using it. But if can find a good source feel free to make an adjustment. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The match between AlphaGo and Lee Sedol was watched by more than 100 million people, according to an article in New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/world/asia/korea-alphago-vs-lee-sedol-go.html?_r=0

It is hard to imagine somebody watching a long game of Go without knowing the rules, and it is hard to imagine that everybody how knows Go watched the game... ::Thus, 100 million is a lower bound. 188.97.83.100 (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear what "watched" means - it could include casual non-players who checked in for a moment here and there because of the extensive media coverage. The number comes only from a spokesman for Google DeepMind, not exactly an objective source. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

There is (heh, heh) only one "rule" in Go. (A little Go joke.)

As it is I watched (most of) two of the five games, and highlights of the rest; do I count as a watcher or non-watcher? But note that the same problem pertains to all televised events. E.g., how many people actually watched Trump's inauguration, distinguished from those who walked into a bar where the t.v. was on? Exact numbers are impossible; the best we can do is make comparisons on similar bases. Like, say, compared to how many people "watched" the Super Bowl. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links?

Seems to me several of the external links go against wikipedia policy. I haven't read up on policy recently, but I believe we should link sources of information, not online games.--Nø (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you be more specific as to which links you question? I just looked, and they all seemed reasonable. Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by "online games" – there are several websites ("servers") where people can play online, but these are not what I would consider an "online game". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Well I reacted to the recent addition of one such link, and a brief glance suggested there was at least one more.

I now clicked all the links, and here are my brief impressions:

1. https://www.dmoz.org/Games/Board_Games/Abstract/Territory_Games/Go/ - not obviously useful, but would require closer study to be sure
2. http://www.kiseido.com/three.htm - looks OK (meaning: I have not really tried to asses the quality of the page, but - well, looks OK!)
3. http://senseis.xmp.net/ - looks OK
4. http://www.goproblems.com/ - seems to be a paywalled Go problem page; looks irrelevant (meaning: according to wikipedia policy, I don't think we should include this link)
5. https://gogameguru.com/ - looks OK
6. http://playgo.to/iwtg/en/ - tutorial; we don't generally link "how to" pages (I believe), so looks irrelevant
7. http://www.cosumi.net/en/ - online game; looks irrelevant
8. https://www.gnu.org/software/gnugo/ - go playing program; looks irrelevant
9. http://qgo.sourceforge.net/ - Smart Game Format related software; looks irrelevant
10. http://www.usgo.org/files/pdf/W2Go4E-book.pdf - not sure!
11. http://qz.com/634362/the-very-human-implications-of-a-self-taught-machine-playing-the-worlds-hardest-game/ - looks OK

--Nø (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. While you initially said that several links seemed to "go against wikipedia policy", you didn't specify which policy, so I can't comment in that regard. However, upon examining the links I find the first and fourth (www.dmoz.org and www.goproblems.com) to be dubious; I would concur with their removal. The eighth (gnugo) is a program, which I think would be more appropriate at Go software. The last (Man vs. Machine, at qz.com) is basically a blurb about AlphaGo; I think it is not appropriate here. I am going to boldly remove the last two mentioned, but will hold off on removing the first two as there might be a question regarding them.

You questioned (as "irrelevant") the playgo.to tutorial #6), cosumi.net (#7), and the SGF link (#9). Not so! The tutorial is good, cosumi is an on-line go server, similar to kiseido, and the SGF software is a standard tool for accessing and sharing games digitally. You were "not sure" about #10 (the book); that's a classic introduction to the game, and quite properly present. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)

AFAIK, tutorials (#6), go servers (#7) and software (#9) are not relevant per se.--Nø (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Does someone have a link to the relevant Wikipedia policy page? It would be a shame to delete the tutorial site since it is recommended by nearly all English-speaking go players and forums I know as the best place to go to learn the game online. It has been extremely popular for many years. But some of the others may be questionable. If we list cosumi, do we also list other popular online sites? Why list just this one? And why qGo and and GnuGo and not a dozen other SGF editors/players?

I see the links have been edited since this discussion and there are now only six external links. I agree with the choices that were made, except possibly the first (www.dmoz.org/Games/Board_Games/Abstract/Territory_Games/Go/). What is this site? Chrome flags it as an insecure website. The other sites are very familiar to most English-speaking Go players, but I've never heard of the dmoz.org site. It is the only link for which there is no explanation on the Wikipedia page. I recommend it be deleted, unless someone can explain why it should be there, in which case a description needs to be added. The other five links should definitely be kept. seberle (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Concerning the presentation of categories a page belongs to when the list is humongous

It might not be related to the article's content, but look at the messy list of categories at the end of Go_(game) and Talk:Go_(game). It would look much better if it were presented in columns, don't you agree? — Tentacles^{Talk or ✉ mailto:Tentacles} 18:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I also added this comment to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Concerning the presentation of categories a page belongs to when the list is humongous. — Tentacles^{Talk or ✉ mailto:Tentacles} 18:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

??? I see only six categories at the bottom of the main Go article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see 1 line of categories at the end of Go_(game), but then there are 7 lines of hidden categories. Now, I see 8 lines of categories (not counting the 1 line of hidden categories) at the end of Talk:Go_(game). — Tentacles^{Talk or ✉ mailto:Tentacles} 18:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. Keep them hidden. Or kill them - the main accomplishment of categories, IMHO, is spurring edit wars; I've seen no sign that they're useful to readers. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Even if I don't show "hidden categories" there are still 8 lines of categories at the end of Talk:Go_(game). I wonder whether some of those could be hidden. Anyway, I just thought that presenting categories into columns would be nifty. — Tentacles^{Talk or ✉ mailto:Tentacles} 19:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Since most of the categories of Talk:Go_(game) are added via templates, the presentation into columns would have to be automatized... if ever the idea was considered. (I guess the idea must already have been pondered.) Thanks. — Tentacles^{Talk or ✉ mailto:Tentacles} —Preceding undated comment added 19:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Goe

Why does "Goe" redirect here instead of GOE (disambiguation)? That seems non-intuitive to me, and certainly not worthy of a hatnote, but maybe I'm over-reacting. Any thoughts? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and I've been bold and done it now.--Nø (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

More complex than chess

IMO it would be better to state that Go is harder to analyze than chess. Otherwise this phrase is both misleading and reads as an ad hoc cheap shot at the game of chess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greece666 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to the implied phrase "Go is more complex than chess", or some other phrase? Regarding this phrase, there are mathematical measures of complexity, and by those measures Go is more complex. (Which, incidentally, is why it is harder to analyze.) I don't know why that should be considered an "ad hoc cheap shot at the game of chess." I have never heard of anyone saying they don't want to play chess because it's not as complex as Go. They are different games, with different characteristics. So what? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I also assume they are referring to the sentence in the third paragraph, "Despite its relatively simple rules, Go is very complex, even more so than chess..." I agree that this does not seem to be a "cheap shot." Since most readers would be familiar with chess, it seems natural to make such comparisons to aid understanding of the level of complexity. Most other game comparisons in the article also refer to chess. --seberle (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

"See also" section and Go series sidebar

Currently, the following list appears in the See Also Section:

• Benson's algorithm (Go) – a method for determining the chains that are unconditionally alive
• Go opening strategy
• Go proverbs
• Go equipment
• Go variants and Games played with Go equipment
• Irensei
• List of Go organizations
• List of Go terms
• Royal Game of Ur – a backgammon-like dice boardgame played in Near East ca. 2500–100 BC, known from archaeology

• Game of life

There is also a sidebar with all the articles in Wikipedia's series of articles on Go. The two lists overlap. Should they? If so, which ones are important enough to appear on both lists? If not, we should probably just remove duplicates from the "See also" list.

I see no connection at all between the Royal Game of Ur and Go, nor is there any mention of Go in that article. The connection to Conway's Game of life is extremely tenuous. (Conway used a Go board as a grid for his calculation of Life positions. There is no other connection.) Irensei is one of many games played with Go equipment and already appears on the Games played with Go equipment page. These three links should probably be removed. --seberle (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Trim "see also" items in the sidebar, certainly, and you make a good argument to toss those three links as well. "See also" lists often need regular pruning, I've found. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Atari

I was taught that one should say "atari" when putting one or more enemy groups in atari. I guess it's more a courtesy or a house rule than an essential rule of the game, but I'm a bit surprised it's not mentioned here at all. Is it uncommon, or should it be mentioned here, or what do you think?--Nø (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, more of a courtesy or house rule. and, generally, not required. The significance here is the contrast to the rules for chess, that require an "audible" warning. Being contrary to many reader's experience, it probably ought to be mentioned somewhere. But perhaps too small of a detail for this article, perhaps better in Rules of Go. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it is only a courtesy. In my experience, this courtesy is only extended to beginning players. Others seem to agree that calling out "atari" is bad etiquette among established players, so this would not normally be mentioned in the rules. --seberle (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Image caption does not appear to make sense.

I have never played go and came here seeking information. The caption for this picture does not appear to make sense:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)#/media/File:Gochsurule.png

"White may play A (a ko threat), leaving an empty three-space eye. Black naturally answers by playing at A, creating two eyes."

There is only one space labeled A. If white plays there, how can black answer by playing in the same spot? If that's not what's meant, then can someone with a better understanding of the game rewrite the caption to make things clearer to the uninitiated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:420:2281:1321:D014:2C50:CC0A:B431 (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to clarify the example. --seberle (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Go is not chess...

The literal translation of "weiqi" as "encirclement chess" is misleading: the character "qi" (棋), although very often mistranslated as "chess" has the broader meaning "board game", as can be seen by its use in the words for "draughts" (西洋跳棋), "backgammon" (雙陸棋) or "morris" (直棋) I often hear Chinese doing this mistake when they speak English, referring to weiqi, draughts etc. as "chess" or "chess games", since they think that this would be the right translation of "qi" (棋). To a Westerner this sounds wrong: of course, Go, draughts, backgammon or morris are NOT chess! I would therefore suggest to change the literal translation in the text box into "encircling board game". That's more to the point. 188.97.83.100 (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not at all familiar with Chinese, but it is an interesting analysis. Perhaps we could get some Chinese experts to comment? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not a Chinese expert, but I'm certain this anonymous comment is correct. Translating "weiqi" with the term "chess" was common in some old books on go, but modern authors translate it as "encircling game", as the Wikipedia article does in the opening sentence. The Chinese version of chess is called "xiangqi". I will trust the anonymous comment that "encircling board game" is a better translation until we know better. I have made the change. --seberle (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to explain this choice of terminology in a note. We would need some sources, of course. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I know its been 3 months since this but I agree that if you look at modern translations "board game" is more common than "chess". The edit made it more accurate, there is no literal translation (there is no English wiki article for zh:棋類). A precise translation is "abstract strategy board game". --– jfsamper ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 01:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Category?

@Neo-Jay: your recent edits (here, here, here, and here), adding several articles to Category:2017 in go, are inadvisable. In the first place, the preferred practice is to create the category before adding anything to it. Second, while Go fans, and even chess fans, are likely to understand what the category is about, most English speakers probably find "2017 in go" no more sensible than, say, "2017 in run". Something like "2017 in go (game)" would be better, though "2017 in Go" (making the last word a proper noun, rather than a common verb) would be be just as good, and arguably better. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: I saw your comment just now. Sorry for my late reply. I also prefer the capitalized "Go". But there are already categories using lowercased "go" (see, e.g., Category:2016 in go). So I simply follow this style. And I personally don't want to create any new category. Therefore I just add those red-link categories to articles. Let those who like to create categories do it. Thank you. --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Neo-Jay: I still say it is inadvisable to added articles to non-existent categories. I am also a little mystified why you don't want to create the categories, as it is almost trivial. (Created like any other page, then add a template and containing category.) I'd do it myself, but wonder if you might want to give it a try. Or is there anyone running around that takes particular satisfaction in making categories?

I just found Category:Years in go, so I see what you mean about the capitalization. Oh, well, we can't be perfect all the time, and there's more important work needing attention. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@J. Johnson: I usually just edit existing pages and I don't create any page except for those extremely interesting and necessary to me. And the potential controversy over capitalized "Go" or lowercased "go" makes me more reluctant to create the "year in go (or Go)" categories. If you don't like seeing red-link categories in articles, just remove them. I will not object. Thank you for your contributions. --Neo-Jay (talk) 06:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Both of you make excellent points regarding the inconsistency of capitalization, and it seems like we all prefer Go capitalized. If there's still a lot of inconsistency between various categories, I could track down the uncapitalized ones and see about getting them moved. What do you think? Reyk _YO! 07:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Reyk: Although all of us three prefer Go capitalized, other editors might disagree (see, e.g., Ish ishwar's edits at this and this). I am afraid that this inconsistency cannot be fixed. It may be very difficult to achieve consensus on this issue.--Neo-Jay (talk) 07:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Go Seigen is even more confusing because you've now got three meanings: the verb, the game, and the person. My suggestion would be to capitalise generally, and then talk about how to treat this particular case. Reyk _YO! 08:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems that even the Go community has no consensus on whether Go should be capitalized. The website of British Go Association capitalizes Go, while that of American Go Association usually lowercases it. --Neo-Jay (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

There is definitely no consensus in the go community. But it is important to be consistent, so whichever convention is chosen should be the convention used throughout this article and related articles. seberle (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Aside from "this consistency cannot be fixed" (it can, and I believe Reyk is offering) I agree with Neo-Jay's comments nearly word-for-word. In particular, despite the three of us being of the same main mind re capitalization, any extensive changes should have a broader base. But regardless of the overall consistency, I think the categories are a bit of special case (because many readers see them without any context, and "2017 in go (game)" seems clumsy), and perhaps we can consider doing that much.

The changes at Go Seigen are interesting. While they seemed a little odd, it seems to be a valid case where upper/lower-case distinction is needed. If (for the sake of argument) we had a general policy of capitalizing the game, would Go Seigen be special exception? What kind of problems might we encounter there? Are there any other similar cases? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

number of legal positions has been determined

Tromp (with some help) determined the exact number of legal positions for 19x19 Go in 2016, approximately 2.08168 x 10^170. Tromp J. (2016) The Number of Legal Go Positions. In: Plaat A., Kosters W., van den Herik J. (eds) Computers and Games. CG 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10068. Springer, Cham. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-50935-8_17

So probably all the text about estimating this value should be deleted and replaced with a single reference to that paper.

Howard Landman (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• That definitely does look more precise and reliable than what we've currently got. Feel free to change the page yourself; it's nice to see some activity in this subject area again. Thanks for your attention to detail. Reyk _YO! 09:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• I haven't seen that source, but I point out that "approximately 2.08168 x 10^170" is in no way an "exact number". For that reason alone I think we should have a deeper look into why this estimate is any better than any other. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• • According to the abstract of the paper, the exact number of positions has been determined. It's a 170 digit number beginning with 208168... and ending with ...40935. We of course wouldn't reproduce all 170 digits. The rest of the text is behind a paywall, but I'll check tomorrow if I can get access through work. Reyk _YO! 21:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• • • Unfortunately I can't access the paper through work either, and I'm not going to spend 41 euro to buy the e-book. However, I did find this summary of the paper on the author's website. Reyk _YO! 07:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Isn't Backgammon Older than Go?

The article says that Go is thought to be the oldest continuously played game, but the date it gives is much younger than the dates on the Backgammon article for the earliest forms of Backgammon, and Backgammon is still played today. MageAZ (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

No. The history section of the Backgammon article is pretty lousy, and does not clearly differentiate race games that may be predecessors of Backgammon (which date back thousands of years) with the actual game of backgammon which I think is only attested with certainty from the middle of the 1st millennium AD. On the other hand, the earliest archeological evidence for Go is about 200 BC, and there are possible written attestations of the game from several centuries earlier. BabelStone (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with user:BabelStone. Of course it is a matter of degree - is game X and game Y essentially the same when the rules or layout is not identical? There may be slight variations over time in the rules of go - ko, triple ko, komi, handicap, counting - but it makes sense to consider these very minor compared to the changes in the evolution of backgammon (or chess before 15the century AD).--Nø (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with user:BabelStone. Even today, there are actually several varieties of Backgammon, all quite different from each other. In the West, we've focused on one or two versions (Acey-Deucy is also popular), but in Greece, they still play multiple versions. Each version is essentially a different game. And it is fairly certain that the versions played in antiquity were quite different from the versions being played today. Go, on the other hand, has always been go, with only minor changes in the rules. The earliest recorded game of go has rules and strategy that we would still be comfortable with today. --seberle (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Unicode characters and go notation?

The section "Notation and recording games" notes,

In Unicode, Go stones are encoded in the block Miscellaneous Symbols:

U+25CB ○ WHITE CIRCLE (HTML ○)

U+2686 ⚆ WHITE CIRCLE WITH DOT RIGHT (HTML ⚆)

U+2687 ⚇ WHITE CIRCLE WITH TWO DOTS (HTML ⚇)

...

But the notation is never explained. E.g., what do the dotted circles mean? --108.208.237.65 (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The dotted circles are not used in ordinary Go game notation, but are used in specialized mathematical game theory notation (see this thread for more information). It is misleading to include them in this article, and I think they should be removed. On the other hand, a set of four widely-used Go notation symbols were added to Unicode 11.0 in June 2018 (this is my proposal document which shows examples of their use): U+1F7D5 Circled Triangle 🟕, U+1F7D6 Negative Circled Triangle 🟖, U+1F7D7 Circled Square 🟗, and U+1F7D8 Negative Circled Square 🟘 (these symbols probably won't display properly for most people yet, but they are available in my BabelStone Han and BabelStone Shapes fonts). I think that these should be added to the Notation section. BabelStone (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be an improvement. Note that WHITE CIRCLE and BLACK CIRCLE are not in the block Miscellaneous Symbols (U+2600–U+26FF).

From the mathematical analysis of go, Unicode encodes these symbols in the Miscellaneous Symbols block:

U+2686 ⚆ WHITE CIRCLE WITH DOT RIGHT (HTML ⚆)

U+2687 ⚇ WHITE CIRCLE WITH TWO DOTS (HTML ⚇)

U+2688 ⚈ BLACK CIRCLE WITH WHITE DOT RIGHT (HTML ⚈)

U+2689 ⚉ BLACK CIRCLE WITH TWO WHITE DOTS (HTML ⚉)

--108.208.237.65 (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

While most of the proposal looks reasonable, and it will still be useful even if only encircled numbers up to 99 (or, as fairly commonly occurs, 100) are implemented, and ◎ (bullseye) is adequate for a white stone with a circle, none of the three possibilities given for a black stone with a circle convince me. PJTraill (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure that the whole section can use more work. I am a novice who was confused by the dotted circle notation, and that is all that I focused on for now. --108.208.237.65 (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)