Talk:Go (game)/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Go (game). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Possible repeat of material

There is an explanation of the concept of life and death in both the section on basic play and it later has a section to its self. Maybe a briefer explanation in basic play with a link to the other section, or removing the section? I just feel that basic play has a much better description of life and death as it links it to the concept of eyes.Teeteringtotter (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have renamed and rewritten the second section on life and death (under tactics), explaining reading skill in general and the importance of life and death problems in training that skill. The section now refers back to the first section on life and death (under basic rules) for explanation of the basic concept of life and death. Let me know what you think! HermanHiddema (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nominating for Featured Article

I am going to nominate Go (board game) for featured article status. A lot of material has been added or improved since the promotion to good article status. Looking at the article now, I find that it is generally well organized, well written and well referenced. I do not see any major problems that would keep it from being featured. Does anyone have any final edits to make or suggestions they would like to see addressed before this nomination? If nothing major comes up, I am moving to nomination this weekend. HermanHiddema (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Great idea, I've been thinking it's time this was FA for a while. I'll look it over. VanTucky 19:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

One thing stands out to me. Playing technique is a section that cites opinion a couple times ("...is considered..."), but has only one in-line cite. VanTucky 19:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point! I have improved citing in this section. HermanHiddema (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In culture and science is also a huge problem. Most of it is completely uncited, and is trivial. I wouldn't hurt to see the whole media stuff gone, and just cite philosophy and psych better. VanTucky 19:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the literature and film section is messy. Mostly, I think, because this is typically the kind of section where people just add books or films after they've seen or read about go in them, without caring for wikipedia policies like verifiability. I think I may be able to salvage some of it, the first part has some references, and then discard the rest. Most of it is indeed trivia anyway. HermanHiddema (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You might take a look at Guinea pig and Domestic sheep for examples of cultural sections that passed muster at FAC. I think the key is to keep in strict paragraph form, not a list. VanTucky 21:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made an attempt, tell me what you think! HermanHiddema (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Trimming the article

Trimmed out a lot of unnecessary material that is duplicated in the subarticles. The section, tactics and strategy, was almost a complete duplicate of the subarticle, with two subsections, each of which had three sub-subsections. There is nothing wrong with giving a concise readable cohesive idea of what go is, but there is a lot wrong with going into adnauseum details that are best left in the subarticles. Oakwillow (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, as requested, do not drastically change the article before discussing on the talk page. That does not mean "state your reason on the talk page then go ahead and edit", it means state your reason here then wait for input from other editors on the subject.

In fact, most of the material covered in the section Tactics (ladder, net, snapbcak, etc) is not covered in the Go strategy and tactics article at all. Go strategy and tactics currently gives very poor coverage of the subject. The material in the tactics section barely scratches the surface of Go tactics, most of it is absolute beginner material that players will know by the time they are 20 kyu. Given the depth of the subject, I think that both of the sections "Tactics" and "Strategy" are currently at a good lenght. Both subjects could easily fill an article of their own, so summarizing into a single section seems reasonable. HermanHiddema (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Oakwillow that the duplicated content should be removed from the main article. At least the History section should be downsized. --Neo-Jay (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the deleted content was in fact not duplicated elsewhere. HermanHiddema (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The situation that we should strive for is one where articles like history of go and go strategy and tactics are well written full length articles, which are summarized in the main go article. This is not currently the case, both these articles are short and not well written.

I do not necessarily oppose trimming these sections, but the first requirement in that case should be expansion of the relevant main articles. If deletions continue to happen without discussion, despite repeated requests, I will ask for a block on User:Oakwillow until he is willing to behave in a normal civilized fashion. HermanHiddema (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is typical of the unconstructive nature of wikipedia. Announce that you are going to move for featured article status and suddenly a bunch of idiots start vandalising the page, rewriting it without reading any previous discussion to suit their own conventions, apply various nationalist slants to the material, or simply deleting material wholescale. --ZincBelief (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Guess we're going to need a block on ZincBelief too, seems he may have been drinking a little too much coffee these days . . . kibi (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What actually happened is that I thought that before the article was proposed for FA status it would be good to read it over and trim out the duplication from the subarticles. In some cases the subarticles had been ignored and new information was added to the main article, which is the wrong approach. The sequence is, you write an article, it gets bigger, you create subarticles, and put new material into the subarticles, retaining only a summary introduction of the subarticle in the main article. When go was last a FA, it was 22 kB and had no subarticles, and had "refreshing brilliant prose". Today go has like 50 subarticles, 8 of which are linked from the main article as "main article:". All I was doing is giving you a good starting point for a FA review. By the way, good faith edits don't get reverted. If anyone did something they should be blocked for it was the reverter, Herm something. By the way, I did fill in some of the missing information, and there is no way of saying that go tactics or go strategy was not duplicated elsewhere, both articles were cut and pasted from this article. There is no excuse for this article to have grown to 81,000 bytes when there are 8 subarticles that can be used instead. Oakwillow (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Good faith edits get reverted quite regularly, actually, when they are misguided.

The articles Go tactics and Go strategy are straight copies of the same sections from the main article. They were both created by you on april 28, which was the fourth time you trimmed the article. Which means that the first three times, on april 24 and 25, you just deleted that material outright, and it was not duplicated elsewhere.

I do not understand why you find it so incredibly difficult to just discuss the trimming here first. HermanHiddema (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, example. In the most recent attempt at trimming, this one, in the section on history you chose to:

Keep section on legendary origins
Remove section on the earliest actual evidence of the game
Remove section on the four accomplishments
Keep section on introduction to Korea and Japan
Remove section on history in the Edo period (Four go houses).
Remove all material on post world war 2 development

Why these choices? Why keep legendary origins, which are based in mythology but are without substantiating evidence, but remove mention of the actual oldest evidence for the game? Why remove mention of the Edo developments, perhaps the single most important era in the development of the game? Why remove material on post-WW2 development, when this was the period go was introduced to most western nations? I have yet to see you give a single argument for such edits. You just keep saying that the article "needs trimming". Apparently you feel that you alone should decide what gets removed, which is an affront to the many editors that have spent time and effort to write that material. Wikipedia is a cooperative effort. Please cooperate. HermanHiddema (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I firmly agree with HermanHiddema on this. FA requires comprehensive coverage, and the deleted material was an essential part of Go history, no to mention well-cited. If you want to remove something, remove the unverified pop culture stuff. The article, according to the guidelines of WP:LENGTH and in comparison to most other FA-class articles does most certainly not need trimming in this manner. VanTucky 21:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that when the article was last FA, it was this version. FA criteria were different in those days. That version contains no references nor inline citations, for example, and would never qualify for FA in the current wikipedia. HermanHiddema (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to insist that the article be written in summary style. I tried to pick out the important aspects of go history to include in a summary of the history of go. All of the content of the history of go belongs in the History of go article. The article most certainly does need trimming, as it has an edit byte count of more than 40 kB. WP:OTHERSTUFF is no reason for making this article like other articles that are also too long. Oakwillow (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You can insist all you want. I have made a very reasonable request, and you have been completely unwilling to work with your fellow editors on this. Until you have something constructive to say, I consider this discussion over. HermanHiddema (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's unfortunate that the discussion of what Go actually is falls so far down the page. Regardless of the length of the article, leading with a history dating back 4000 years isn't going to win any converts. Even dead generals get a lead-in before we find out how they spent their childhood, and Go is very much alive, thank you. The page should start with a brief intro, mention the history in passing, and either self-link to the history section (at the bottom, please), or directly to the real history page (even better). Then, get on to the good stuff. Jdmarshall (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikibook

Wikipedia has a huge discussion of Go, split up into pages about general strategy, specific strategies (openings, playing strategy, etc.), and the like. Why not point users to the Wikibook on the topic, like Wikibooks point users towards Wikipedia occasionally? Anyone doing extensive study into this topic likely wants a Go guide. --John Moser (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a link to the wikibook in the external links section of this article. I think the wikibook needs to improve, a lot, before it is suitable to get a more prominent place. Which means, in my opinion, that right now what the wikibook needs is editors. I think advertising for help wanted at the WP:WikiProject Go page might be a good idea for that? HermanHiddema (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

New image for the article

The old image, self-made by User:HermanHiddema.

File:My Go Equipment 3.JPG

The new image, self-made by User:By78.

The image to the front page was changed, from the upper image on the right, to the lower image. I like both images, both have pros and cons.

Pros for the old image:

Board takes up most of the image
Image shows a clock
Setting is realistic (bowls on the sides the players are sitting)

Cons for the old image:

Lines on the board are vague
The game shown is a high level amateur game, not a pro game.

Pros for the new image:

Lines on the board are crisp
Game shown is a pro game (Cho U vs Yoda Norimoto, 52nd NHK cup final, 2005)

Cons for the new image:

Setting is unrealistic (three bowls in the picture, all bowls on the same side)
Picture contains unrelated object (pillow)

I would like to ask User:By78 whether he would be willing to make a new image to fix some of that? So basically the same image, but with only two bowls, sitting at the correct side of the board, and preferably also with both lids showing, with prisoners. I will also leave a message at User talk:By78

Such a new image would, in my opinion, be an improvement over the current image. HermanHiddema (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer an image of a floor board like this, and would prefer no clocks in the image. The table board with the clocks image is appropriate for the section on tournaments, but in the vast majority of games clocks are not used. I would like to see the photograph taken slightly closer to the centerline of the board, and with the bowls and captured stones shown (pick one color of bowl please). The positioning of the stones on the board in this image is in my opinion excellent. If they are from a particular game that should be noted. Oakwillow (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I strongly dislike the new image. Using an image which more clearly is of japanese style is biased, the vast majority of players do not play on floor boards, clocks are used in almost all tournaments these days (so they are important to show), the lighting is poor in the second image, and the composition is sloppy. I'd be happy to hear some other proposals, but the newer image is far from an improvement. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 19:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How is the image biased? You are quick to accuse, aren't you? If you want to talk about bias, then how is showing bi-convex stones not biased, since (oh no) we have to pay proper tribute to the Chinese too, with their stones being flat on one side? Looking at Chess entry on Wikipedia, its lead image does not even display the whole chess set, much less the clock, the board, and the table on which the board is set on. So who said you have to have a clock, a table board, bi-convex stones, matching bowls, up-turned lids holding captured stones, and the kitchen sink in the picture? Your pushing on others your "POV" is "frankly" very "bizarre". While I do apologize for replacing the lead image without consulting others beforehand, but the healthy thing would have been what HermanHiddema had done, that is to start a discussion on the pros and cons of the new image based on its more pertinent aspects, not on its "implied" bias. How is the equipment clearly Japanese? Has it occur to you that it might be Korean or Chinese? You know, that particular design is done by both the Chinese and Korean manufacturers, don't you? I thought what was important was to show a board and a game in progress, and that's all. What makes a go board a go board is not if it has legs, sits on the floor as opposed to on a table, has different grains, textures, colors, or made of different wood. A board is a standard go board if it has 19x19 lines. A picture shows a game of go if it has a board with a game on it. So, please leave the bias argument out of the picture. Mr. Van-Tucky, you really have an uncanny ability to locate the most trivial of the trivial and attach the utmost importance to it. Again, I recommend that you spend less time trolling wikipedia and more time playing go so that you may reach a level of normal understanding expected from non-dabbling normal go players. Again, my sincere apologies for being harsh on you, but "frankly", I don't think you are a master photographer either, seeing your rather "inspired" collection on Flickr. So, I suppose you could enlighten me on why the new image has a "sloppy composition" and "poor lighting". You should open a new Wiki entry on "proper composition" and "optimal lighting" on photography. I would love to visit your photo studio if given a chance to see your masterpieces. You really do fancy yourself an expert on a lot of things, don't you? My expertise lies with deflating self-proclaimed expert who's got an half-cocked opinion on everything. It's funny how some people cannot cope with just a bit of additional responsibility. Being given admin powers on Wikipedia does not give you the right to make pithy little comments on things you don't know jack about. So, Mr. Van-Tucky (lol, I just love your username), resident Dabbler-Extraordinaire, my advise again is this: spend less time trolling wikipedia and more on playing go and photography so you won't come across like a complete I&*@#%^^. By78 (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I had hoped to introduce my image into wikiprojects (Ive done some go related art photography), but wasn't sure where I could make the offer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bowls_dwindsor.jpg ; Ive got more go related work as well if this strikes anyone visualy. --Davou (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That image is in current use in the Equipment section of the article. I think it is far more appropriate there, the main image for the article should be more of an overview picture. If you have any pictures that are similar to the one in current use (labeled "The old image", above), so with a full board showing an ongoing game, as well as showing equipment like bowls and maybe a clock, that would be perfect. The one dislike I have about the current image is that the lines on the board are somewhat vague. HermanHiddema (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The lines issue is a general photography problem. Even high-res cameras have a hard time capturing the lines properly. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 18:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

True, though I do feel that the lines in the other image are crisper than in the current one, perhaps due to lighting. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot has to do with the lighting. The lower image seems to have been taken with natural lighting, without any glare on the board. I have been noticing that some boards have more visually pronounced lines, usually hand drawn possibly, as they are uneven. Oakwillow (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Many apologies for unilaterally changing the lead image of the article. I do not mind the old image at all. If most people think the old image is fine, I have no objections whatsoever to restoring it. I need to better familiarize myself with wiki etiquette. By78 (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am certainly amenable to changing the image if a better one is available. Would you be willing to make a new one as I suggested above? HermanHiddema (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a third possibility from commons (link), where there are many options. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the one used on the Go navbox, {{GoBoardGame}}, not used in this article, but used in all the rest of the go articles. It shows the lines clearly, but I would like to see the entire board shown in the main article photo so that I can evaluate the game. Learning Wiki-etiquette just comes with time. You can't really break anything, because all history versions are kept and easily gone back to if needed. If we could focus on what attributes we value in a photo we can encourage the correct photo to be taken, although there are a few inherent disagreements - type of board, some of us prefer a floor board, some a table board - clocks, some of us prefer that a clock be included, others prefer not. However, I think we can all agree that showing the lines clearly is a priority, and showing a full game, well at least 100 moves, seems to be a preference over showing an early stage of a game, and clearly a high level game is a priority over showing a beginner game. Oakwillow (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I also like the new image better. If we're going to have one image represent the game at the beginning of the article, a traditional floor board is preferable IMO. The game is also much more visible, especially the lines. Practically no-one uses a clock except in tournament play. The framing could be better; maybe even just cropping it would help. But the glare on the old photo (which has been restored to the info box) makes for a very poor lead to the article. kwami (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Board size

The standard size is 19x19, smaller sizes do not need to be mentioned in the lead, particularly confusing for non-go players. It would be like saying in the chess article, chess is played on a 64 square board, but it can also be played on smaller sized boards. Huh? What tournament, what rating recognizes play on smaller boards? None. Smaller sized boards are adequately covered later on in the article and should not be in the lead. Oakwillow (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, no need to have this in the lead. The fact that 19x19 is standard and that other sizes are possible is also mentioned at the basic rules section, where I have rewritten the mention to include the specific 9x9 and 13x13 sizes, as these are by far the most popular other sizes. HermanHiddema (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The lead section needs to be a concise overview of the article, not the simplest summary of the game possible. Part of an overview of the article includes mention of alternative playing formats, especially smaller board sizes since they are the most common variation. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 01:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is OMG, you really do not need to include everything in the lead that is in the article, however, since two other editors disagreed it would have been a lot better to just wait until it had been resolved here instead of reverting again. And how about Click Clack and Cluck for the three chickens? Oakwillow (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And two editors agree with including it. Both I and CharlesMatthews reverted to keep. Almost all beginners learn on a small board, and even some pros play on them from time to time. It's not some obscure facet or variation. It's used all the time, and it should be a part of a concise overview of the article. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 02:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverting is not an indication of support or lack of support. It is necessary to discuss this openly and find out what people think about the subject. There are a lot more than two editors involved in the go project. Wait to see what others have to say about this. In the meantime, what steps need to be taken to prepare the article for feature article review? Oakwillow (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Charles Matthews' last edit was to remove mention of 9x9 and 13x13 in the basic rules section. He has never reverted the removal from the lead, and I do not think that removal from the basic rules section constitutes support to keep it in the lead. Anyway, as the lead is meant to summarize the article, it cannot be right to have 13x13 and 9x9 in the lead but not in the article. In my opinion, mentioning in the lead that it can be played on other sizes, while mentioning in the article what other sizes are popular, is the right way to go. HermanHiddema (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically it is no longer the game of go when it is played on smaller sizes, because there are many elements of the game which no longer exist at that point. We used to play at lunch on a 13x13 board because it supposedly fit better into the available time, but when we were joined by someone who really knew how to play (they were maybe 6d) they immediately made us switch to the full board for that reason. Oakwillow (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Not go when played on smaller boards? Neither the practical use of the smaller boards nor the source material support that view. Every introductory go book out there mentions small board sizes. If beginner's texts introduce the concept, then it's certainly appropriate for Wikipedia readers new to the subject. 9X9 and 13X13 boards are a long standing and vastly important aspects of the game, and they deserve to be mentioned in the lead. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 18:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you brought up beginner's texts, I added a reference from one. Oakwillow (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop inserting your bizarre POV that smaller board sizes aren't a part of the game. In addition to many others, the source you cited mentions 13 by 13 and 9 by 9. You can't selectively cite the parts of source material you like and ignore the fact that these sources mention, prominently in many cases, these smaller sizes. Some even include free 9 by 9 boards. If it wasn't a notable part of the game then these books wouldn't even mention them, much less provide boards that size. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!}

Playing on smaller boards is a separate game, that just uses the same rules. When you sit down at a tournament you don't arbitrarily decide what size board to use, because it is the same game, do you? The reference has only one sentence defining go: "Go is a game played on a 19 line x 19 line board." In the second paragraph it talks about playing on smaller boards, but clearly states that the 19x19 board is the official size. What does official mean? It means that is the size required for the game. Can you find a reference that says that the official size is 9x9 or 13x13? If you can't it doesn't belong in the lead at all. Or how about this, even a reference that states that there is no official size for a go board, which would directly contradict this reference. 199.125.109.75 (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, guys. Now we have a page where 9x9 and 13x13 are only mentioned in the captions on images, and the section that alludes to other sizes implies that arbitrary other sizes are used for teaching. Bravo. 9x9 and 13x13 are used for introductory teaching for very good reasons, and you're short changing them, AND the game, by insisting that they don't exist.

Thought for the day: If the game were only ever played on one size, then we wouldn't have to call it 'official' now, would we? Even saying 'official' implies that there are unofficial sizes. Which there are. Jdmarshall (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I certainly hope that smaller sizes still exist in the article, especially in the sections on learning go - when all you are trying to do is learn the basics the sooner you get put out of your misery the better and can start over in another game! However I am very glad to hear input from more editors on this issue. Playing on a 9x9 after you have a little experience feels a lot like playing tic-tac-toe - there are so few possible games compared to the full board, even though the number is almost comparable to chess, even on that small a board! Oakwillow (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Smaller board sizes need NOT be mentioned in the lead section. Yes, lead section is suppose to give a concise view of the entire article, but it should, per Wikipedia guidelines, give coverage to IMPORTANT aspects of the article. In this case, it should cover items such as rules, strategy, tactics, scoring, etc. Alternative sizes are a minor topic and should probably not be mentioned in the lead but instead should be given a word or two elsewhere in the article. To VanTucky: are you serious? Smaller board sizes are the most common variations? Do you play go at all? The vast, vast majority of game are played on 19x19 boards. Beginners are urged to graduate from smaller board sizes to 19x19 as quickly as possible. Just because you never graduated to the standard 19x19 size does not make smaller sizes the most popular variations. Moreover, you said smaller board sizes are a vastly important aspect of game. Did you intend to entertain with such a hyperbole? Go has been played in my extended family for at least six generations and more, and I can tell you what "vastly" important aspects are to most East Asian go players, and they are: joseki, fuseki, direction of play, life-and-death, sente, gote, thickness, influence, territory, balance, etc. Board sizes are a vastly important aspect?! Are you freakin' kidding me?! You seriously need to play more go before presenting your "POV" as the norm and standard. I would highly encourage you to graduate from 9x9 or 13x13 board sizes to the standard 19x19 so you may, as soon as possible, appreciate what the truly important aspects of the game are. Apologies for being harsh on you, VanTucky. With all due respect, from what I can tell based on your comments, you merely dabble in go, and as such, you should not present your "POV" as if it is some kind of generally accepted and expert opinion. Maybe you did not intend to come across as a complete novice, but you sure did appear to me as one. By78 (talk)

You've totally misunderstood what I was saying. I'm saying 9x9 and 13x13 are the most common variations from the norm. That's why I said variation, and not "the most common board size". Other than 19x19, many many beginners are taught with 9x9 and 13x13, and experienced players (when not online) often play them if they don't have time for a decent full game. And no, I'm not a "dabbler". I've been playing twice a week in my AGA club (as a member) for years, you just didn't understand what I was saying. There's a reason most AGA clubs include small sizes in their set collections, and why the AGA gives out 9x9s for free. National and international tournaments even have alternative competitions which are played on small boards. Small sizes are very commonly seen in the go world, and deserve to be mentioned in the lead. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 22:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for misunderstanding your words. Still, 9x9 and 13x13 sizes are not "vastly" important aspects of the game. It maybe so to a dabbler like you, but it's certainly not so in East Asia. AND yes, you are a dabbler if you think non-standard sizes are "vastly" important aspects of the game. Playing twice in a go club belong to the AGA (for years) does not make you a non-dabbler, nor does having an opinion on what "vastly" important aspects of the game are make such an opinion valid, standard, or normal. Board sizes are trivial, it is the content of the game that implies great significance. Do not confuse the finger pointing to the moon with the moon itself. Also, please refresh your understanding of wiki guidelines on lead section (as in lead sections should NOT cover trivial aspects of articles). I find it hard to believe anyone who thinks that smaller board sizes hold high significance is not a dabbler. I wonder if you only play on 9x9 and/or 17x17 boards at your local AGA club. Spend less time trolling Wikipedia and more time playing go should bring your point of view up to the standard of the real norm held by the tens of millions of other go players and thousands of those who do NOT dabble (such as myself). Best luck to you in your go-related endeavors, VanTucky!By78 (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting some of our basic policies. This isn't about me and my experience. Your perspective on my level of experience is not only irrelevant, but rude. You need to stick to commenting on content, not the contributor. Whether we're 9 dans or 15 kyus, we all have an equal voice on Wikipedia, and everyone's opinion on the content is welcome...unless you can't refrain from discussing personal facts, that is. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 23:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This IS about you and your basic experience. If you have appreciably less experience/knowledge on the subject under discussion and insist on forcing your "POV" on others who are more qualified to discuss the said subject, then this will have to be about you. It is you who are causing the problem due to your limited knowledge AND lack of self-recognition of your lack of knowledge. Yes, I agree everybody has an equal voice on Wikipedia, and this is why I am voicing mine. In this case, your ignorance on the subject must be pointed out because it ties intimately with the position, attitude, and behavior your are taking, exhibiting, and engaged in. I would personally prefer to listen to a 9 dan professional player's advice on the pros and cons of a fuseki strategy than a 20 kyu player. In general, I would prefer the opinions of more experienced and knowledgeable person over those of a novice. So, knowledge and experience DO matter; and NOT all opinions are created equal. If you don't even know this much, you are just amply demonstrating your ignorance. So be a man and stop hiding behind Wikipedia policies and political correctness when only you find doing so expedient and convenient but are unwilling to extend to others the same courtesy. I would have never started this little rebuttal if you had not accused another editor (Oakwillow) of pushing his/her "POV" on others, when his/her "opinion" was obviously derived from knowledge and experience on this particular subject, both of which you seem to sorely lack but this nonetheless did not stop you from accusing Oakwillow of misdeed. To summarize: I know more than you on this subject, as do many other editors; and I am not going to apologize for this fact and allow your novice opinions to have an equal weight in the discussion on this particular topic. The sooner you recognize this and drop your insistence on pushing your view, the better. Stop the double-standard. Stop the dabbling and trolling, Mr. Van-Tucky (lol, I just love your username). By78 (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please keep the debate civilized, ok? HermanHiddema (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that I would respect the views of a higher ranked player better than the views of someone lower than at least 4d, although I really don't expect anyone over 6d to be spending one second of their time editing Wikipedia. Oakwillow (talk) 06:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You've got it exactly wrong. The way Wikipedia works is that everyone's voice is equally respected, not just those with expertise. If you can't accept that everyone gets an equal say, even those who may have never played a game of go in their life, then this isn't the place for you. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 08:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that respecting everyone's voice is very important. However, a distinction should be made here: respecting individual voices does not mean respecting the content of everyone's voice. Especially when it comes to technical knowledge, some simply know more than others. In cases like this, I would always defer to expert opinion. I would never get into an argument with a meteorologist over how to define a cyclone simply because I know next to nothing about that phenomenon. Therefore, I think it is erroneous to apply the principle of equal voice blindly while ignoring the technical merit and content.By78 (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Separate but equal? Just kidding. Of course everyone is equally respected. Some just know what they are talking about... There is even a template for this: "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject." Oakwillow (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Research into what various organizations do

I have gathered some statistics on where and when 9x9/13x13 are and are not mentioned by browsing to relevant sites of large organizations and by searching google for "Go" and "Go rules".

Pages that only mention 19x19:

AGA: What Is Go? "Two players alternate in placing black and white stones on a large (19x19 line) ruled board, with the aim of surrounding territory"
EGF: How to play Go "Board is marked with the matrix of 19x19 lines, giving 361 intersections".
Nihon Kiin english: How to play Go: "Diagram I shows the grid pattern on the surface of the 'Go' board. It consists of 19 vertical and horizontal lines."
Simplified Ing Rules - EGF Rules Text: "As a default, the game starts from the empty board that is a grid of 19 horizontal and 19 vertical lines forming 361 intersections."
BGA: Introduction to the game of Go: "The board, marked with a grid of 19 lines by 19 lines, may be thought of as a piece of land to be shared between the two players."

Pages that also mention other sizes:

Sensei's Library: What is Go?: "The board can be of any size, but a board with 19 lines by 19 lines is commonly used by advanced players and 9x9 and 13x13 by beginners."
GoBase - The rules of Go: "The usual board sizes are 9x9, 13x13 or 19x19 lines, the latter being the official tournament size."
Mindy McAdams: What Is Go? (referred to by AGA): "a full-size Go board must have a grid of 19 horizontal and 19 vertical lines. (Simplified versions of the game can be played on a 9 x 9 or on a 13 x 13 board; it is strongly recommended that beginners learn on a 9 x 9 board.)"
The Interactive Way To Go: "Here, a 9 x 9 board is used. Normally, a 19 x 19 board is used. The smaller board is recommended for beginners."
KGS Go server tutorial: "The board has a grid on it; usually 19×19, but 9×9 and 13×13 are sometimes used for teaching, and other sizes can be used as well.
IGS Go server: How to play go: "The full Go board is a grid of 19 horizontal and 19 vertical lines. Sometimes smaller boards, 13x13 or 9x9, are used for shorter games or for teaching"
BGA: How to play Go: "Although the normal size of a Go board is 19 by 19 lines, it is possible to use smaller sizes. Beginners can learn the basics on a 9 by 9 board, and a quick game can be played on a 13 by 13 board without losing the essential character of the game."
Official AGA Rules of Go: "Go is a game of strategy between two sides usually played on a 19x19 grid (the board). The game may also be played on smaller boards, 13x13 and 9x9 being the two most common variants."
rec.games.go Rules FAQ: "The game is played on a grid board. Typically it has 19x19 intersections, but 9x9 are also fine."
Fundamental Definitions for Go Rules (Robert Jasiek, EGF): "The usual number of points of the grid is 19x19. Other board sizes are conceivable: 9x9, 13x13, 17x17, 21x21."
BGA Interpretation of AGA Rules: "The specified komi (7½ to white in an even game and ½ in a handicap game) applies only to play on a 19x19 board. On boards smaller than 19x19, a non-integral komi should be used since avoidance of jigo is clearly part of the spirit of AGA rules"
Nihon Kiin english: The fun way to learn Go ""9x9 board This is a grid with 9 vertical and 9 horizontal lines. Beginners use this board.
13x13 board This is a grid with 13 vertical and 13 horizontal lines. Low kyu players use this board.
19x19 board This is the proper Go board. It's a grid with 19 vertical and 19 horizontal lines. Mid-kyu players and up use this board."

Unclear

The Japanese Rules of Go In rules: "The board is a grid of 19 horizontal and 19 vertical lines forming 361 intersections.", in commentary: "Being for professional players, these rules stipulate a 19 x 19 board. The players may of course agree to use other boards, such as a 9 x 9 beginners' board, a 13 x 13 board, or (in the future) a 21 x 21 board.".

Overview of different texts for several large organisations:

Organisation	"What is Go?" text	"Official rules" text	"Intro course" text
AGA	Only 19x19	19x19, 13x13, 9x9	19x19, 13x13, 9x9
BGA	Only 19x19	19x19, 13x13, 9x9	19x19, 13x13, 9x9
EGF	Only 19x19	Only 19x19	n/a
Nihon Kiin	Only 19x19	19x19 (other in commentary)	19x19, 13x13, 9x9

Interpretation

It seems to me that almost universally:

Organizations tend to only mention 19x19 when they give a quick "What is Go?" page
Official rules texts usually mention 19x19 specifically, and may mention other sizes
Introductions on how to play mention 13x13 and 9x9 as options and as suitable for beginners and weak players.

My proposal would be to do the same in this page. Mention 19x19 in the lead, which is our quick "What is Go?" text. Mention 13x13 and 9x9 briefly in the rules section, which is our "Introduction on how to play". HermanHiddema (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be a reasonable solution to me, so long as they are mentioned somewhere in the article. They need to be mentioned to meet the FA requirement of comprehensiveness. Thanks for the sources, VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 19:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you finally come around ;) Ditto to no mention of non-standard sizes in the lead section. Ditto to mentioning alternative sizes somewhere else in the article. By78 (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That was my preference as well. Most of the data points that are being mentioned over and over again relate to professional organizations and tournament play. Surely we should not focus on that set of rules to the exclusion of amateur and recreational play. Especially if one is motivated by a desire to make the Wikipedia article approachable to people who know nothing of the game (which I am. We do a lot of proselytizing in my community). Both styles (training and serious play) should be mentioned, and the section on learning the basic rules is the most appropriate section to bring up smaller boards.

As another data point, I belong to one of the largest Go communities in North America, and people who are obviously unclear on a concepts will find themselves in front of a 9x9 board when appropriate. Nobody is shy about pulling out the 13x13 for us double-digit kyu players, especially when the ddk player is playing too slowly (19x19 games against a ddk player should not take 90 minutes), or the ddk player expresses a preference for 13x13. Encouragement to go to 19x19 would fall into the 'gentle but persistent' range of the scale. Jdmarshall (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wild fox koan

Not falling, not darkening:
Two colors, one game.
Not darkening, not falling:
One thousand mistakes, ten thousand mistakes.

--Slashme (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

macrons

I think that if we're going to present words as Japanese, they should be Japanese. This means either using macrons (kyū, byōyomi) or explicit vowels (kyuu, byouyomi). Leaving out the macrons is fine when these are assimilated into English (kyu-level players), but then we shouldn't present them as Japanese by italicizing them. kwami (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Japanese#Romanization "Revised Hepburn romanization should be used in all cases, excepting the few unusual circumstances discussed below" (Revised Hepburn uses macrons). In my opinion, kyu and byoyomi should be treated according to point 12 there: "For other Japanese terms which are used frequently in English (such as sumo), any clearly established romanization should be given preference". Kyu and byoyomi are the clearly established romanizations of these words, the vast majority of the western go community uses these terms without macrons or extra vowels. This is probably due to the lack of support for macrons in western character sets for the last 50 years. As such, these romanizations are not totally correct, but that point is now moot due to the widespread use of these romanizations. HermanHiddema (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, when used in English. My point is that these are not used as English words here, but presented as Japanese words, at least in a couple instances. As such, they need to be Japanese words, or we are factually incorrect. The same is true for any source language. We might use "fraulein" in English without the umlaut or capital letter of Fräulein, and I have no problem with that, but if we were to say "the German word is fraulein," we'd be wrong, and in an encyclopedia that is not acceptable. You can't say "the Japanese word is byoyomi," when byoyomi is not the Japanese word. Using "byoyomi" as an assimilated English word is a different matter. kwami (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Where are they presented as Japanese words? In reading the sections containing the words kyu and byoyomi, I see no mention of their Japan origins. You mention in your first comment above that they are presented as Japanese by italicizing them, but I don't see how that is the case. For example, the section on "Important consequences" (of the rules) italicizes the terms alive, eyes, suicide, kill, death, dead, seki and mutual life. Only one of these is Japanese in origin. Italicizing is done, in general, when a term is first introduced, not because it is of Japanese origin. HermanHiddema (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Literally in Japanese byōyomi means 'reading of seconds'."

"Double-digit kyū (級,급) (geup in Korean)" (not the introduction of the term)

kwami (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The first is in a footnote, and I think there is nothing wrong with using a macron in that footnote, but that does not mean it should also be used everywhere else the term is used.

In the second, I would rather remove the kanji and the Korean translation altogether, I don't see the point of adding Japanese/Chinese/Korean translations to terms everywhere. The English term kyu should suffice on the English wikipedia. Also, like the first, the second does not support the use of a macron in the text body. HermanHiddema (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

FA nomination

This article is long overdue for having an FA review. However, it is interesting that of the 6 sister language FA articles, none are in one of the go stronghold languages of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. Oakwillow (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is not FA, so how can it possibly go into FA review? HermanHiddema (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he means nominating it as a FAC. kwami (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Forgive my ignorance of the proper terminology. What I meant is this article should be FA, and is long overdue for that, however it is done. Oakwillow (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, in that case I agree (obviously, I have suggested the same a month ago). I have fixed the issues that were brought up then, and I personally see no more issues that would prevent it from going FA, so I will nominate it. HermanHiddema (talk) 09:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the Strategy and Tactics sections are really up to scratch? Can a ladder really be called a Tactic, isn't it just a technique? Would any person with no knowledge of Go really want to read some of the things in this section or be able to adequately comprehend them? Feels a bit overblown to me anyway. --ZincBelief (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the distinction between "tactics" and "technique" is a rather vague one. Is a ladder a technique or a tactic? What if it contains a bend? What if it requires a difficult to spot preparation? For example, see the answer to this problem. Is that tactics or technique? In short, I am not sure where the distinction is. Perhaps the first subsection of the Tactics section should be renamed "Capturing techniques" for clarity?

As to the content, the current content has some chance of being understood by someone unfamiliar to the game, and as such may confer a feeling of what tactics are about. Any more advanced tactical content is certain not to be understood by 99% of the readers. What I like about this content is that it provides the reader with a few diagrams of move sequences, and I think that will help people in grasping the subject matter (of the entire article) better, which is good. HermanHiddema (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The actual content itself is fine, I just hrm over the introduction of it. By the way, why are we removing Senseis Library references and replacing them with other kosher references? I mean can't we just double reference? If we continually point out that Senseis Library and Real sources agree maybe some people might notice something?--ZincBelief (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am replacing Sensei's with kosher references. If those are the rules, I play by them. The FAC reviewers don't make the rules, they enforce them, and I personally think it is not really worth the trouble to bring this to the RS noticeboard. Most if not all of these references are easily replaced. It might, however, be an idea to make references of the form "^ Kim 1994 pp. 144-147, see also: Sensei's Library: Ko", which would make it a sort of combined "citation + footnote" format. But I'd have to check that with Ealdgyth and other FAC reviewers first, I don't want to lose FA over that. HermanHiddema (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but those are not the rules. Subject-specific common knowledge is generally disregarded entirely by reviewers. Senseis Library is basically a repository of common knowledge, making it somewhat redundant as a reference point in many cases, but there is really no valid case for not using it. The problem is that reviewers do not know or understand the whatever-level criteria. That makes me dislike the entire process as you can probably tell. --ZincBelief (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was not aware of that bit of the rules! I've read it now. The number of editors that can recognize "subject-specific common knowledge" in the subject of Go is probably rather small, and thus reviewing may be difficult for them. Tricky problem to get around :-/ HermanHiddema (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we really ought to consider merging strategy and tactics together. The strategy section is bound to get stick for having no references.--ZincBelief (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That is probably a good idea for now. The boundaries between "technique", "tactics" and "strategy" are sometimes somewhat vague. Merging these sections avoids making a choice on this, though perhaps in the future we may want to split this section up again, if a clear boundary between these topics becomes apparent in the content. HermanHiddema (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Strategy and Tactics

Can anyone with a large collection of beginner's books pick out some references to pepper these sections with?--ZincBelief (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have the entire "Learn to Play Go" series, By Janice Kim, which should contain all the references needed. I will add these, but I am currently very busy, and am about to go on holiday for about a week, so I do not expect to be able to do much work on this before the end of the month. HermanHiddema (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There is also a request to put in Gote and Sente, and the middlegame and endgame. Describing middlegame strategy or endgame strategy in a concise manner would be quite challenging in my opinion. However, Gote and Sente probably could be mentioned quite easily.--ZincBelief (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a section called "Introductory books". Beginner books don't usually talk about specific strategies and tactics. Rachel63 (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have about 300 Go books. I will try to put in some references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubikslens (talk • contribs) 10:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Question about snapback

Question: In the example given of the snapback, doesn't the ko rule prohibit white from snapping back? And can't black then fill in the place where the white piece was to escape the trap? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.220.169 (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

When white snaps back he will capture the black stone just placed, plus the two to its left. The position won't be the same as before black's move, so the ko rule doesn't prevent this. Lessthanideal (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Game recording and notation, Kifu

As far as I can see this page makes no reference to recording the games. After a bit of searching out to Google and back to WP I found Kifu. Also, some of the Go articles use notation such as "3 - 3" to describe a location, and there is at least one article with a diagram using an algebraic coordinate system similar to chess on it.

Should this page refer to the Kifu one, if so how much summary information on this page would be appropriate and in what format? And how should information about other notations be presented, if at all? Maybe there are other notations I haven't mentioned to consider?

Since the article is being nominated for FA I thought it best to just mention here for more experienced editors to discuss, instead of jumping in with an edit.

This jumped out as an obvious point to me, I didn't read every word of the archived discussions but skimming through I can't see it mentioned before. Has it been covered elsewhere? Lessthanideal (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No-one's had any thoughts so I've gone ahead as I deemed best - added a brief section on Kifu, expanded the Kifu page to cover other types of notation, and created a "Go notation" page redirecting to Kifu. Lessthanideal (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Cultural Section

The cultural section is all about Weiqi(Go) in Japan, so more than 2000 years' popularity in China leaves nothing to the editor, while the several hundred years in Japan mean everything? There're tons of books related to the culture of Weiqi in China, just try to do a decent job as a editor, please. Derekjoe (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)derekjoe

Copy edit in progress

ZincBelief requested that this article be copy edited in preparation for FA status re-nomination. I'll be doing this for the next few days and will post any improvement suggestions here. If you need to edit the article while I'm working on it, drop a note on my talk page and I'll excuse myself. :) --momoricks ^talk 01:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit update & question

I was unable to copy edit this article as much as I had hoped this week, but will try to do more this weekend. So far, I've made it through the Stones section. A quick note regarding that section: the first and third paragraphs need additional citations. Currently they appear to contain the author's/authors' opinions. Is there a deadline you are thinking of for FA nomination? --mo ^talk 10:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, we won't be rushing to the FA nomination, but the article is close to it. First one might be subject specific common knowledge, but the second one doesn't need to be in there. I think that has been slipped in while we weren't looking.--ZincBelief (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, I'll just keep plugging away at it then. :) --mo ^talk 21:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is Go proverbs a main page?

It is only paragraph long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubikslens (talk • contribs) 10:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Board coordinate letters are missing the 'i'

Is this not noteworthy? I don't see it anywhere. Where might it fit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubikslens (talk • contribs) 10:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's probably a bit dull--ZincBelief (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point, but encyclopedias are often dull. Perhaps the question is whether or not the missing 'i' is trivial. When I first learned the game, the missing 'i' had me as perplexed as Aunt Sally counting spoons in Huck Finn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubikslens (talk • contribs) 14:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit finished

I finished the copy edit. Congratulations to all of the contributing editors. This article is close to FA status.

A few things to note:

I tried to make the use of italics consistent by following the guideline of only italicizing a term the first time it is mentioned.
I added inline tags next to information that needs clarification, expansion, citations, etc.
The Strategy section has OR and POV wording that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about Go to tackle it myself.

mo ^talk 09:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the large effort you have put into this, it is highly appreciated! I'll try to address the remaining issues in the coming week, and then we'll go and try for FA status again! Regards, HermanHiddema (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Baduk in Korea in the 5th century

I have again removed the material refering to baduk having "expert players" and being "popular among the imperial court". The evidence for this is so thin that it is basically non-existent. HermanHiddema (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the english evidence is small but if you check the Asian sources written in Japanese, Korean or Chinese, there is solid evidence. There just isn't as much translated info in english on Korea. The oldest Go board in Japan is even Korean. The website for the General consults office of Japan states "it arrived in Japan through Korea" so we know it was in Korea before Japan. Then you have the writing, and references in history about how an expert infiltrated Paekchae from Koguryeo in the 5th century. So this would be during the Three Kingdom period of Korea. All the Korean references state 5th century. According to Japan we definately know Korea had Baduk prior to Japan. And we know Japan is introduced to it in the 7th cent. There is no reason why we can't use the 5th century considering it was present in China for so much longer and Korea by the 5th century had close contact with China. --4.23.83.100 (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

First off, please note that the issue of whether go was in Korea before it was in Japan is not really relevant to this discussion. This is about baduk in the 5th century, not about how it migrated across Asia. The current citations in the article do not support these assertions about 5th century baduk, so without additional sources, the material is unverifiable. Can you tell me what those "references in history" are? As far as I know, the reference to 5th century baduk is from Samguk Sagi, which is a 12th century work and is described as "the oldest extant Korean history". If you have older and/or independent sources for this, that do not refer to Samguk Sagi, I am very interested. As it stand, however, the reference in Samguk Sagi is not nearly enough to support the assertion that baduk had "expert players" or was "popular among the imperial court". It is a sideways reference only, with baduk serving as a minor plot device in a story that is mainly about political intrigue among the three kingdoms. Without additional evidence from eg archaeology, all the Samguk Sagi proves is that baduk was well known enough in Korea in the 12th century for a writer from that time to use it as a plot device. Archaeologically, the oldest Korean board that I am aware of is dated to the 8th century. HermanHiddema (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was pointing out that because of the references in Japanese linking Korea as their source for Go, it has to be older than what Japan states. Also, the oldest go board in Japan is Korean which also indicates pre 7th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.23.83.100 (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with HermanHiddema that the evidence for the assertions about early Korean Go are very slim, and I would support re-reverting the latest changes. In particular the assertion that the Go board at the Shōsōin was given by King Uija is totally unfounded. There is no historical evidence for that the board came from Korea at all, and the two references given are laughably weak : one is a possibly unneutral Korean site that knows so little about Go history that it confuses the Han dynasty stone weiqi board with the Sui dynasty porcelain weiqi board; the other is a general introduction to Go on the Japanese Embassy site. In fact many sources (e.g. this Daily Yomiuri article state that the board came from China. And if you look at the board it is decorated with pictures of camels, which I do not think were common in Korea at that time, whereas they were common in Chinese Central Asia. Furthermore the shape of the board is very similar to a Tang dynasty board excavted from Astana. BabelStone (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, some new source have been added, which is good, but these sources don't seem to be very good. Here they are, with comments:

http://222.124.24.74/~erik/go/history%20of%20baduk.pdf

What makes this a reliable source? The document lists no author, only a publisher ("International Baduk System Co.,Ltd"), and seems to be hosted at the personal page of someone named Eric? The text of the section The First Recording of Paduk in the Korean History Books immediately starts by quoting Samguk Sagi, then at the end states: "Besides the story of king Kaero [ie the Samguk Sagi story --Herman], both Korean and Chinese history books provide evidence that Paduk was popular during the three kingdom period." but sadly fails to mention which history books.

http://www.ny.us.emb-japan.go.jp/en/c/japaninfo0708.html

Although the embassy of Japan could be a reasonable source, this text states:

"Go has its roots in India and the Middle East; after being introduced to China via the Silk Road it arrived in Japan through Korea in the eighth century."

Nobody with any knowledge about Go history would claim that it originated in India and the Middle East. Personally, I think the person at the embassy responsible for this text has mixed up Go with Shogi (the leading theory there is that Shogi derives ultimately from Chaturanga in North-West India, which was transferred to China and became XiangQi). This source is therefore not reliable.

http://english.cyberoro.com/sub01_01.htm?menu=f11

This is exactly the same text as the one from the Korean baduk association, http://english.baduk.or.kr/sub01_01.htm?menu=f11, and given the fact that that link is down, and the url is almost the same, it seems that the KBA is currently hosting their material at cyberoro, so this is not a new source.

Given the lack of reliability of the two new sources, I still see no support for statements like "By the 5th century AD Baduk (Go) is present in Korea and expert Baduk players are even mentioned in Korean history". This is a strong statement, indicating absolute certainty where there is none. Also, the text as it is is misleading, because it seems to state "By the 5th century AD...expert Baduk players are even mentioned in Korean history", but the mention is from the 12th century, not the 5th.

Without additional evidence, i will again revert these changes. HermanHiddema (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if your not willing to believe what is written because it was written later I don't know what to tell you. We can try to word it, so that it is in Korea sometime between the 5th cent to before Japan has it. I'm not sure how to word that exactly, but you can try. I'll look at it after and tell you what I think. I guess the original paragraph was misleading when it made it sound like the 5th century start was questionable, then it jumped to the 10 century without even mentioning the centuries in between. If the article makes the 5th century questionable and jumps to the 10th, it can be misleading to people on when Korea had Baduk. Your skipping the Rosewood board, the oldest in Japan which is Korean from the 700's, your skipping the Japanese General consults office info which states "it arrived in Japan through Korea" As long as the article is not misleading by making seem like Korea doesn't have Baduk until the 10 cent. things should be OK. Thanks.

We will have to change the Japanese origin date as well. As you know Japan doesn't write her own history until the 8th century. So 7th century origin has to be questioned as well, I guess you can try to re-evaluate both in a neutral manner. If the Korean text can not be admitted because it was written later, then you must apply the same to the Japanese who didn't have a text at that time. Please apply the same rules for them, Good luck :) http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/06/eaj/ht06eaj.htm http://www.japan.alloexpat.com/japan_information/history_of_japan.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.23.83.100 (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

These two new links do not seem to mention go at all, what are they here for? Regarding the Japanese General consults office info which states "it arrived in Japan through Korea", I have already shown that that source is not reliable (it is in fact very unreliable, claiming the Go was invented in India or the Middle East. Go in Japan was mentioned in the Chronicles of the Siu, written in 636 AD, so that is contemporary evidence from the 7th century. I have rewritten this section now, and I think this is reasonably neutral and is verifiable (ie Baduk might originate in the 5th century, if Samguk Sagi is correct, and since the Shosoin board had been claimed to be of Korean origin, that would provide additional evidence for baduk in Korea in the 7th century). HermanHiddema (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I was giving links that showed Japan did not have writing until after the 8th cent. Also, the Sui history is written by the the Tang, the exact dates are questionable and they knew very little about the Wa and Southern Kingdoms. And they seemed to clump the Japanese and Southern Koreans as one group not really distinct from each other, so none of it is really useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.23.83.100 (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, then I understand what the links are for, thanks! So we have the Shosoin board from the early 8th century. Given that it may have been of Korean origin, I think it is reasonable to consider this board as the earliest archaelogogical evidence for both countries. If the Sui chronicles conflated Korea and Japan, it may be considered as 7th evidence for both countries again. I think the current wording is reasonable in that respect. It gives a rather wide period for the introduction into either country, reflecting the uncertainty surrounding this issue. Are you satisfied with the current text, or are there further things you would like it to address? HermanHiddema (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy

This section is quite meaning-less and has wrong information. I do not see how western chess is "significantly" different from its eastern ancestor Shatranj or Chaturanga. It is almost the same game where few pieces(pawn, bishop and queen) have been powered up. Final goal and how it is achieved is just same. If some thing about relation between board game and philosophy is written then one should at least write "chinise" philosophy in the place of "eastern" philosophy, which may be compared with ... well I do not know what. may be with western philosophy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.168.183 (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree -- the "source" (Bob Myers article) does not identify any significant differences between eastern and Western chess. Article revised accordingly.

kibi (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think the pieces having different powers can be regarded as a significant difference. The action of Castling and the power of the Queen relative to the King are two--pretty big changes.ZincBelief (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

In the context of comparison to Go, these differences are not significant. Western or Eastern, the pieces line up and attack each other in a similar way. The point her is, Go is a whole different paradigm. kibi (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, the whole analogy of Chess and Go depicting the difference in thinking between East and West is weak or simplistic in the extreme.--ZincBelief (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have no problem with deleting this entire section. In its current form, it is basically a collection of summaries of the books by Bob Meyers, Scott Boorman and William Pinckard. HermanHiddema (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the section does not seem appropriate. These philosphical considerations are in fact notable aspects of the game, moreso than with many other games. If the section did not summarize these works, it would be deletable as unsourced speculation, but it is sourced and notable. kibi (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have some sympathy with deletion argument as although this is sourced FA quality material, it is also copious amounts of bovine waste material.--ZincBelief (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Weak or simplistic"? "Bovine waste material?" Strong words with little clarification. Perhaps the comparison is flawed in some ways -- Asian armies have marched against each other chess-style, and no-front guerilla tactics have been used in the West (i.e. American revolution), but the comparison is commonly made, and has some value. Thanks for acknowledging that it is "sourced FA quality material", I hope this discussion ends here. kibi (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The idea that people in the West have strategy based around Chess while people in the East have strategy based around Go is laughable. It ignores the existance of Shogi or Xianqi or Checkers or any other game you care to mention. Ignores that Chess is Eastern in origin. Backgammon is a game of skill, just like Poker. It is not against Fate. There is most certainly competition in Go the same way as there is in Chess. Unfortunately no source exists to counterpoint this "philosophy" which for me is barely credible. High School drivel at best.--ZincBelief (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, it ignores the existence of a game which is far more popular. More popular than Go, XiangQi and Shogi combined in fact. And that is Mah Jongg, a game with a definite element of chance (luck of the deal, luck of the draw), but also with an element of skill. Similar to backgammon and Poker, one might in fact say. From which the reasonable conclusion might be: People love to gamble, and therefor most of them prefer games with an element of chance over those of pure skill. But all of that is just idle speculation by some random people at a random wikipedia talk page. For FA purposes, the current sources are acceptable (by no means great though, none of them are peer-reviewed, as far as I can tell) HermanHiddema (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed one of the obvious flaws in Featured Articles. References can be used to promote rubbish. Common Sense cannot be used to refute them as it is original research. While I mention original research, I think the stages of the game article really needs rewritten into Middle and End. There are a few yose and middlegame books knocking about that we can use--ZincBelief (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

First thing is that Go is NOT a game representing "east". It is not popular in India , Pakistan nor in any part of Arab etc. So it does not represent Eastern values in any sense. It would be almost childish to ask for reference in this point!. If somebody believes that it represent chinise philosophy please write so. Do not write eastern, or I have to delete the philosophy section. Pallab1234 (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is also true. But basically, if the sources say "eastern", we cannot just change that to "Chinese", because then the sources would no longer verify the text. This is perhaps a weak point of how wikipedia works, but we cannot just go against policy because we disagree with a source (however correct we might be in our disagreement). HermanHiddema (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Ok, then I will remove it. The document is not peer-reviewed and authors are well known in the field of Philosophy. There exists something called "eastern" philosophy is not accepted in Philosophy community. In case you disagree please provide some peer-reviewed source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallab1234 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The sources look pretty valid to me. One which mentions Western v Chinese is this http://www.freedomlab.org/2007/03/28/topstory/. --ZincBelief (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Improvement suggestions before FA nomination

Ok, with the copy-edit done, I think we can move toward an FA nomination again. Here are some suggestions for improvement, and if anyone else has anything, please add it here as a subsection.

Shorten Equipment Section

I think the equipment section is disproportionately long in comparison to the other sections and in relation to its importance within this subject. I think it would be a good idea to move some of it over to the Go equipment section. HermanHiddema (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Strategy section needs work

The strategy section needs work, in my opinion. The section "Basic concepts" just throws a lot of terms out there, without any explanation of their relevance. This is a hard section to write, as there is an enormous amount of material relating to Go strategy, but very little space to cover it. HermanHiddema (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the strategy section is too bad. Phases of the game does need a rewrite though. I added in a note which referenced a version of a page on Senseis Library, I hope that doesn't annoy the FA brigade.--ZincBelief (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Software players needs work

This section needs work, which is amply demonstrated by the presence of those "clarification needed" and "by whom?" tags. HermanHiddema (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there is a lot of idle speculation in this part. Probably, we could use some parts of the thesis of David Stern and the papers of MoGo and Crazystone to flesh out facts.ZincBelief (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1045343.1045396 states that pattern recognition is important in skilled human play, however, is it really an obstacle for machine play? Not sure about that, matching patterns is one of the easier tasks perhaps. What should we do with this sentence?

Ahem, I removed pattern matching as it's only a problem in the context of evaluation function--ZincBelief (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Eternal Life

What is eternal life? (mentioned alongside triple ko) Is this an otherwise never ending send 2 receive one sequence?--ZincBelief (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sort of, yes: http://senseis.xmp.net/?EternalLife HermanHiddema (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I remember this one now. I suppose we can just create a note for this one, basically pointing them at a version of the senseis page. As http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/Japanese.html has a mention of it too, we can also include it for reference purposes.--ZincBelief (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Computer beats professional

I added this line in computer Go section, with a reference. Wiki should have this little piece of history covered I think. SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 15:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)