Jump to content

Talk:Shogi/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Question on drops

This is minor, but is a pawn allowed to be dropped on a player's first or second row? I was curious if this is legal to do. I know the restriction rules are in play, i.e. a pawn not being able to be in the same file as another pawn, but was just curoius about this. --Sivak 05:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Not minor when you're in a game! I believe it's legal. It's a common defence when someone breaks behind your lines. kwami 06:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Second question about pawns

One other question: I know it's illegal to drop a pawn to immediately give checkmate to the enemy king, but is it legal if an unpromoted pawn is ALREADY on the board to move it forward and give checkmate that way?

Yes. --Zundark 07:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Getting the article featured...

Well, I think it would be possible to get Shogi to be a featured article. What does the public think it needs? I personally think maybe an extra photo or two of real Shogi sets might help. I was thinking of maybe taking a photo of my set to show the different piece sizes and maybe we could add images of the pieces to their respective place in the move explanation.

Just some toughts. --Sivak 21:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

How about telling something about shogi professionals, computer shogi, etc.? See articles for Chess and Go for reference, they are both featured articles. -- someone

How about a photo of people actually playing shogi? The game is nothing without the people who play it, and they've been left out. kwami 00:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Do you HAVE any photos? I actually have yet to play this game against someone... I've been playing the game of Go a bit though. --Sivak 06:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, I have some photos of Western (more specifically Norwegian) amateur players in action during a fairly recent championship. Cogitans 21:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Professional Players

The current article says The latest, most famous champion, Yoshiharu Habu, is said to earn more than 1,000,000$ each year. Are those US dollars? If so, then it should be $1,000,000. If not, then someone please note the currency.

Ah, I have done many spelling mistakes so far, but this one might be a bit serious. Of course they're US dollars. I've corrected it. Thank you. G.P. 11 January 2006

Professional title matches are broadcasted online by official sponsors. Most of the contents are in the Japanese language, but I think reenactment of matches by Java script are acceptable to everyone. So I would like to make some external links to them, but I don't know how they should be made, and if they should be made or not. I'm also worried that this may have little to do with shogi itself. How do you think?
( I've collected and kept them in my user page. Please check it if you are interested. ) Goblin princess 22:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea, GP. It would be nice if we could embed the javascript in an English-language environment, so as not to intimidate people, but at least the first game on your list was simple enough to browse without any knowledge of Japanese.
And of course this has everything to do with shogi! The challenge will be to find a professional match that illustrates points that even a novice can understand. I'm not sure if that's possible, but if it is we could have an analysis of why certain moves are important. For example, in that first game[1], move 82, Black's dragon horse is under attack. Black responds by attacking a gold with a pawn, and White defends that, rather than taking the horse. We could discuss why having a pawn break through the king's line is a more serious matter that capturing the most powerful piece on the board.
(PS. The phrase is "what do you think?") kwami 01:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I just looked at that game for a brief glimpse to see what a normal game can look like. I was very confused about one thing though: Check out move #55. Black moves his bishop to 4-6 (6 being the Japanese numeral) and gets a Dragon Horse! That square is clearly NOT in the promotion zone. Was that even a legal promotion? The same thing happens in move #103 where he gets a Dragon King... --Sivak 06:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Both start within the promotion zone: squares 7III and 8I, respectively. Any move that crosses the promotion zone in any way is a promotable move. It doesn't have to be entirely within the zone. kwami 18:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I see... The way I read it is the piece still had to remain in the promotion zone upon moving to be allowed to promote. That actually makes a bishop and rook drop potentially even more deadly.
The right place for a promoted rook (Dragon King) is virtually always in the opponent's camp (thus in the promotion zone), whereas the promoted bishop (Horse) is a particularly strong piece for defensive purposes in your own camp although it is also used for attack. Cogitans 21:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's take another example: If a silver was on row 6, moved to row 7 (the start of promotion zone), decided NOT to promote, then the opponent makes his move... Now: the Silver on row 7 moves BACK to row 6 it could still promote right then and there? --Sivak 20:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes it can. Any move into, out of, or wholy within the zone can end in promotion. The only exceptions are the king, gold general, drops and pieces that are already promoted. A silver general can be droped on row seven, on the next turn it can move to row six and promote! JTTyler 23:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Oushou vs. Gyokushou

This is a point worthy of bringing a modicum of attention to. There are indeed two kinds of kings (or "generals", disregarding the gold and silver) that you may find in a Shogi set, in their calligraphy only distinguished by the presence or absence of a single stroke. It is important to note that a set (or even Shogi diagram) does not necessarily consist of one of each. It is however a tradition of professional title matches for there to be a difference and for the holder to take the oushou (王) while the challenger takes the gyokushou (玉). Amateur practice is more likely to vary. Please note that this has nothing to do with being "Black" (sente, 先手, first to move) or "White" (gote, 後手, second to move). When a decision process for that is needed, "furigoma" (振り駒) i.e. a pawn toss is used. Cogitans 01:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Noted. kwami 08:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of the individual pieces

I know they've been up for a while, but I think it's neat that there are some pictures of real pieces and such. I noticed with the set shown that the promotion side is also in black, though with a more "stylistic" looking Kanji. I think I remember hearing it being Japanese calligraphy. Anyway, I was wondering if we could add a note about that in the article? Some sets use red for promoted pieces, but some don't. Mine doesn't use red either. --Sivak 05:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
It is not traditional to use sets with red for promoted pieces, I have never seen it in professional use. Cogitans 12:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

History

Some discussion of the history of shogi would be much appreciated! I'd contribute, but unfortunately all I know about shogi I learned from Wikipedia :) Ckerr 13:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You might make a translation request of ja:将棋#.E6.B2.BF.E9.9D.A9 -- JHunterJ 14:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

SPAM

So, I think most of these external links fall under at least one of the categories of things to normally avoid under WP:EL. I don't want to just go ahead and delete them all, but are there any that anyone feels really strongly should stay? --Selket Talk 20:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Computer Shogi

What about adding some or all of these links:

Johann Petrak 09:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Openings

In the strategy section, it talks about rook and bishop openings. I've read that the openings are usually classified as static rook, ranging rook and double ranging rook. Could anyone who knows more about this clarify this?AbcXyz 16:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The rook is the most powerful piece, generally used to support an attack from behind and then move in. If left where it is at setup, you have a static rook opening. If you move the rook over to the left to support an attack there, that's a ranging rook opening. I have no idea what a double ranging rook is, since you only have one. kwami 05:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Each side can broadly be static rook (2 file) or ranging rook (files 5-8). A more accurate definition is where the rook is with respect to the king. If both sides use a ranging rook, it's called a double ranging rook, so the game openings can be double-static, double-ranging or static-versus-ranging. The article doesn't say 'double ranging rook', but is it clear? Adam1729 00:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Shogi

I've never played Shogi, nor seen it played, and have only a single book on it (Shogi: Japan's Game Of Strategy by Trevor Leggett). If anyone knows better, please correct any errors found in this article. -- Bignose

The game pieces are marked with Japanese characters; if someone could add the Unicode characters to this article this would be a great help. -- Bignose

Hi Bignose, thanks for doing the original Shogi page -- but whoever told you that the character for a non-promoted piece and the promoted version are the same never saw a japanese shogi set! Follow the link I put in the text... they're different. -- NickelKnowledge

chinese korean and japanese chess are not from indian.

Please explain. Cite sources saying they originated independently from the Indian variant. --129.241.103.90 10:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I edited the article a bit, including the Japanese, added a couple game screenshots, some very basic strategy including the Yagura defense, etc. Sorry, 'anonymous' was me; I got signed out while editing. Hope these are all improvements and that I didn't introduce any errors.

Do we still need the Unicode values, now that Japanese can be entered directly into the edit window? It would be nice to get rid of them.

By the way, Bignose, this is a very fun game. I quickly came to prefer it over Western chess, not that I'm very good at either at either of them! kwami 11:24, 2005 July 16 (UTC)

nice tutorial. very, very useful Lord Stu 02:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hoax

Is this a real game? Looks like a hoax to me.... Doctorfluffy 17:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a real game. Shogi and Chess are descendants of the same ancestor from India, Chaturanga. — Val42 03:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh ok. That explains that. It looked to me like someone just took chess and made it weirder and then made this article. You never can tell with so many vandals around this place. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 04:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
How about Jetan? SlowJog (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't have the book handy, but if my memory serves me well, John Fairbairn wrote of Shogi that the Japanese have changed chess "until it became the most fiendishly complex game any normal person might still be interested in playing." SlowJog (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Japan is a hoax. A place where people eat raw fish and seaweed and like it while watching their favorite sport of two fat guys in butt-exposing shorts stomping their feet and bumping into each other?? Get real. Readin (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Shikamaru Nara

Can someone please put a Shogi in pop culture here, so i can read about how well Shikamaru Nara can play it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.97.82 (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


Wording?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shogi#Computer_shogi "In 2005, the Japan Shogi Association sent a message to professional shogi players and women professionals, ..." Does that mean that there are no women professional shogi players? Jasonkhanlar (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Internationalized Shogi

Please take a look at my website: The Elephant Chess Club scroll down webpage to see internationalized shogi set

I learned to play shogi when I lived in Japan from 1990-1994. I really enjoy playing, and tried to teach people the game when I returned to the States. Unfortunately, the Japanese writing was too intimidating for most people. I redesigned the shogi playing pieces so that they are identified with designs and symbols. Of course, the playing pieces are double-sided. The reverse sides have the color red included to indicate promotion.

Please let me know what you think.

Thank you, Michael

"The Chinese characters (kanji) have deterred many people who are not familiar with them from learning shogi."

“Westernized” shogi sets have been available in the U.S. for some time – I purchased one at least 15 years ago. Instead of kanji, the pieces have a letter from the Latin alphabet ('P' for pawn, 'K' for King, 'L' for lance, etc.) Each piece also has a diagram of how it can move. It has been said that, in Japan, such a set is regarded as “suitable for children.” SlowJog 00:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I think that the symbols on the internationalized version of shogi (shown on website above) are intuitive and create a shogi set which is cognitively accessible in the same way as Western chess and more naturally understood as opposed to using a more direct means of marking the pieces, such as with letters or arrows. Here is an introduction to play on YouTube. Shogi Lesson #1 ElephantChess (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Spread Outside Japan

The article states that one of the reasons the game of go spread outside of Japan more than shogi did is that it originated in China. My understanding of the history of go in the U.S. is that although it did originate in China, go came to the U.S. primarily through contact with Japan. SlowJog 00:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the main reason is that shogi pieces use ideographs while go stones are intuitive black and white. --72.75.61.27 07:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Of the given comparisons between go and shogi as reasons for the difference in the spread of the two games outside of Japan, I agree with all the reasons except for one about the country of origin. SlowJog 00:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


I agree with SlowJog, the fact that Go originated in China is not a factor. Go spread to the West from Japan anyway (that's why we use the Japanese term Go and not the Chinese Weiqi). /David (21st of May 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.230.104 (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The link showing the two ways to set up shogi doesn't work. I don't know how to fix this, I just thought I should point it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.189.123 (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add in our www.shotestshogi.co.uk to the Computer Shogi section, if that is approved. This program has for most of the last 10 years been the strongest western Shogi program, and has achieved the highest world ranking (3rd place) of any Western Shogi program. Shotest competes every year in the World Championship in Japan.

Our page has news about the various versions/platforms for this program and provides a collection of AI articles written about it and related topics.

Jeff Rollason

There is already a link to the article on Shotest Shogi under the 'Software in English' heading. – SJL 17:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ryuo champion Watanabe played Bonanza in 2007

The wikipedia article says “Watanabe commented after the game that he should have lost if Bonanza had played a defensive move before entering the endgame”. I read the translated comments of Watanabe on shogi-l. I did not read this comment. What is the source of this Watanabe comment?

The wikipedia article says the computer has an “awesome endgame ability”. Watanabe said the opposite “I learned from this game is that endgame technique apart from tsumi is still a challenge for the computer.”

The wikipedia article says “This game can be looked at as a clear example that computer Shogi, although still not perfect, has reached top pro level”. Watanabe said, “they are getting to be a match for professionals” which are much weaker than top pro level.

This wikipedia paragraph in the shogi article exaggerates the strength of computer shogi. Mschribr 18:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Mark Schreiber

Made a correction to the strength of shogi computers using Ryuo champion Watanabe comments. Mschribr (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC).

Changed sentences in paragraph about bonanza program that played Watanabe. Mschribr (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Added Information To Section Computer Shogi

Added Ryuo champion Akira Watanabe's view on computers playing shogi. Added information about shogi in clubhouse games for the Nintendo DS. (Mschribr (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)).

I put back the paragraph about clubhouse games. Was the paragraph on the clubhouse games deleted because there was no source? The source would be the game itself. I also stated the manual has pictures of the game screens. Mschribr (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC).

Added sentences to paragraph where Japan Shogi Association prohibits pros from playing computers. Mschribr (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC).

Rewrote prediction for the future. Stated how many times a pro played a computer since the ban. Mschribr (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved to computer shogi. kwami (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

peer review

  • Discusses main aspects of the subject, fulfills that criterion of WP:GA?
  • Too many subsections in Section 1 [broken up—kwami (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)]
  • Strategy and tactics - needs more inline references.
  • Lead is too short

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer_review/Automated/October_2008#Shogi

Try

Any news on this proposed rule change? Try (from the rugby term) may replace the impasse (持将棋 jishōgi) rule. To try is to place your king at the starting position of your opponent's king. Impasse will no longer be allowed and a try wins the game! Not used in professional tournaments yet but may be in the future. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EriI9bxyDHY&feature=related is the only reference I have seen, if you could call it that. JTTyler (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

- I'm too lazy to login, but I'd like to note that shogi does occasionally get referenced in popular media. One good example is in the film version of Cowboy Bebop, where two lead characters play shogi in the beginning of the film, and later one of those characters chastizes the dog for moving one of the pieces. They dog actually has made a good move, but the humans he lives with don't know he's super smart.

A box set for the Cowboy Bebop TV series released in Japan a couple of years ago had a reference to shogi as well. Each DVD was in packaging that suggested it was another type of media. The 6th was made to look like a PS 2 shogi game. Very cute. http://image.blog.livedoor.jp/ariablu/23c9d7bd.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.104.204 (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the "Kifu" recording system used to record Shogi games?

Kifu is the system for recording games of Go. Since pieces never move in Go once placed on the board, Kifu records a game by drawing a diagram of the board in the end position and numbering each piece to show on which move it was placed. The Kifu topic page was included in category Shogi, and said that it was also used for Shogi, but I see nothing on this page about it and I don't see how it would be applicable to a game where the pieces move about.

I've removed all references to Shogi on the Kifu page, but on the off-chance that it is in some way connected I'm leaving this request for more info here. Maybe Kifu is Japanese for "game record" or something and is a general term used by Shogi players? If it is relevant please update the Kifu page and its talk page accordingly, and the Shogi page as well; if it isn't please confirm here? Thanks. Lessthanideal (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


Kifu (棋譜) is a general term for game records in Japanese. The term is used for Igo and Shogi, and even chess notation is called Kifu in Japanese.74.229.156.101 (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Move numbering

The article says that moves are numbered the same way as in chess; however, this is incorrect. Each individual move is counted as a move, whereas in chess a pair of moves is counted as one move. In chess style a typical opening would be 1. P-7f P-8d 2. S-6h P-3d. However, in shogi notation, it would be 1. P-7f 2. P-8d 3. S-6h 4. P-3d. I'm going to go ahead and correct this in the article. Hirohiigo (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone removed some pretty useful links.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.51.49.118 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Why is my links removed about where to play shogi in english sites? I think there is one of the most important start if playing shogi and there is just a very few places to play? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argip (talk • contribs) 20:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Shogi wiki template

you super-smart wiki editors should create a template like the chess one except for Shogi! (very cool with the chess on my talk page Here (feel free to make a move) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciscokid21 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Support - OneWeirdDude (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I started this a while ago but haven't got round to working on it. Others are welcome to use my base; User:BlueNovember/Shogi_template. (Pretty much just changed sizes and parameters. Needs images.) --BlueNovember (talk • contribs) 23:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph On Computer Shogi

Should a short paragraph about computer shogi be added to this shogi article? Mschribr (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Tis a good idea, with a main-article link to Computer shogi --BlueNovember (talk • contribs) 23:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Done. Mschribr (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Addition Request

On the Hungarian Wikipedia article for "sógi", there is a section about variants of the game, including a four-player line up. Would you like to add this into the English article? TIA. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. We have an article on shogi variants; if that version is not covered there, it would be nice to have it. — kwami (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

On strategy, the article contains the statement, "A silver general never needs to promote, and it is often advantageous to keep a silver general unpromoted." No further discussion of strategy explains why; and the article gives no citation. A discussion on the strategic advantage of keeping a crippled piece when additional range of movement can be added for free is required to support the assertion given. --John Moser (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Added a line. It's the same reason that silvers are typically used for offense and golds for defense. — kwami (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

5 Professional Classes C2-A and 6 Professional Dans 4-9

Can someone elaborate on Professional rank and class in the shogi article? What causes a professional to move up in rank from 4 dan to 9 dan? How many games does a 7 dan have to win to become a 8 dan? I heard there are professional classes C2 C1 B2 B1 or A? How do these professional classes relate to professional dan rank? What causes a professional to move up in class from C2 to A? When is a professional class A used and when is a professional 9 Dan used? Is there an elo rating system for shogi professionals? Mschribr (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Requirements for achieving higher dan is discussed in this Shogipedia page, which is a translation of the promotion requirements page on the Japan Shogi Association's website. The lettered classes (C2, C1, B2, B1, A) are exclusively for the Meijin tournament, where every professional player competes in a league system to challenge the Meijin. Elaboration can be found on the Ranking League page on Shogipedia, which is based on each individual Class page on the the Meijin Tournament's website. 68.191.84.156 (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

checkmate end of game?

Since there's been some back&forth, it would be good to clarify. We say, "checkmate ... effectively wins the game. The losing player should resign out of courtesy at this point". That suggests what I've heard elsewhere, that it is the capture of the king which wins the game, not checkmate, even though it is rare to actually go this far. — kwami (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've left some references to this. In a way, it makes little practical difference, but it's not checkmate, it's not capture of the king, it's when someone resigns. (Or, for that matter, forfeits by time or illegal move.) You could try asking Hidetchi of the YouTube series of shogi videos about this; I think he's Japanese. OneWeirdDude (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Pawn abbreviation = p or P

The chart and photo caption in section "Game equipment" use lowercase as abbreviation for pawn. But in section "Game notation", capital is used. Presumably abbreviations are used in notation. If so, then these should be consistent (otherwise confusing). I'm guessing that capital is correct ("Game notation"), and the abbreviation in chart and caption can be changed to capital. (I'm not a shogi player; is there any objection if I change it?) Thx, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Greater complexity means harder for a computer to beat the best human

FalseAxiom, of course having greater complexity means that it is harder for a computer to be programmed to win. As a player looks at more ply down the tree then the player will pick a better move. As the complexity of the game goes up then there are more moves at each position to consider. As you look at more moves at each position then it takes longer to look more ply down the tree. Then the computer will look at fewer ply down the tree and the resulting move will be inferior. Therefore as the complexity goes up means that it is harder for a computer to be programmed to win that game compared to other games. --Mschribr (talk) 04:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The complexity of the game affects both the player and the computer. In the game of Shogi, humans use advanced heuristics for pruning possible moves to avoid performing some computation, but, in general, that doesn't mean a theoretically complex game is easier for humans than for computers. Consider solving the traveling salesman problem, a computer is much more competent in that domain than a human is, despite the fact that it is in the class NP. The statement in the article should be rephrased to make it clear: simple minimax tree search is intractable because of the large branching factor, and that therefore more advanced techniques are needed. This way, the statement doesn't help perpetuate a belief that humans are fundamentally better or more insightful than computers in all domains. FalseAxiom (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
FalseAxiom is correct. Mscrhibr, your argument is a fallacy. More complex problems can be either easier or harder for computers to solve, depending on the specific domain. Quale (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
We are not comparing computers to humans. We are comparing game X to game Y. Game X such as chess has a state-space complexity of 10^47. Game Y such as shogi has a higher state-space complexity of 10^71. The computer is doing a lot more pruning at the shogi highest rated player level than at the chess highest rated player level. Therefore, it is harder for the computer to reach the shogi highest rated player level than the chess highest rated player level. The statement said, “Therefore, Shogi is the hardest of the popular chess variants in terms of programming a computer to beat the highest rated player”. --Mschribr (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I was adding a link to the External Links section, and saw a request to ask here first. It is a direct download link to a print and play version of the game (a rather nice one, I think). The file is free and released under public domain but carries the logo and contact information of the company in it. So, is it acceptable or considered spam? Should I remove it? --Isacvale (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

minor mistake

"The Chinese characters have been deterred many people who are not familiar with them from learning shogi."

was not worded properly so I replaced it by this one

"The Chinese characters (kanji) have deterred many people who are not familiar with them from learning shogi."

"Since the fork,..."

I have removed the sentence "Since the fork, it is not publicly stated if JSA female professional ranks and LPSA ones are compatible." from this subsection for the following reasons:

  1. I am not sure how it fits in with the discussion about the JSA and LPSA. I have an idea as to what the person is trying to say, but am not 100% sure. The usage of the word "fork" does not make sense, unless, that is, you spend a large portion of your time proofreading documents, etc. translated into English from Japanese by Japanese people; I think the person who added this meant "split." Similarly, the usage of the word "compatible" in this context seems to be another example of the above; I think the person who added this means "equivalent." In addition, the tense for the verb "be" used here is also incorrect; the present perfect "has not been" is more appropriate in this context then the simple present "is not." A much better way to word this would be as follows: " Since the split, it has not been publicly stated if JSA female professional ranks and LPSA ones are equivalent."
  2. Such a so-called split did occur when a group of women shogi players, unhappy with the way they were being treated by the JSA, decided to form their own organization (the LPSA). Even though I could simply replace fork by split, etc. the sentence still seems out of place with the rest of this subsection. The JSA-LPSA relationship is a very complex one on so many different levels; there's lots of bad blood on both sides which have included public denunciations made by both in various press releases, certain LPSA players being suspended from JSA-organized tournaments, threats of legal action, etc. Therefore, trying to go into that here seems inappropriate. Rather, it seems like something more suitable as a section or subsection of either a Japan Shogi Association page, a Ladies Professional Shogi-players' Association of Japan page, or both.

Marchjuly (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

"Common to exchange bishops early in the game"

Hi,

I have a question about Line 464 "It is common for players to swap bishops, which oppose each other across the board, early in the game. This leaves each player with a bishop in hand to be dropped later."

I'm not really sure how common this is. In fact, I think it is much more common for pawns to be exchange early in the game in order to gain a pawn in hand than it is for bishops.

I've seen lots of shogi games (amateur and professional) both on TV and in person and I've also played lots of shogi games (including some games against professionals) just for fun or as part of rated tournaments/club play. Although early bishop exchanges do happen in some of the more tactical openings (e.g., Kakugawari, Sujichigaikaku, Fujii Shisutemu, etc.) lots of players (including pros) avoid these sharp openings for a variety of personal or strategic reasons. Some players just prefer slower, more positional games without lots of early excitement. Bishops are powerful pieces and having one in hand is a good thing; However, if your position has lots of holes in it where an opponent may drop their bishop in hand, then it can be a really bad thing for you. So, it's sort of a double edge sword. This is why some experienced players (including many pros) teach beginners to avoid major piece exchanges early on in games unless it leads to a clear advantage.

On the other hand, it pretty much agreed upon that exchanging pawns early on in the game is more often than not a good thing because it gives you a pawn in hand. In particular, beginners are often taught to try and exchange their rook pawn because it gives them a pawn in hand, increases the scope of their rook, and exposes the head of their opponent's bishop (i.e., the square in front of the bishop) to attack: This square is generally considered the weakest in the opponent's position. There's a pretty famous shogi saying 歩のない将棋は負け将棋 (fu no nai shougi wa make shougi) that roughly translated means "having no pawns (in hand) leads to a loss."

So, I am suggesting replacing "bishop" in Line 464 with "pawn" and rewriting it as follows: "It is common for players to try and exchange pawns, particularly their rook pawn, early on in the game in order to get a pawn in hand for use later on."

Please let me know what you think. Thanks in advance. Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This probably belongs as expansion at Shogi strategy and tactics#Opening. (I.e. detail re the rook pawn, and that probably s/b sourced as well.) Perhaps the original text "for use later on" is redundant to the description prev given re what in-hand means. Pritchard kept it short & sweet in the below quote, perhaps we can use a version of it to conclude drop sec in this article!? Brain Games, David Pritchard, 1982, p. 161:

[...] since Pawns are often taken in hand in the first few moves, and sometimes Bishops too, tactical complications can quickly ensue.

(Hey - that rhymes!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I actually feel that the original sentence is out of place here simply because it is subjective and depends upon so many different factors. So, I agree with you that it probably works better in section on "strategy." However, my attempt at improving it was simply based on the assumption that it is often better to try and improve what's already there then delete. I actually like what you added at the end of the drop section about "tactical richness and complexity." I think that works perfectly fine on its own and doesn't need the original sentence or my attempt at an improvement to complement it. So, If I had to make a choice, I would pick my improvement (perhaps without the rook pawn mention) over the original, but your "tactical richness and complexity" sentence minus the original over both the status quo and my improvement. Maybe the best thing to do is wait a bit and see if any others have any ideas? I'm in no hurry. Thanks. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Piece value

Well. I happen to be quite new at this game. Just as chess have "point values" assigned to pieces to indicate piece importance. What are the numbers assigned to shogi pieces? Starting with the lowly pawn as 1. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 20:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a very difficult question, even more so than applying values to chess pieces, because the presence of drops means that the values will fluctuate a lot. In general, though, DK>DH~R>B>G~S>N>L>P. Double sharp (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
(Not so sure about relative order of knight and lance. In fact the dragon horse may actually be worth almost the same as the dragon king because colourboundedness is no longer a factor. Gold and silver are about the same because the silver can retreat more easily, offsetting its disadvantages. This is important only because they don't have many ways of retreating!) Double sharp (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Promotion -- "promoted rank" vs. "promoted status"

I am little concerned about the use of the word rank in promoted rank. Of course, somebody familiar with shogi will have no problem at all understanding what is written; However, I feel it could be potentially confusing for those with no knowledge of the game because in this same section the word rank is also used in the description of promotion zone, etc. to refer to specific locations on a shogi board. Therefore, I think it might be a little better to use a word such as status instead when referring piece promotion.

This is how Tony Hosking handles the same thing on page 10 of his book The Art of Shogi (the bold text is as it was used in the book):

Any piece moved into, through, or out of its promotion area (the furthest 3 ranks) can be promoted, in which case it is turned over and used with its promoted status showing. Promotion of a piece is essentially optional (only some minor piece promotion is compulsory, as later explained), but once made is irreversible - until that piece is captured, in which case it immediately reverts back to its original unpromoted status.

I'm not suggesting that we change things to exactly as Hosking wrote. I'm not even sure if that is possible (maybe it is if it is properly attributed). I just think that his use of the word status is is easier to understand than rank in reference to promoted pieces.

What about changing things as follows?

  • Changing "Promoting a piece changes how that piece moves (its rank)." to "Promoting a piece changes how that piece moves." or "Promoting a pieces changes how it moves."
  • Changing "When captured, a promoted piece immediately loses its promoted rank. Otherwise, its promoted rank is permanent." to "When captured, a promoted piece immediately loses its promoted status. Otherwise, its promoted status is permanent."

These are just suggestions. Please let me know what you think. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point, and I like you wording. I would delete a few more words that don't add anything, and use "promotion" in the final clause: "When captured, a piece loses its promoted status. Otherwise, promotion is permanent." (Or maybe leave in "a promoted piece", but in context it should be obvious.) — kwami (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
The first clause at least was a no-brainer, so I went ahead and changed them. Change them back or to s.t. else if you like; you really don't have to clear obvious improvements like this on the talk page. — kwami (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: Thanks for the feedback and I like your suggestion. I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia so I just thought I see what others had to say before making any changes because others might not agree with some of the things that I find obvious. Thanks again -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, if we don't like what you do, we'll revert you, so don't worry about that! If you're reverted you should take it to talk, but most of the time people will accept your edits. — kwami (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Marchjuly asked for my feedback. When I made the recent edits in the Promotion sec, it also occurred to me as it did to you, that "rank" has two meanings and could be potentially confusing. (Actually, in the article it has three meanings -- including "player rank (rating)".) I considered quashing that potential confusion with a different word choice during my editing, but when I looked over the article, I saw that "rank" (for the board) was defined in the article and used a lot, and "promoted rank" was also being used. (So, I kept my edits to Promotion sec consistent with the rest of article which was using both meanings.) Currently in the article there are two uses of phrase "promoted rank" ... do you want to change them to "status" for complete consistency (i.e., no use of "rank" except for when applies to the board, or player rank), or?:

"The characters inscribed on the reverse sides of the pieces to indicate promoted rank may be in red ink, and are usually cursive."

"Promotion is indicated by turning the piece over after it moves, revealing the character of the promoted rank."

Last, I actually did consider doing the surgery of replacing (board) "rank" with "status" throughout the entire article while I was editing the Promotion sec, however rejected that idea at that time for another reason too ... I was a little uncomfortable with "status" since as a term it is a bit vague (e.g. "promotion status" could be misinterpreted to mean "the predicament a piece might find itself in the game position after being dropped" or something like that. [Whereas, "promoted rank" is something specific and non-ambiguous. I was thinking perhaps "promoted rank" needed to be defined in the article if used, the same as (board) "rank" is defined, which would at least improve the situation, but not entirely, since context is still required even when there are defs in article. Anyway that was my thought process during editing the Promotion sec.]) p.s. I'm still not totally comfortable with "status" since I think that term is inherently ambiguous (an uninitiated reader could verifiably ask, "Ok, what status?"). Perhaps "promoted status" s/b defined before it is used, to equate to "piece rank"!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not too happy w "status" either. Would "promoted state" be better? Regardless, I'd advocate saying simply "promotion" wherever possible. Revert me if you think it was better before. — kwami (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)For clarification, if I'm not mistaken, your (Kwamikami's) edit changed one occurrence of "promoted rank" to "promoted status". (So my question is one of consistency ... the term/phrase "promoted rank" is used twice in the article (listed above). If it is okay there, it should be also okay in the Promotion sec. (And if not okay in the Promotion sec, then not okay for the other two occurrences.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Here's an idea-suggestion ... What if we changed all occurrences of "promoted rank" (and "promoted status") to: "promoted piece rank" (or perhaps better: "promoted piece-rank")!? (Advantage: it would retain the best word for this, i.e. "rank", but never create the aforementioned potential ambituity with (board) rank.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure "rank" is the best word anyway. Basically we just need a filler noun after "promoted"; it doesn't matter too much what it is. I just went through and changed the remaining tokens of "rank" to "value" (or "promotion", and caught two that should've been "file"!); the one instance of "status" is so obvious from context I doubt it will be a problem. How does that read? "Value" could be changed to "state" if that works better. Or "promoted grade", etc.
"revealing the character of the promoted value" → "revealing the character of the promoted state/grade"? (or just "promoted piece")
"abbreviated versions of the original values" → "abbreviated versions of the original characters"?
— kwami (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty OK w/ what you did, but I see a logical problem I never saw before ... (In the Promotion section, "promotion" is explained as a process, but it's never really explained what promotion is or does! [I.e., change the piece value. That comes only later, too late.]) I suggest as solution perhaps changing: "[...] then the player has the option to promote the piece at the end of the turn." to: "[...] then the player has the option to promote the piece to a new piece value at the end of the turn." (Similarly, "revealing the character of the promoted piece value".) I think your "original characters" is fine (since it's talking about kanji). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Idea-suggestion for consideration: "promoted piece value" or "promoted value" → "promoted piece type". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't care for "promoted piece value/type" simply because an unfamiliar 3-word jargony phrase is more difficult to process than a 2-word one. It's a bit difficult for me to parse, and I know what it means. I think that negates any clarity that might be achieved.
Yes, we might need to say s.t. earlier. But just saying "promote to a new piece value" suggests you can pick a value, as you do in chess. I think we need s.t. without that suggestion, such as "promote the piece to increase its power of movement" or s.t. (Okay, that's not very good, but you get the idea.) — kwami (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree w/ everything you said. I need time to think about a best choice. (Consistent max 2-word phrase; introducing what promotion does instead of just "how-to".) I'll update Talk when I have something. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

To me, status seems better than rank, but maybe it is indeed not the best possible choice. I'm not too sure about using piece value though. Couldn't that possibly be misinterpreted to imply that each piece has a specific (numerical) value. I know in chess that sometimes numerical values (e.g., pawn= 1 pt, knight=3 pts, rook = 5 pts, etc.) are used to help explain the differences between the various pieces. In shogi, sometimes something similar is done for beginners (especially for Westerners), but I don't think it's nearly done to the same degree and when it is it tends to be more abstract ({{e.g., "two minor pieces and pawn for a major piece" (二枚替えは歩ともせよ), etc.) Since the value of a particular piece depends on so many different things (a famous saying is after all "a pawn is worth a thousand kins" (一歩千金)), maybe it's better to avoid a word such as value when talking about promotion. I kind of like Kwami's suggestion of "state." Maybe "promoted state" and "original (unpromoted) state" are OK? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

"Promoted state" sounds okay in the abstract, but here's a result when applied to one of the problem sentences (do you think it succeeds?):

"Promotion is indicated by turning the piece over after it moves, revealing the character of the promoted state."

I've trained myself to always "think" in terms of real sentences. (Thinking then mutates into something more like "trying and testing".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I think we need to stick with what's used in reliable sources, rather than coming up with our own expression. (That's the WP way!) That said, I checked my limited library re modern authors re shogi ... I have four books by Pritchard with chapters on shogi, Fairbiarn's book Shogi for Beginners, and Trevor Leggett's book Shogi (but I don't consider the latter a good source for this purpose). Pritchard used "promoted rank" pretty consistently in all four books; he also writes "On promotion a piece is turned over to show its new rank", "when a promoted piece is captured it reverts to its original rank", "promoted to a higher rank", "pieces change their powers", "they become gold generals", "A piece on making promotion is simply turned over, the character for its new rank being inscribed on the reverse". Fairbiarn uses "rank" when first defining ([p. 15] "By making a move wholly or partly within the opponent's camp [that is, your promotion zone], those pieces on the board that have promotion ranks have the possibility of promoting immediately upon completion of that move."), then when referring subsequently he uses "state" ([p. 16] "Its new powers of move then apply for all subsequent moves made by that piece in its promoted state."; and "As soon as a piece is captured, however, and becomes a piece in hand, it reverts to its unpromoted state.").

So here's what I think: 1) we s/ restrict our choice of expression to what's used in reliable sources (and for my limited library that's clearly "promoted rank" and "promoted state", and 2) from that set of possibilities, we s/ select what works best for each individual sentence that needs an unproblemabic expression involving promotion (and, I really don't think there are many of those, perhaps max four or five sentences ... they could be listed here then addressed individually). This strategy assures we're within WP:RS language use for the game, and the article reads well. (That said, my RSs seem comfortable using "rank" with two meanings, relying on explanations and context to differentiate. If we tie our hands and say we can't do likewise for this article, it could be a case of just being impossibly picky and setting ourselves up with an unsolvable problem, or our own outside-RS (WP:OR) term/phrase.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you give the example at the top to object to it, or just to verify that we're okay with it? I'm not completely happy with it, but don't see anything obviously wrong with it.
We certainly want to follow sources when introducing specialized vocab, but here I think that's mainly the word "promote" itself. "In its promoted state" and "reverts to its unpromoted state" somehow sound better than "the character of the promoted state". — kwami (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Am not happy either, with "[...] the character of the promoted state." (It sounds/reads odd.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I am assuming that whomever wrote it that way was trying to refer to the actual kanji characters written on both the front and back of the pieces. Maybe they tried to add too much information. I like Kwami's suggestion. Marchjuly (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
It'd be clearer to me if you specified the entire candidate replacement sentence you like that you're referring to. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to Kwami's suggestions of using "in its promoted state" and "reverts to its unpromoted state." I think (sorry if I am wrong) he's suggesting the following:

"Promotion is indicated by turning the piece over after it moves, revealing the character in its promoted state. When a piece is captured, it reverts to its unpromoted state.

That's seems OK to me. The only thing I am not sure about is whether the word character is really needed. Why is it important to indirectly refer to the kanji character(s) used to describe the promoted piece? This sounds a little better to me

"Promotion is indicted by turning the piece over after it moves, revealing its promoted state. When a piece is captured, it reverts to its unpromoted state.

Marchjuly (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
@Ihardlythinkso:Thanks for all the information. I am not familiar with Pritchard's book so book so I can't comment on it. I have read both Fairbain's and Legget's books and personally I thought they were umm... maybe OK books at a very basic level. If I was going to use an English book as a source I would personally choose the Hosking one I cited above because I think it's a much better shogi book than the ones by both Fairbain and Legget. To be honest, probably the only shogi book written in English that I have read in the last 20 or so years has been Hosking's book. Everything other book has been in Japanese. So, I'm probably biased. I believe Aono and some other pros have books written in English but I've never read them. I think using reliable sources is an excellent idea, but with all of the shogi stuff on the Internet these days, maybe there are some reliable sources to be found there as well. I still think both "state" and "status" are better than either "rank" or "value", but I'm happy to go along with how the majority feels. Thanks again for all the input. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Movement and capture

I'm not sure if the following sentence is really needed.

All pieces but the knight move either horizontally, vertically, or diagonally.

It seems to me that the particular movement of each piece is more than adequately explained later on in this section. Also, the sentence

These directions cannot be combined in a single move; one direction must be chosen.

does not make any sense to me. How is it possible to "combine directions" if each piece can only legally move in a certain way? Finally, I'm also not sure if the sentence

Normally when moving a piece, a player snaps it to the board with the ends of the fingers of the same hand. This makes a sudden sound effect, bringing the piece to the attention of the opponent. This is also true for capturing and dropping pieces. On a traditional shogi-ban, the pitch of the snap is deeper, delivering a subtler effect.

is really needed (at least not here). Maybe it would work better in a new section called "Game Etiquette"? Snapping the pieces is pretty much an individual preference. Some players (pros) do it quite loudly (e.g., Hifumi Kato) while others hardly make a sound at all (e.g., Tadahisa Maruyama). Most players do something in the middle. I've even players grab a piece and snap it on the board a few times before making their final move. Does a snapping pieces reference really improve this section? How do others feel? Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the first and third suggestions are good; you should WP:BE BOLD and implement them. As far as the second, I see what the original editor of that text was trying to convey (that for e.g., when moving a bishop, you're not allowed to move in a zig-zag pattern in a single move). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Still not sure about the zig-zag pattern though simply because this would not be a legal move. Besides that is more than adequately covered in the "promoted bishop" and "promoted rook" parts that come later. Maybe, the thing to do is add "promoted pawn", "promoted lance", "promoted knight", "promoted silver" diagrams to the article as well so that how each promoted piece moves can be clearly seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchjuly (talk • contribs) 01:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Goro goro merge discussion

Please add your views so this can be concluded. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC) p.s. How does it get closed?

WP:ENGVAR

Is this article more appropriately American or British Eng? (Currently it's Amer Eng.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if there's really a correct answer to that question. I think the most important thing is to be consistent. If the article started out using British English, then it should probably stick to BE unless there is a really good reason to change it. Similarly, if it started out in American English, then it should stick to that. If it's predominately in American English now, then it might not be proper to switch everything into British English. Shogi is not culturally significant in either the US or UK so I just think it depends on who created the article and what form of English they chose.Marchjuly (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm already familiar w/ WP:ENGVAR (so you didn't need to explain it to me). What I didn't know was your latter contribution, i.e that shogi isn't significant in UK. (My thought for opening this thread was that if it were, then that would override how the article started out, etc.) Sorry for miscommunicating. The article will stand Amer Eng, then. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that. It wasn't trying to imply you didn't understand WP:ENGVAR. I was this just to be thorough since it's possible others (new people like myself perhaps) may happen to read this too. My bad. Also, I am not British, so maybe it was inappropriate for me to say shogi is not culturally significant in the UK. Personally, I don't think the British have strong national ties to the game, so I think it's OK to use American English. Marchjuly (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Object of the game

From the article:

If a player's king is in check, that player's responding move must remove the check, otherwise the checking move is also checkmate (tsumi 詰み) and wins the game.

That's wrong. The difference seems moot at first, but there are situations where the difference could be crucial (such as, in a time scramble: a player could legally move into check, or not out of check when in check, and his opponent may not catch it, and the player moves out of check on a subsequent turn [and goes on to win the game!]). The article incorrectly implies that isn't legal. There is already an older thread confirming the same. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a tricky question and I think how you answer might depend on who you are and where you predominately play. It's been my experience that most games played in clubs and tournaments here (in Japan) never really get to tsumi. They often get to hisshi, but that's where the player who's about to be mated almost always resigns. Games between beginners or teaching games might go to all the way to the end, but it just doesn't happen all that much in regular games. Pro games almost never even get to hisshi, usually they end with katachitsukuri.

I have seen tournament games where a player has left his king in check during a time scramble. In those cases, the other player simply took their opponent's king and the game ended. I left my king in check in a tournament game once (ha ha), noticed it as soon as I made my move, and resigned before my opponent could take it. Maybe things are viewed differently in the US and Europe, but here most players who moved their king into check or left their king in check would probably just resign like I did before the other player could make a move. They wouldn't play on, hoping that the other player didn't notice, and I don't believe they would try and win on time by making such a move. Most would consider doing so to be really bad manners even if they could win the game by doing so. In casual games between friends, they might agree to a matta and keep playing, but in serious tournament play it almost never happens. So, even though I think you're technically right, I'm not sure how you can improve on the original if you want to imply it's OK to move your king into check or leave your king in check as long as the other player doesn't notice. Maybe you could say

If a player's king is in check, that player's move must remove the check, otherwise their opponent can use their next move to capture the player's king and win the game. Moreover, if a player's king is in check and the player has no legal move to remove the check, then the checking move is also checkmate (詰み, tsumi) and their opponent can claim a win.

How do you suggest improving it? Marchjuly (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly? (By re-doing it, of course. Do you mean w/ what exact text? Any corrected content is improvement over wrong content.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
It is not illegal to leave one's king in check. That's the correct rule. The article is simply wrong to state or imply otherwise. (You were going to create an Etiquette section re thumping the board. Perhaps the topic of resigning, etc., can go in there. A mention of same can appear in the rules description in the Winning section, to the Etiquette section. But the article is currently flat-out wrong and conveys incorrect info about rules, and that needs correction without debate.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if what I wrote was unclear. I gave a suggestion for a possible improvement and just was interested in hearing if you also had anything specific (exact text) in mind as an improvement. Again, my bad.

Here's what Hosking writes on pp. 17 of Art of Shogi.

A king which is in check but cannot escape the threat of capture next move is in 'checkmate', Checkmate, or more simply 'mate', is thus when all a player's possible moves still leave that player's king in check. The ultimate objective in shogi is to checkmate (enforce capture of) the opponent's king. When one player's king is checkmated the game ends in a win for the other player. More precisely, the game ends when one player resigns (or over-steps a given time limit as explained later).

IMO, the original text and Hosking say pretty much the same thing up until Hosking's More precisely,... On pp. 21 of Art of Shogi, Hosking also writes

Five rule recap (outstanding rules of shogi to remember)

4.Checkmate. Enforcing capture of the opponent's king wins the game.

which seems to mean checkmate wins the game.

Roger Hare in his Shogi - Japanese Chess on Shogi.Net writes

The object of the game is as in western chess to checkmate the opposing king. Check in general is given by threatening the king with capture. The threatened player may escape check by moving the king, by capturing the threatening piece, by moving a piece between the threatening piece and the king, by dropping a piece between the threatening piece and the king. Checkmate is achieved when the king cannot escape. A game may end in two other ways - a player may resign if their position is seen to be hopeless, or, a draw may occur. This is rare in shogi. There is no stalemate in shogi.

which also seems to say the game ends in checkmate.

Neither Hosking or Hare specifically mention leaving the king in check or moving the king into check as being legal or illegal as far as I can see. I'm not sure what Fairbain and Legget say since I no longer have their books. What does Pritchard say on the matter? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

My impression was that the game ends when one of the kings is captured, but that in practice a player in checkmate will resign, so a king is almost never actually captured. I believe this is what Hosking is referring to when he says, "more precisely, the game ends when one player resigns." And, AFAICR, there is no rule against moving into checkmate, though I suppose if you don't resign that would force the other player to capture your king if they want to end the game. — kwami (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
WP-ja says that the goal of the game is to capture the opposing king, and that the game is decided when one can't avoid capture. I'll look at it later, no time right now. — kwami (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Kwami. I agree with you on Hosking.

Also, on the WP-ja page under 反則行為 it gives examples of various "kinjites." One of the examples is "自玉を相手駒の利きにさらす手." To me this section is saying (please correct me if I am translating it wrong) "Moves that expose your king to the control of your opponent's pieces" are "kinjite". It goes on to say "自らの着手後、自らの玉が王手のかかった状態にあってはいけない" or "A player must not make any move which leaves their king in (a state of) check" and gives the following as examples: 1."When your king is placed in check (by your opponent), you must move it (your king) out of check"; 2. "You must not move your king onto a square controlled by an opponent's piece"; and, 3. "When you move a piece other than your king, such a move is not to expose your king to check (squares controlled by your opponent's pieces)." "Kinjite" are often translated into English as "illegal moves" which might not be totally exact. They are moves that can be technically played according to the basic rules of shogi (e.g., moving your king into check), but they are forbidden under certain (special) conditions and playing one means "loss of the game." Once again, no mention is made regarding what happens if neither player notices that a "kinjite" has been played. Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Pritchard in both ECV (1994, p. 271) and Classified ECV (2007, p. 253):

Rules

The object of the game is to capture the opponent's king and the rules governing check and checkmate parallel those of orthochess with one small difference: moving the king into check is not illegal though its capture ends the game. [...]

Because he is so explicit about it, I'd find it hard to believe the official shogi federation rules do not say the same thing (though I haven't checked them). Obviously this is an important distinction (e.g. the logic between an illegal move being sufficient to cause game loss, even if play continued and the illegality wasn't discovered until later; and whether it is legal or not to move into check or not move out of check). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
@Ihardlythinkso: If we consider the JSA to be the ultimate source on the rules of shogi, then Pritchard's statement moving the king into check is not illegal appears, at least to me, to be wrong. That is, unless the information contained on those JSA pages is incorrect (not likely, but not totally out of the realm of possibility) or Pritchard is defining the word illegal in a certain way (more likely perhaps). Do you know whether Pritchard used other sources for the stuff he wrote on shogi? He could just be repeating the mistake of others that came before him. Is he a shogi player and was he writing from his own experience? Does he understand Japanese and was he translating directly from Japanese sources? If either is true, then it is possible that the rules were as he says (or were unclear) at the time. They could've been revised by the JSA at a later date and he just wasn't aware of the change. The only other possibility I can think of has to do with the differences between "kinjite" and "hansoku", more specifically how they are translated into English. I think that might be the case here because most English books on shogi that I have seen don't make a distinction between the two. Moreover, although many Japanese books do, they often simply just say "王手放置" (assuming the meaning is obvious) and don't go into the detail that the JSA page does. Marchjuly (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
This is what Pritchard lists in his bibliography to The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants (1994, p. xvi) re shogi:

Japanese Chess Cho-Yo (Press Club of Chicago – 1905)
Shogi for Beginners (Nihon Shogi Remmei)
Shogi, Japan's Game of Strategy Trevor Leggett (Charles E. Tuttle – 1966)
Traité du Jeu d'Echecs Japonais Pierre-Eric Spindler (Flammarion – 1977)
How to play Shogi J. Fairbairn (The Shogi Association – 1979)
Shogi for Beginners J. Fairbairn (Ishi Press – 1984)

Can't answer your other Qs since I don't know (except that he devoted 10 pages to shogi and 10 pages to xiangqi in ECV -- more than any other variants). (Couple comments: Have been doing a little reading and read something suggesting the culture surrounding shogi rules specification is different from int'l chess, e.g., there is more comfort re an incomplete ruleset, relying on practice & precedent to resolve ambiguities and disputes; but that the British Shogi org may be different -- specifying more rules to cover potential anomalies, while those add'l rule specifications may not be officially embraced by the Japanese org, etc. So as a result I think this is out of my experience (over my head) and the clarity of rules I presumed may not even exist. Second, that said, I have no idea what the WP article should do if that's the case. (I don't necessarily think "taking a best guess" is right; maybe more info is needed before deciding what to do, or consultation input from WP:Japan. Meanwhile I sent off a couple Emails, one to the British org Pres -- to scratch my own "curiosity-itch" more than anything, mind you.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso: Thanks for taking the time to check Pritchard and for all the extra info. He only lists one source published by the Nihon Shogi Renmei, and I personally would view that as the most reliable one, but I have no idea what it says in that book. Lots of those books appear to be fairly old, which means that the rules could have been revised by the JSA since they were published. Since this topic appears to be controversial, I suggest not editing this part of the "Winning" section and leaving it as is until it can be worked out. Thanks again for looking all of that stuff up. Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Pritchard also states on the Acknowledgments page (p. xi) that he received information from organizations including Nihon Shogi Renmei, and The Shogi Association. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Here's what Fairbairn says (Shogi for Beginners, 1984, p. 21):

The object of the game is to be the first to capture the opponent's king. In the diagram below the white king is under the threat of being captured by the rook. It is said to be "in check" when threatened with capture and the check must be countered at once, otherwise the king will be captured next move and that will be the end of the game.

(The diag shows a simple check w/ numerous ways for White to remove the check.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Here's what it says on the JSA's website about leaving your king in check.

Q: 王手をかけられたにもかかわらず、王手を受けない手を指したらどうなるのですか。

回答: 王手をかけられた時に王手を受けない手は反則です。したがって二歩などの反則手と同じで、即負けとなります。両者が気づかずに手が進んで判明した場合も即負けです。ただし、投了した後に判明した場合は投了優先となります。

I read the above as leaving your king in check is an illegal move resulting in immediate loss. If your opponent leaves their king in check, you can claim an immediate win because they have made an illegal move. Even if you don't notice it right away, but do so before the game has finished, you can still claim a win regardless of the current game position. If you don't notice, however, until after the game has finished and you lose the game, you can no longer claim a win by illegal move.

The JSA website also says the following in its rules summary:

第3章　対局の進行

第8条反則：

1. 対局中に反則を犯した対局者は即負けとなる。

2. 両対局者が反則に気がつかずに対局を続行し、終局前に反則行為が確認された場合には、反則が行われた時点に戻して反則負けが成立する。

4. 終局後は反則行為の有無にかかわらず、投了時の勝敗が優先する(投了の優先)。

6. 対局者以外の第三者も反則を指摘することができる。

No. 6 is interesting because it says that somebody watching the game can point out an illegal move.

The JSA website doesn't say anything specific about moving your king into check. It seems to me, however, that the same reasoning as above would be applied. Player A moves their king into check. If Player B notices it, then they can capture Player A's king and win the game. If neither player notices it right away, but Player B or somebody else points it out before the game ends then Player B can claim a win. If neither player nor anybody else notices it until after the game ends, the game result is final and no claim can be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchjuly (talk • contribs) 08:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I've found this about "moving your king into check". I mentioned it before, but here it is again a different WP-ja page specifically related to ōte. It says,

王手に関する反則

王手に直接関わる反則としては、打ち歩詰め、自玉を相手駒の利きにさらす手、連続王手の千日手がある

The first one is uchifutsumi and the third one is consecutive checks so there's no disagreement there. The second one is the interesting one. It says, Moves that expose your king to the control of your opponent's pieces. This would cover IMO not only a player moving a piece other than their which places their king in check, but also moving their king into check. Of course since this is WP-ja, it's not really considered a reliable source, right? So, I read some more and found a link on the WP-ja shogi page for this on the JSA's website. This clearly says that moving your king into check is an illegal move.

王手放置

王手をかけられたら、玉が逃げるなど、必ず王手を防ぐ手を指さなければなりません。王手がかかっているのに違う手を指すのは反則です。左下の図は１五の角による王手に気づかず、歩を突いてしまった局面です。また、右下の図は王手放置の一種で、今、先手の角と後手の玉の間にある桂を後手が動かしてしまいました。「自ら王手をかけた」ともいえる状態で、これも反則です。

"自ら王手をかけて" means "placing your own king into check." The diagram on the right on the JSA page is quite clear. The player moved their knight from 7-3 to 6-5, but this exposed their king to check from their opponent's bishop on 5-5. This is an illegal move according to the JSA. Marchjuly (talk) 09:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
@Marchjuly, your translations under my last comment seem correct. Of course, we can't take WP-ja as a RS, just as an indication of what to look for. It seems we have a contradiction that I've come across several times, over whether leaving your king in checkmate or moving into checkmate is actually illegal, or whether it merely means the loss of the came when your king is captured, which is after all supposedly the object of the game. Sources seem to clearly state both, so they can't all be correct. I wonder if maybe Western sources got the translation wrong somewhere along the line, and that a spurious distinction from orthochess has been passed down from one source to another, or if shogi has been influenced by or has adopted ortho rules, with some sources retaining the traditional version. Personally I don't see much point in making the move illegal; if you are able to successfully move into and out of check to get out of a tight spot, that would be quite a play. Even the idea that it would be possible makes the game seem more fun, like that possibly apocryphal story in orthochess of promoting a pawn to a second king. — kwami (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
@Kwami:Not sure if we have much choice even if it makes the game more fun. The last thing I've added from the JSA page (see above, I must have been typing it while you were adding your comment) clearly states the such a move is illegal. Now, it is possible that organizations other than the JSA might choose to have their own rules on this particular thing, but if we are working under the assumption that the JSA rules are considered the de facto standard for the shogi playing world, then we have to stick with their rules, don't we?
Of course, what I consider to be fun is utterly irrelevant. I'm a bit concerned though about simply presenting JSA rules as the rules. If RS's conflict, then I think it's best for us to report that conflict, even if we use JSA rules by default for most of the article. It's not like a game can't have variants among organisations. The rules of orthochess vary too. All you have to do is say that we're playing by FIDE rules, or JSA rules, or whatever. — kwami (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@Kwami:Thanks for the reply. What you wrote about"fun" was fine and I wasn't trying to take a shot at you. I accept that there are possibly different versions of the rules being used by various organizations around the world. There are, after all, lots of clubs over here which do things slightly differently from each other, i.e., assigning handicaps, making pairings, etc. Defining "hansoku" moves differently, however, seems like a significant break from the JSA, so if that's the case, I agree these differences need to be clearly pointed out.

FESA (The Federation of European Shogi Associations) is probably the biggest and oldest shogi organization outside of the JSA and I am pretty sure (but not 100% sure) that they follow the JSA rules. The FESA rules could, however, just be translations of the JSA rules because I don't believe there is an official English version published by the JSA. Often when stuff is translated, things get left out or summarized. Maybe that's what happened here. The JSA knows about FESA and sometimes sends pros to participate in FESA tournaments as part of goodwill tours to encourage the spread of shogi. So, I don't think FESA would create their own rule regarding something a significant as this. Maybe what happened was that the rules have been amended by the JSA since people like Legget, Hosking, Fairbain, and Pritchard wrote their books. Maybe the legality of such a move wasn't clear at the time when said books were written so some of the authors just assumed it was. Maybe since most western players also tend to also be chess players, they try to apply their experiences from chess when the shogi rules are unclear (e.g., saying ōte when placing the opponent's king in check or saying adjust when rearranging their pieces).

The only thing I am sure of is that the JSA says the move is a "hansoku" on it's website. Since this topic appears to be controversial, I suggest not editing this part of the "Winning" section and leaving it as is until it can be worked out. Marchjuly (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Eminently reasonable. It's hard to imagine that it would ever make an actual difference in a game. Are you really not going to notice your opponent moved into check, or failed to move out of check? And if it turns out to be a mistake, maybe we could have a fn pointing that out. — kwami (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
It could happen in a time scramble, especially if the check is a discovered check. Also, "noticing" isn't the only barrier -- both players might be aware of the check (e.g., players have 1 sec each on the clock, White is in "checkmate", moves her king, presses her clock; Black moves to take the king, too bad, the flag fell, she loses). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
In professional shogi, unlike in professional chess, there are no time scrambles because of byo-yomi. Even in tournaments (games) where the is no initial time control, byo-yomi is typically 30 moves per second seconds per move. So, a player would have at least 30 seconds to notice an illegal move. Plus, professional shogi players do not push their own clocks or keep their own score sheets. If an illegal move was played that both players failed to notice, the official time keeper/score keeper for the game would point it out according to the JSA rules.

Most amateur tournaments, at least over here, use digital clocks with byo-yomi capability. So, even though amateurs usually push their own clocks, they will still most likely have 30 seconds per move. There are still some clubs that might be using older analog clocks for club tournaments, or casual games, but (and this is just my personal opinion) I am pretty sure that if there was an illegal move played in a time scramble then a claim would still be accepted even if the player's (the player making the claim) time had expired. Once again, even if they didn't notice it, somebody watching the game could point it out according to the JSA rules.

The JSA rules technically say "resignation" (投了) takes precedence over "claiming a win by illegal move" and resignation and "losing by time" (時間切れ負け) may be handled slightly differently even though the end result is the same. Once last thing, the JSA rules say that playing an illegal move results in an "immediate loss" (即負け); There is nothing that says you have to capture the opponent's king if they leave it in check in order to win, you just have to point it out.

Now, having written all of that, I am not sure how this is handled outside of Japan. It is possible that organizations such as FESA and USSF have adapted certain JSA rules to fit their own particular situations. Marchjuly (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Number of women shogi players in Japan

@Ihardlythinkso:  Regarding your question (I'm not sure if it was rhetorical since it was in an edit summary) on the breakdown of shogi players by gender here in Japan, here's what I think:

  • Pro level: There are definitely more men pros (棋士, kishi) than women pros (女流棋士, joryukishi). In fact, no woman has ever made "kishi". You can see exactly who these people are (or who they were because deceased and retired pros are also listed) on both the JSA and LSPA websites (BTW, the JSA doesn't list women pros who jumped ship and joined the LSPA, so there are gaps in the JSA list.)
  • "Apprentice pro" (奨励会, Shoreikai): There are definitely by far more male than female Shoreikai members. There used to be something called the "Ikuseikai" (育成会) for women (girls) trying to become women pros, but it was stopped a few years ago and replaced by a new system (see next) for both boys and girls (wanting to try for the Shoreikai) and women (girls) wanting to become women pros.
  • "Kenshuukai" (研修会): Sort of a pre-Shoreikai level and where aspiring women pros see if they have what it takes. 5 different classes and just from scanning names, I would say that there are by far more boys than women (girls).
  • Strong amateur (national/regional/scholastic championships, etc.): Again I would say there are by far more men than women. Most of the top players are at least equivalent, if not stronger, in playing strength to your average women pro. Women (girls) can and do participate in these tournaments, but there are also special tournaments for them.
  • Club: Based upon my experience, there are far more men than women. I've seen and played women at various shogi clubs, but only a handful of times. In fact, I've never been to a shogi club where the women outnumbered the men, unless it was a special event for women. You can probably count the number of women and foreigners you typically see at a shogi club on one hand. This does not mean that women don't like shogi; It could just mean that they don't like shogi clubs.
  • Casual/Online: Have no way of knowing. Like everywhere else, there are more women here than men. It's possible that lots of women (girls) only play casual games at home with family members, with their friends or online. Online is attractive because it's pretty much anonymous so there's no need worry about smokers, perverts or guys picking their noses. If you just asked some random person on the street, I'm pretty sure they'd probably say more men play than women. Maybe it's different for both go or chess, but shogi doesn't seem to offer a lot of good career prospects for young women. Many young girls may play it for fun, but as they get older they might switch to something else.

    Not exactly specific numbers, so for the most part more OR then RS. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that insight. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

棋 means board game of go specifically?

"Shōgi means general's (shō 将) board game (gi 棋)." But this dictionary translates (gi 棋) as go, not just board game in general. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Depends on context. I don't know which is the original meaning. — kwami (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with kwami in that it all depends on context. I checked the link given above, but can't find the entry for 棋 that you're referring to.

The kanji 棋 is a combination of two other characters: 木 and 其. The first character can be read as き and one of its meanings is wood . The second character can be read as ご and one of its meanings is four-sided figure , e.g., squares, rectangles  etc. Combining the two could be interpreted as being something that is a wooden four-sided figure  (perhaps something used for playing); for example, something such as a traditional shogi or go board (盤, ban). If you look at the character go (碁) it is a combination of stone (石, ishi) and the aforementioned error: {{nihongo}}: Japanese or romaji text required (help). I guess this means stones on a four-sided figure (board)  .Interestingly enough, it seems that 棋 was originally written as 棊 which probably makes its connection to 碁 a little bit easier to see. I don't play go, but I think it predates shogi. So, it is possible that 棋 was more associated with go a long time ago, but that's just speculation on my part. Interesting topic. Thanks for bringing it up Piotr. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if it was The Game, it would be easy enough for it to come to mean games in general, just as 'bread' has come to mean food. On the other hand, it would be just as easy for the word for 'game' to come to mean The Game. But the etymology is Chinese, not Japanese, and 棊 and 碁 are the same word, qí. The first (wooden pieces?) is used when you mean 'chess', and the latter (stone pieces?) when you mean 'go', but the Chinese name for go, 圍棋 'surrounding game', uses the wood radical, so I suspect you're right that the wood part might have originally referred to the board of any board game. — kwami (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Kwami. Although some meanings/readings may have been changed and some characters may have been simplified, most of the kanji used by Japanese did come over from China so what you're saying makes total sense (at least to me). BTW, another word commonly used for go  in Japanese is 囲碁 ([igo ] Error: {{nihongo}}: text has italic markup (help)). Since the kanji 囲 can also take the meaning surrounding , 囲碁 and 圍棋 are similar in meaning; In fact, 囲 is just the simplified form of 圍 and was added when the Japanese Government introduced the Tōyō Kanji in 1946. So, it's very possible that 棋 originally did indeed mean The Game (碁, go) since it can be read both as き orぎ ([ki  or gi )] Error: {{nihongo}}: text has italic markup (help)) and ご ([go ] Error: {{nihongo}}: text has italic markup (help)) even though later is not considered to be a very common reading these days. Very interesting stuff. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I doubt any of that is of Japanese origin. The gi of shōgi and the go of igo are different pronunciations of the same Chinese word, due to changes in the location of the Chinese capital and thus of the prestige dialect, much like English warranty (Norman French) and guarantee (Parisian French). So that's probably unrelated to Piotr's question. — kwami (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course. I wasn't trying to imply that those two characters originated in Japan. Moreover, I know practically nothing about Chinese so I wasn't questioning any of the Chinese meanings or readings. I just found the similarities between 碁 and 棋 to be interesting and was thinking (out loud perhaps) as to how they might possibly mean (or at one time meant) the same thing in Japanese. FWIW, NTT's goo online dictionary gives this entry for 棋 ([go ] Error: {{nihongo}}: text has italic markup (help)), and this entry for 棋 ([ki ] Error: {{nihongo}}: text has italic markup (help)). Maybe in Japanese, it depends on how the character is pronounced. But, this is just the same as saying that it depends on context. Sorry if I went way off topic, just to arrive back at the same place where I started. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shogi/Archive_1&oldid=1153656253"