Talk:Shogi/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Setup and gameplay: "taking turns" vs. "move turns" and use of "Black" and "White"

I understand that the term move turn is often used for board games and chess variants; However, I am worried that it's use here might possibly be confusing to some.The words move and turn are often used interchangeably in everyday conversation; For example, Whose move is it? and Whose turn is it? are real sentences that often are used to mean the same thing. So, although Whose move turn is it? may also be correct when referring to board games, the word move turn might seem like a typo to those unfamiliar with its usage. I'm not sure what the best thing to do is. Is it possible to write move turn as move-turn so that it does not seem to be two different words?

Maybe the best thing to do would be just to rewrite that entire paragraph to something such as

The players alternate move-turns: moving or capturing a piece on the board, or dropping a piece in hand.

This would also remove any possible confusion between move turn (or move-turn) and the word turn in the sentence For each turn a player may either....

Also, in the same section says

... with one player taking Black and playing first. The terms "Black" and "White" are used to differentiate the two sides, but there is no actual difference in the color of the pieces.

All of this is true of course, but no mention is given as to how it is decided who moves first. There is a very specific way this is done in shogi, even in just casual games between friends. There is also a certain way of doing it for tournament games or games involving handicaps between players of different strengths. Maybe something needs to be said about "furigoma" here. How do others feel? Thanks in advance. Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Shogi is the same as a vast number of other board games in the respect that the players alternate move turns. When a person speaks and says "Whose turn is it?" it is immediately understood in context by the people s/he's speaking to, that "move turn" is meant. But this is an encyclopedia entry, not everyday conversation, and what is more, that part of that section is describing/defining "gameplay". Next best IMO would be "The players alternate moves" (but, that is is defficient IMO because it is potentially ambiguous with a specific move[s]). Also possible is "The players alternate their turns to move" (but, that is just an overly wordy way of saying they "alternate their move turns"). I changed the original "The players alternate turns", since that relies on the implication "move turns", but again, in this description/definition section, implying is inferior to spelling out. In "The players alternate move turns, [...]" the word "move" is an adjective modifying "turns", and to suppose uninitiated readers wouldn't understand that and be confused--because "move" and "turn" are synonymous nouns in other contexts--is the same as suggesting those readers would be confused generally, in any game article that uses "move turn" to describe a player's turn to move. That's a huge assumption and it seems to me you're basically suggesting to adjust the language for people who have trouble reading in context or with reading in general. Rewrite the section to avoid use of "The players alternate move turns, with one player taking Black and playing first."!? That seems unnecessary surgery to me. It would be better to reduce the sentence to "The players alternate their moves, [...]" and allow the very slight ambiguity mentioned.

I don't believe the hyphenization "move-turn" is valid, I've never seen it, and you'd be creating your own vernacular, same as creating "gambit-opening" from "gambit opening". (BTW as long as the topic is hyphens, I'd say "dropping a piece in-hand" is not only acceptable but perhaps even preferrable to "dropping a piece in hand".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Even though I have been playing both chess and shogi for a long time, I confess that the first time I ever saw the term move turn was when you used it the other day. My first thought was that it was a mistake, but I know now that it isn't since you explained it to me. I am just worried that other people not familiar with the term may make the same mistake that I did; However, maybe that is, as you feel, not something really worth worrying about. On the other hand, I think your idea of The players alternate their moves... is pretty good. It doesn't seem slightly ambiguous to me, and I don't think it's necessary to assume that other readers would find it to be confusing and unable to comprehend the difference between move when it refers to a player's turn and move when it refers to a specific move. That's just my opinion. If other editors also feel The players alternate move turns is the best choice then I'm happy to go along with the majority. BTW, if The players alternate move turns...is the way to go, then the next sentence For each turn... should also be changed to For each move turn ..., right?

Regarding move-turn, I wasn't sure whether it was even a word and I certainly don't suggest using it if it isn't. Regarding the hyphenation of piece in hand, Tony Hosking doesn't use a hyphen in his books The Art of Shogi and Habu's Words. Reijer Grimbergen, who annotates lots of professional games and posts them online, also doesn't use a hyphen. Same goes for Richard Sams in his translation of Koji Tanigawa's 光速の終盤術 and Larry Kaufman, who has for a long time been considered one of (if not the) strongest shogi player in the West, in his articles on handicap shogi. I'm sure there are probably reliable sources other than Hosking, shogi websites other than Grimbergen's, and shogi players/writers other than Sams and Kaufman that do use a hyphen, so maybe the best thing to do is see how other editors feel, pick one way, and then change them all accordingly. I think no hyphen is fine, but once again I will follow what the majority decides. Marchjuly (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Re furigoma, that sounds interesting and good. (Why don't you write it up?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. Not sure at the moment how to add it without rewriting at least a small part of the "Setup and gameplay "section, but I'll think about. Thanks again for all the feedback and suggestions. Marchjuly (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

"Move turn" sounds like bad output from Google Translate. I would 'correct' it under the assumption it was not English. Since there doesn't appear to be any actual need for the term, we shouldn't use it. Best to avoid jargon when possible. — kwami (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't view "move turn" as "jargon", rather simple English (adjective + noun) intended to describe something (in a context where "move" as noun and "turn" as noun could/would both have potential for ambiguity). "Players alternate move turns" is used extensively in my research library of books on games. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It is definitely jargon. It's a set phrase that no English speaker would ever use except if exposed to the lit which defines it, which is the very definition of 'jargon'. I think you mean 'move' is a noun; AFAIK, it cannot be an adjective (*move, mover, movest; *the turn was very move; *they played quite movely). — kwami (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. "The car needed a jump start." *Jump* is adjective, it modifies *start*. (There is no "jump, jumper, jumpest", so I don't know what your doing w/ that.) "The farmer built a pig barn." Adjective *pig" modifies *barn*. (There is no "pig, pigger, piggest".) Again, its moot now as the text has been ce'd to something else for a different reason altogether. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between a word that modifies another (an attributive) and an adjective. An adjective is a class of words, a part of speech, that can modify a noun as an attributive: the pink purse, the purse is pink. You wouldn't say that 'pink' is not an adjective in the latter, would you? And you can say pink, pinker, pinkest. That's an adjective. Jump start is a compound noun: it needed a jump (noun) to start. You can't say 'the start is jump', as you would be able to if it were an adjective. It's an attributive noun, and in English just about any noun can be used that way. — kwami (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"The brothers built a flying machine." *Flying* is adjective, modifying *machine*. (There is no "flying, flyinger, flyingest" -- your condition for adjective.) Adjective: "The part of speech that modifies a noun or other substantive by limiting, qualifying, or specifying." The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Ed. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I too thought it was a mistake and possibly a bad translation, but it is used in this context according to Ihardlythinkso. I searched move turn in Yahoo and nothing related to chess/shogi came up at all on the first 10 pages of results. The closest thing was move/turn being used on a D&D discussion board. So, I agree with you. However, if it absolutely needs to be used, then maybe the best thing to do is to define it first in some way (e.g., A move turn is .....) so there is no chance at all of anybody being confused by it. Marchjuly (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You guys are right, "move turn" is seldom used. (I don't know how I got to emphatically think the opposite -- did I synthesize that phrase after reading "turn to move" and "move in turn" in loads of books!? -- perhaps. Anyway you're both right and I apologize. I'm going to methodically undo "move turn" where I've included in articles I've either created or edited. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, but there was really no need to apologize. Let's not think of it as one side being right and the other side being wrong. Let's simply think of it as people working together in good faith trying to improve the article. Disagreements on the best way to achieve that goal may be inevitable, but they are certainly not insurmountable. You've done lots of really good work on this article. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The issue has been rendered moot through regular copyediting. Now we have:

One player takes Black and moves first; then players alternate turns.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this could be the place to add something about furigoma? (This is really just a rough draft so it might not be very good)

In games between players of even playing strength, who moves first is commonly determined by a process called "tossing pawns" (振り駒, furigoma). One player takes an odd number of pawns (typically 5), cups them in their hands and tosses them onto the board. If the majority of pawns land unpromoted side up, then the player who tossed them is Sente ("Black") and moves first. On the other hand, if the majority of the pawns land promoted side up, then the player who tossed them is Gote ("White") and the other player moves first. If any pawns land on their side or one top of each other, the toss is invalid and the pawn are tossed again.

Again this is only a suggestion and me thinking out loud. Marchjuly (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: This article has been a 'mess' as far as consistent and best/clearest language use, redundancies, confusing sentence structures, etc., for a long time. I've been trying to make those conditions healthier in multiple passes of copyediting. (E.g., how many times and in how many places is forced promotion explained in the article? Answer: Too many.) Editing is evolutionary and a work in progress. The article was a 'mess' so expecting perfection with each and every edit is out of place and demoralizing. I've made changes where I've perceived there are dysfunctionalities. Not all the solutions to correct have been ideal, simply because copyediting isn't easy. But the dysfunctionalities were there. I've tried not to add new or additional dysfunctional text. Replacing dysfunctional text with imperfect but less dysfunctional text, still chalks up as article improvement. (E.g., there wasn't consensus earlier about use of word "value" to replace "rank". There are occurrences of "[piece] value" and "original value" in the article. Do they work? I think that word works in some instances in the article, but not all. [Schmittberger uses it in New Rules for Classic Games: "They [pieces] are also flat, so that they can be flipped over to reveal their promoted values."] But it's a difficult problem and not worth attempting to resolve at this time since the article has plenty of imperfections besides that.) Besides copyediting, the article needs additions as per suggested by Marchjuly as well, me thinks. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I hope I'm not giving you the wrong impression. I'm pretty happy with most of the changes you've made or are suggesting. The article reads much better now then it did before you started working on it. I also appreciate the time you're investing in making the article better. There are really only a few things I'm not totally sold on, and I'm not trying to be pigheaded. I'm just glad people are discussing it here on the talk page because that means there's a real good chance that the final result is going to really good. Marchjuly (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The article never got the attention it needed, long before recent activity. Even in its current state, I think it would fail hands-down even at WP:GAN. (I've never petitioned any article for an enhanced WP:CLASS, but it would be nice to see this one reach at least GA. [Afterall, the chess article is FA.]) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Definitely should be taken to GA. The process would probably result in improvements to the article that we're too close to think of. — kwami (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

As for quibbling over terms being discouraging, Ihardlythinkso, that's why we're talking them out. Most of your improvements pass by unremarked because there's nothing to discuss: they're fine the way they are, and if you want to improve them again in another round of editing, we'll all be happy to see it. But when we come across sticking points like the one we have here, sure, we could ignore them, but IMO it's worth discussing them to see if collaboration can get them resolved. It doesn't need to disrupt your work: You can ignore the discussion and go on with your overall copy-editing, if you like, and we can make the additional changes if we are ever able to agree on them. — kwami (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Level 4- Vital Article??

@Ypnypn: I think shogi is quite interesting, but I am not sure how it qualifies as a level-4 vital article. What does that even mean? - Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The people at WP:VA are compiling a list of the 10,000 most important articles in Wikipedia. There are a number of considerations for "importance" such as:

• necessary to understand many subtopics
• one of the most prominent examples of an important topic
• often viewed by readers
• translated into many languages

and so on. Shogi was probably chosen because it is a game known by millions of people, played for hundreds of years. Obviously, there's plenty of disagreement about which articles are vital and how much so, so proposals to add or remove articles from the lists take place on WT:Vital articles and WT:Vital articles/Expanded. - Ypnypn (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ypnypn: I was just curious as to what that meant, so thanks for taking the time to explain it. Sounds like an interesting project. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Graphic cell width

Kwami, curious why horizontally oblong cells [1] is better? (Janggi has horizontal oblong cells; shogi has vertical oblong, of course.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to make them equal width, but gave up. Yes, the cells are slightly taller than wide, but only by about 8%. So if they're 29 high, they should be 27 wide, but I can't set any width at all. — kwami (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I discovered the same thing previously (inflexibility of width) so just played w/ the height to make it look similar proportion to some of the surrounding little piece move diags. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean for the promotion zone, correct? What about all the diagrams of piece moves. Is there any way to format them better? — kwami (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, was referring only to the promotion zone diag (all the cells in it). (I don't know about the others; they didn't bug me because all of them are somewhat vertically oblong as s/ be.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Template used for Japanese terms.

WikiProject Japan recommends that certain templates be used for Japanese text in Wikipedia articles where Japanese script is used. Personally, I don't fully understand the technical differences between what they recommend and what others have used in this article, but I believe it has to do with helping browsers display the test correctly. Often you see cases of "corrupted characters" (文字化け, mōjibake) when Japanese characters are displayed on computers with non-Japanese operating systems. Maybe this is more of a problem of the past than of today, but it is only a cosmetic change that doesn't change the meaning of any of the text. What do other's think? Thanks in advance -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• I doubt mojibake is an issue. Wikipedia (like most of the modern Web) uses Unicode, so there shouldn't be a problem with mixing conflicting character encodings. I believe the template is for proper language tagging, and the suggest to browsers that Japanese-style fonts should be preferred to Chinese-style ones, if available. — Gwalla | Talk 17:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Gwalla for your input. I don't know much about the technical aspects, but I think you may be right. I remember seeing lots of mōjibake before, but you hardly see it these days except for in the occasional email. Do you feel the font issue is significant? - Marchjuly (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It's important to the Japanese. Well, not of Earth-shattering importance. Basically, the policy of Han unification in Unicode means that the Han ideographs sued in Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese (the latter two rarely these days) are shared. The ways in which they are written in those languages do diverge, though not so much that they would not be recognized as equivalent, so in most cases it wouldn't be a significant barrier to reading (it would just look odd). However, some characters are written with different numbers of strokes in Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese, and Japanese. Since looking up unfamiliar characters in kanji dictionaries usually involves counting strokes, using a font intended for the wrong language can make it more difficult. — Gwalla | Talk 00:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

"Generals' chess" or "generals' game"

Hi,

I think that either generals' chess or Generals' Game should be chosen and the other eliminated from the first sentence

Shogi (将棋 shōgi?, generals' chess) (/ˈʃoʊɡiː/, Japanese: [ɕo̞ːɡi] or [ɕo̞ːŋi]), also known as Japanese chess or the Generals' Game,....

I really do not understand why it is necessary to have them both, especially since they essentially say the same thing. Moreover, generals' chess/game, at least with respect to Japanese, is very literal (perhaps a little too literal) translation of the word 将棋. It's not incorrect per se, but most Japanese-English dictionaries simply give Japanese chess as the English meaning of the word. Not as literal perhaps, but more than sufficient in my opinion. If the majority feels that at least one of them should remain, then I suggest getting rid of generals' chess from the Japanese language template since it's not really needed there and actually seems a little confusing. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"Generals' Game" is a sourced game name synonym. That's different in kind than what is the translation of the kanji. (I don't know Japanese; if the kanji translation can be improved, then it should be!) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I think Generals' Game is fine all by itself. It just seems a little strange to first say generals' chess and then a few words later Generals' Game. Generals' chess is a very literal translation of that combination of two characters; Most Japanese-English dictionaries that I've seen simply say Japanese chess. Since that term is used later on in the same sentence it is pointless to say it twice. Personally, I think generals' chess should be deleted. I don't think having it adds anything special in meaning, especially since both Japanese chess and Generals' Game are used later in the same sentence. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The last sentence of the lede paragraph states: "Shōgi means general's (shō 将) board game (gi 棋)." So (if that's right) it seems the part you suggest to delete (i.e. "generals' chess") is redundant and even inconsistent. (But is "shō 将" better "generals'"!?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The character 将 can mean general, commander, leader in a military (military-like) context, but that's not only how it is used. For example, the word 将来 (shōrai), which means future, is a very common word without any particular military meaning attached to it. The character can also be read as masa such as when used with the particle ni as in the expression masa ni, which can mean really, just about to, exactly, etc. depending upon context. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

TOC size/alignment

I'm not sure if this is even worth it, but the current TOC can be reduced by 14 lines if Template:TOC limit is used. For example, {{TOC limit|2}} could be used. Furthermore, the TOC alignment can be set to left to allow some of the first section to float up to the right by {{TOC left|limit=2}}. Just a suggestion. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I tried something -- just revert if don't like. (The tiny contents under Movement and Promotion secs didn't warrant subsecs, IMO.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Thanks for doing that. How big is too big for a TOC? Maybe one thing to do is set the TOC as collapsed. I seen that down with tables, etc. in main space. Can that also be done for a TOC? - Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't know how big is too big, but I don't think the current TOC is anywhere near a concern re bigness. Re collapsing the TOC, I think that's controlled only via individual users (clicking either "hide" or "show", which remains in effect for all TOCs on all pages until clicking the other option); I don't believe there is any markup that can specify a default of collapsed TOC for the article for all readers. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. I thought that since you could set a table or box to collapsed then the same could be done for a TOC. Do you know if there's a way to set a TOC so that it can list entries in two columns? It seems big to me, but I haven't seen as many articles as you so I guess its all relative. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Time to archive?

Does anybody else feel that this talk page should be archived? It's getting kind of long and the first thread was from 5+ years ago. I'm not sure if they are any specific rules about this or how it should be done. By year? By month and year? By number of threads? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

By size, I think. You don't want a wiki page that's so large it takes minutes to load. OneWeirdDude (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. I don't really know how to do that. If you do and want to do it that way, then that's fine with me. I've got an archive set up on my user talk page, but somebody did it for me and I really have no idea at all how it works. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARCHIVE says this,

The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 75 KB or has more than 10 main topics. However, when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are subjective decisions that should be adapted to each case. For example, ongoing discussions and nearby sections they reference should generally be kept intact.

I know what 75 KBs is but I'm not sure how to measure it in Wikipedia. Moreover, since this page is currently at 52 main topics, it does seem to be a prime candidate for archiving. I'm pretty sure that I can do it manually, but I'm not so sure about how to set up a bot to do it, A bot is probably best because it will automatically do it, right? Anybody know how to do this? Maybe the same thing used on Chess can be used here? Or, maybe the way it is done on Go is better? Not sure.- Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

To tell the size, how about copy-and-paste into Notepad for a temporary file? Or MS Word? (With Word you don't have to save anything.) OneWeirdDude (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Didn't think of that. Thanks for the input. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

To tell the size, on the left side of the Talk page there is a menu. Click on "Tools" to get its dropdown. Then click on "Page information". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I was not aware of those tools. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

So according to page info, this page is currently 147,143 bytes long. That's about 147 KB which means one archive page if we follow the archive when talk page exceeds 75 KB recommendation. On the other hand, there are now 54 main topics which means 5 archive pages if we follow the archive when talk page has more than 10 main topics recommendation.

Automatic archival does say that there are two bots that can be set up to archive pages, but also states

Note: Make sure to establish consensus before setting up lowercase sigmabot III or ClueBot III on a talk page other than your user talk page.

I guess that means the following need to be agreed upon before proceeding further.

1. Does this page need to be archived? If the consensus is yes, then...
2. Should it be archived by size or by number of main topics?
3. Should it be done manually or automatically?
4. Which bot should be used if done automatically?

Particulars such as bot configuration, indexing, archive box type, etc. can be settled once the above have been agreed upon. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I independently set up archiving because this page appeared on the database report for the largest pages on Wikipedia. :) The setting of three months since last edit per section seems like a sensible default - if you really need to resurrect an old discussion that's been dormant for that long, it's trivial to either link it into the archive or even copy&paste it back here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you can tune all the parameters yourself according to local consensus, my bold edit does not in any way prejudice this. I wouldn't recommend going back to manual archiving, because it's fairly obvious that wasn't really working out - nobody cared. The choice of bot seems inconsequential, it's just a matter of syntax, they seem to be analogous in features. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Joy for setting that up. I don't know too much about archiving, but it seems fine to me. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Jishōgi and nyūgyoku

The distinction made by this edit between entering king (入玉, nyūgyoku) and impasse (持将棋, jishōgi) is correct. In my opinion, however, the statements

If neither player has fewer than 24, the game is jishōgi (持将棋)—a draw

and

Nyūgyoku is considered an outcome in its own right rather than jishōgi, but there is no practical difference.

are only partially correct while the statement

Impasse/king entering:

is not correct at all. These sentences probably need to be discussed and a consensus reached on the wording so I have reverted them back to the original. FWIW, there are slight differences in how both are treated in professional and amateur shogi here in Japan.

Nyūgyoku

Nyūgyoku is not impasse, it is something completely different. Many amateur shogi tournaments over here follow something called the declaration rule (宣言法, sengenhō). This means that when a player has entered their king into their opponent's position (first three ranks) so that it is pretty much impossible for their king to be mated by their opponent's pieces, they may declare a nyūgyoku position, stop the clocks (or ask that they be stopped) and claim a win. No agreement between players is needed to do this. There are certain conditions that must be satisfied, however, before such a claim is recognized.

1. The player declaring nyūgyoku must have actually entered their king. (i.e., their king is within their opponent's first three ranks.)
2. The player making the declaration must have at least 28 piece points or more and their opponent must have 27 piece points or less. If the player making the declaration is sente, they must have 28 piece points or more; however, if they are gote, they only need to have 27 piece points or more. (Piece points are determined for the declaring side by counting the pieces they have in hand and the pieces they have within their opponent's first three ranks. Rooks and Bishops are worth 5 points each, and the remaining pieces (excluding the king) are all worth 1 point each.)
3. The player making the declaration must have at least 10 of their pieces (not including the king) located within their opponent's first three ranks.
4. The player making the declaration must still have time on their clock.
5. The king of the player making the declaration must not be in check.

If any of the above conditions are not satisfied then the side making the declaration loses. This counts as one game regardless of who wins.

In professional shogi, there is no such declaration rule because a pro will always resign when they realize they have no hope of mating their opponent and no hope of entering their own king.

Jishōgi

Jishōgi is impasse. It is very different from nyūgyoku. It occurs when both players have entered their respective kings into their opponent's first three ranks, thus making it practically impossible for either king to be mated. In such cases, either opponent may declare such a position has been obtained. If their opponent agrees, the final result is then determined by counting pieces. One big difference between jishōgi and nyūgyoku is that in the former the opponent does not have to agree, and play continues on if they don't. (Pros don't typically play on out of spite. When they feel they have no chance at all to mate their opponent's king and no chance at all of getting 24 piece points, they almost always resign.) Another big difference between the two is how the pieces are counted: in jishōgi all of the pieces in hand and all of the pieces on the board for each player are counted. In JSA professional shogi, if both players have more than 24 piece points then jishōgi is established. If only one player has 24 piece points or more, however, then jishōgi is not established and the player with 23 piece points or less loses. It's impossible for both players to have less than 24 piece points since each player starts out with 27 piece points to begin the game (king= 0 points, rook and bishop= 5 points each, everything else= 1 point). In most pro games, jishōgi is treated in the same manner as sen'nichite: the players switch sente and gote and replay the game with the time control adjusted to take into account the remaining time of each player from the 1st game. The jishōgi game and the replay game are then counted as a single game. In title matches, however, jishōgi is actually considered an outcome and there is no replay game. The jishōgi game is counted as a single game. Jishōgi can also be agreed upon by pros even in cases where both players have not entered their kings. Both players may agree that there is no way to prevent a jishōgi position from being reached, so they just stop the game there. This doesn't happen very often, but it has happened.

Things are done slightly differently in amateur shogi. Some tournaments follow something called the Rule of 27. Since each player has 27 piece points to start the game, 28 piece points or more are needed for a win; if both players have 27 piece points, then gote is given the win.

This is how things are commonly done over here. Once again, things may be done slightly differently overseas. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, Marchjuly, I think you're mistaken. The "Rules and Manner of Shogi" guidebook states that "jishogi" refers only to the draw situation, and "nyuugyuoku" to the general situation. The "27-Point Declaration" is just an alternative version of "king entering" that eliminates the possibility of a draw. OneWeirdDude (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Jishōgi most often occurs when both sides have entered their respective kings and some other conditions have been satisfied. The word nyūgyoku literally means entering king so in that sense jishōgi does involve nyūgyoku, but jishōgi (or impasse) does not equal nyūgyoku. Claiming a win by nyūgyoku is quite different from jishōgi.

There are no half points in shogi, so there are technically no draws. Amateur tournaments, due to time constraints, etc., cannot afford to have many replays because they disrupt the flow of the tournament. The Rule of 27 is designed to reduce number of replays by eliminating the possibility of jishōgi. It ensures that such positions reach a decisive result without the need for a replay. Professional shogi, however, is different. Jishōgi can occur if certain conditions are satisfied. In such cases, the game is replayed almost immediately with colors reversed and the game clocks adjusted accordingly. The result of the replay game is the final result. The jishōgi game and the replay are counted as a single game. In major title matches, however, games that end in jishōgi are not replayed, and are counted as a single game. So, in such cases, jishōgi is considered the outcome of the game: a no contest. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Winning

Some of this has been discussed before in Object of the game (see above), so I'm going to try avoid repeating things as much as possible. A recent edit was made that changed this text

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.

to the following

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 guarantees a won game. The losing player should resign out of courtesy at this point, although in practice this rarely happens, as a player will concede defeat as soon as loss is inevitable.

I can somewhat understand the spirit behind this, since no game is technically really over until one's opponent gives up, right. I mean I checkmate your king, leaving you with no legal moves, so you resign, we shake hands (hopefully) and the game ends. This edit, however, doesn't seem to be a real improvement over the original text in my opinion; In fact, I think it creates confusion where there really is no need for any.

What does "guarantee a won game" actually mean? Does it mean I won the game or I won the game as long as my opponent resigns? Semantics perhaps, but the new version seems to allow for the possibility that player who has been checkmated (tsumi-ed) can simply prolonged the game by refusing to resign. Yes, I know that may be silly, but it seems to me that such an option is now on the table.

Another issue I have is rules related. According to the JSA rules for shogi player who makes an illegal (or prohibited) move during a game instantly loses (｢対局中に反則を犯した対局者は即負けとなる。｣). So, if we are saying that tsumi means the situation when one's king is in check and one has no legal way (i.e., move) to either remove that check, then tsumi wins the game, doesn't it? The checkmated player is left with no legal move so they lose. (FWIW, leaving your king in check and moving another piece, regardless of intention, is not a legal move and results in an immediate loss.) Whether they literally say I give up seems to be irrelevant. They could sit there forever or (if the game is being played using a clock) until their time runs out of time, and the result would not change.

The new version is trying to make an important point that should be mentioned, but I think it's going about it in the wrong way. It is true that most shogi games, especially tournament and professional games, never get as far as tsumi. Most players, even those playing casual games, will resign long before being mated when they feel they have no chance at all to win. There's no rule of course that says they can't play on to the very end, but most will resign. Hishi is probably as far as most casual players go. The game is essentially over because there is no way to prevent tsumi, so there is really no point in playing on. So you could say that hishi guarantees a won game, but maybe not technically say that hishi wins the game simply because the player still does have a legal move that they can play.

Anyway, if emphasizing that most shogi games never get as far as tsumi is the reason for this edit, then I think it should be worded as such. One way to do this might be

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. In actual practice, however, most games never reach this point because players will resign out of courtesy and concede defeat as soon as loss is inevitable.

Comments and suggestions would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Your proposed sentence has a defect in that it implies it is checkmate if a player makes a responding move that does not remove the check. (I.e. when the player had a move available that would have removed the check.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The original sentence stated that 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. I can see how this might be ambiguous because a player whose king is in check, may not notice it or ignore it, and play another move. This, however, would be considered an illegal (prohibited) move and results in an immediate loss, not by checkmate, but by illegal (prohibited) move.

Do you think the following might eliminate such confusion?

If a player's king is in check, that player's responding move must remove the check. Failure to do so by playing another move results in an immediate loss for playing an illegal (prohibited) move. If the player has no move available which removes the check, the checking move is also checkmate tsumi (詰み) and wins the game. In actual practice, however, most games never reach tsumi because players typically resign and concede defeat out of courtesy when they realize their position is hopeless and losing is inevitable.

- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it could be made simpler, by eliminating the second sentence. It s/b stated elsewhere (is it?) that any illegal move is cause for immediate loss of game. (So then the extra specification re when in check is unnecessarily redundant and just causes confusion [i.e. why the extra specification? especially when so rare too?].) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. I didn't have any real problems with the article's original wording. My concern with the new version is that it says tsumi guarantees a won game and implies that the game is not over until your opponent resigns which IMHO is not correct. I do believe that edit was made in good faith though, so I thought I'd see if there was some way to use what was added instead of just reverting it outright. But, you are correct in that any distinctions between loss by illegal move (反則負け, hansoku make) and (check)mate (詰み, tsumi) probably should not be made in that paragraph because it just makes things more confusing. I have no problem with removing the Failure to do so... sentence. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of it, but the fact is that checkmate does not really even guarantee a won game over the board (OTB). A player, say White, is checkmated but not convinced yet, and nearly moves but doesn't, trying to find a defect, and Black, who made the mate, thinks White moved, and doesn't realize it's actually mate, and makes another move, and thus loses, having illegally made two moves in a row. (If either player catches it, that is.) But anyway, there's no rule of checkmate in shogi, so a player does not win automatically with mate, or tsumi, but victory comes at that point by resignation, or else forfeit by time or illegal move.

From the Rules and Manners of Shogi:

The player wins the game when he/she has checkmated the opponent's King first, because it inevitably means that the other player cannot make any legal move from that situation. Thus, the checkmated player must immediately make a resignation when his own King is checkmated.

(It differs a little from how 81Dojo is programmed, but oh well.) OneWeirdDude (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Serious shogi (e.g., pro, tournament, and rated) games can end in one of three ways: one player resigns, one player is mated, or one player is disqualified (illegal move/loss on time). Tsumi is a win and ends the game regardless of whether your opponent says I resign (参りました, mairimashita) or I lost (負けました, makemashita), etc. It's considered standard good manners to do so, but not doing so does not mean the game has not ended or changes the result. It is true that it's your opponent's turn, and their only move, so to speak, is to resign, but if they get up and leave without saying anything, the game is still over. Moreover, since the game has ended, there's really no way for the checkmating player to make two moves in a row. If the player whose king is in check tries to make a move that does not remove the check, they would be making an illegal (prohibited) move and the result would be an immediate loss. FWIW, according to the JSA rules (｢対局者以外の第三者も反則を指摘することができる。｣), third parties may point out that an illegal move has been made (it does not have to be one of the two players playing the game ). Such a claim does not have to be made immediately and the ability to do so is not lost if another move is played; the claim just has to be made before one player resigns or the game ends. So, in other words, your opponent makes an illegal move that you do not notice (or which is not pointed out by someone else) until much later in the game. Even if by then your position is 100% lost, you can still claim a win because your opponent made that illegal move as long as the game is still ongoing. However, if you're mated or resign then the final result takes precedence over any claim you might have. That is the JSA rule and the JSA rules are the ones followed by all shogi organizations here in Japan. Overseas' shogi organizations or online sites may have their own slightly different rules, but I'm pretty sure they also follow the JSA rules.

Brinkmate (必死, hisshi) guarantees a win regardless of what move your opponent makes (i.e., there is no way they can defend against the mate threat); the game is still not over, but it may end if your opponent resigns and most players (even casual players) do. Finally, Overwhelming advantage (必勝, hisshō) (as you (=One Weird Dude) referred to your editsum) does mean your position is so overwhelming that you should be able to easily convert it into a win as long as you don't make any horrendous blunder(s); it is not, however, a 100% guarantee that you will win and is not the end of the game. Professional and high level players almost always resign in such hopeless positions because it is considered bad manners by some to make your opponent play it out. However, some players (typically younger or lower ranked players) often play on because either they don't realize they are lost or they are hoping for some kind of miracle. I have, in fact, seen tournaments were amateur dan players continued to play on against lower ranked (kyū) players even though they would've probably resign the same position against another dan player. Some people just want to get all of their money's worth. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, I heard back from the president of the British Shogi org, and there are some points of interpretation & practice not exactly the same or consistent w/ what you wrote above. (Will present exactly what I mean, but I want to review all that's been said in these extensive threads first.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso OK. I'm interested in hearing all sides of the story, and it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I just want to add this about brinkmate (必死, hisshi) for the sake of clarification because what I wrote above is only partially correct so I have stricken it out. Hisshi is one kind of mating attack (詰めろ, tsumero), but it is not created by a move that gives check. Hisshi occurs when you make a move that threatens to checkmate your opponent and they have no defense against it. Since it is not a check, your opponent can try to mate you first. They can keep placing your king in check until either they run out of checks or they mate you. This why almost everyone resigns in such positions unless they are sure they have a forced win. The same thing, however, cannot be said about tsumi. Tsumi is the final move in a tsumero and it is a check. Because it is a check, the player has to remove that check with their next move. If they cannot do so, then they lose the game. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Not that I doubt your sincerity, Marchjuly, but is there some way I can confirm this, that tsumi also ends the game? OneWeirdDude (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@OneWeirdDude: No worries. This is just a discussion, and I'm just regurgitating what I've seen and heard over the years. Maybe I'm guilty of too much OR or BIAS. I've been trying to find something that explicitly says tsumi is the end of the game. Most of the things I've been looking are in Japanese. Japanese Wiki says things like 詰みになった時に勝敗を決する or 原則には、詰みと投了によって勝負が確定する which can be translated as tsumi (and resignation) determine(s) who wins the game. I've seen similar phrasing on other Japanese websites. Is stuff like that reliable enough? I'm really not sure. I'm trying to find a copy of the most recent JSA rules on shogi, some thing from them that might definitively say the game ends when A. B. and C., but have had no luck so far. In all honesty though, I'm not even sure if that will be good enough because it's quite possible that other shogi groups (particularly those overseas) don't follow every specific JSA rule to the letter, but make allowances for their particular situations. Nothing wrong with that of course. Shogi is a game, but over here there are lots of cultural aspects to it that seem so obvious and natural here, which maybe are not as such in other places. So, I strongly feel that tsumi is the end of the game, but my feelings have been wrong before so I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case here as well. Everyone here is just trying to work together to make the shogi article the best that it can be. That's the ultimate goal right? If the consensus is that the game can only officially end on resignation and there's reliable sources that exactly say that then that's fine with me. I will add that the quote you give from the 81 Dojo site does not seem so clear on that point to me. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, when I wrote above that a game can end in only one of three ways, I was only considering common decisive outcomes. Of course, there's always the possibility of sen'nichite or jishogi (impasse). Those are possible outcomes, but since there are no draws in shogi those just lead to the two players switching sente and gote , and then immediately playing again. You can also lose if you and your opponent both have entering kings, but you do not have at least 24 points. I lumped that in with disqualification. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, to save time, how about I WP-email you the email answers I received from pres. of British Shogi org? (There are two Emails; keep in mind I'm chessplayer not shogi player, so some of my Qs ended up being pretty stupid!) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso: Sorry, but I'm not sure how to do that. I don't have a Wikipedia email address, at least I don't think I do. If you feel it's relevant to what is discussed here, then I have not problem with you posting it here. I won't take offense if it turns out that I am completely wrong. Believe me it wouldn't be the first time. If it's too wordy, then summarize it as you see fit. If you feel it's not relevant, then sure email me, but I just don't quite know how that works- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Right. (I see that you have WP-email turned 'off'. That is voluntary option in your WP profile preferences.) Posting the text here isn't something I asked permission for doing (so, that's out). I can summarize, yes. (But in that case I want to review context w/ the two existing threads, so that'll take more time ...). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been asking about this on Japanese Wikipedia. One person said that if the tsumi is legitimate, then the mated player has no legal moves to play and the game cannot continue. I think (hope) that we are all in agreement on that particular point. My problem (or hangup perhaps?) is that the amended text implies that mating your opponent's king does not win (end) the game. When you make the move that mates your opponent, the next move is, technically, of course theirs. Since they have no legal move that will save their king, their only move (so to speak) is to resign. Resignation is the only option (it's not a courtesy) in this case. Now, I guess they can sit there for a long time thinking about whether they've really lost, but there's nothing they can do (outside of cheating) to change that fact. This is why, in my opinion, I don't think the edit that was made was an improvement. Resigning in a hopeless position is indeed courteous. Although some people may choose to play on, most don't because they feel it's disrespectful. I don't, however, think that same logic applies when you've been mated.

I've emailed the JSA and asked about this asking for clarification, but am still waiting for a reply. I would be very surprised if they say the game can continue beyond tsumi, but like I've said I've been wrong before. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a reply from the JSA. The other day all went to a local bookstore and to see if they had a Rules of Shogi or some other similar book. I looked through quite a lot of books for beginners since these typically contain some explanation of the rules. Some of these were written for kids for sure so things may have been simplified to a degree. All of them were written by current pros or retired pros. All of them said that (I'm paraphrasing) "The player who mates their opponent's king wins the game. The game is over." All of the books discuss resignation, but it is in the context of etiquette. I guess could cite all of these, but they are in Japanese and there are lots of books. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I remembered this page by Roger Hare which states the following in The Rules:

The Object

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.

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 clearly shows that Hare also considered tsumi to be one of the ways a shogi game could end. Hare's website was around for quite awhile and was linked to Shogi.Net, which was where many English-speaking shogi players probably went for shogi related info. around that time period. By the time Hare stopped updating his page in 2003, it had probably been seen by many players (including some very strong Japanese and non-Japanese players). It's seems highly unlikely that one of them wouldn't have noticed such a basic error and brought it to his attention. It also seems highly unlikely that Hare himself would have made such a mistake, especially since most of the shogi books and magazines, etc. that he lists on his page were well known among English-speaking players at the time. It's safe to assume that Hare read all of those books and wouldn't have missed something which either explicitly or implicitly stated that mating your opponent does not actually win (i.e., end) the game, but rather only guarantees a win. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It wins. (The Email I have from pres. of British Shogi org said checkmate wins. And if your opponent moves after the checkmate, that is an illegal move, and capturing the king as response move is just a way to point out or show that it was an illegal move. But there were some other things too e.g. about the timer usually never would point out an illegal move, and so on, that I want to report on later but need to review first.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if it is really necessary now, but another thing worth mentioning is how moves are counted and how a game score is kept. Eliminating any loses by illegal moves or other anomalies, if resignation is considered to be the final move that ends the game, then it would always be officially counted as such. However, every official game score of any professional game won by sente (i.e., gote has resigned) that I have ever seen has always ended in an odd number of moves. In the same way, every official games score I have ever seen in which gote has won (i.e., sente has resigned) has ended in an even number of moves. If it was the rule that the game could not officially end until one player resigned (tsumi or not), then that resignation would be recorded as an official move: sente wins would almost always end in an even number of moves and gote wins would almost always end in an odd number of moves. That, however, is clearly not the case. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking into that Ihardlythinkso. Regarding the timer pointing out illegal moves, this might be just a difference in how the JSA does things and how other organizations do things. The JSA rules clearly state 6. 対局者以外の第三者も反則を指摘することができる。 which means third-parties other than the two people playing the game can point out illegal moves. I can't see of anyway to interpret that rule other than that. Did you point this out to the BSA president in your email?

Organizations overseas might consider this to be inappropriate or bad manners because many of their members are also chess players and pointing out illegal moves in chess is considered to be a form of kibitzing. Kibitzing is also something that is against the rules here, but in this case the JSA does not consider pointing out an illegal move to be kibitzing. To most Japanese shogi players, winning is important, but how you win is considered to be more important. A game that is intentionally and knowingly allowed to continue on after an illegal move has been played would be considered to be invalid. This may explain why the JSA has it in their rule book. It's better to have such a move pointed out even by a third party than let play continue on.

Like every rule, a lot depends on the particular situation. In a professional game, it is unlikely that a player would not notice a illegal move made by their opponent. If by chance such a thing did happen, the rules say that a third party (e.g., the official time keeper) can point out the illegal move. The rule does not say they have to point it out. It's quite possible that the time keeper may not immediately say anything out of deference to the two professionals playing under the assumption that one of them just has to eventually notice it. Time keepers are, after all, apprentice pros, so they might personally feel it's not their place to say anything to one of their sempais. In a major title match, however, there is always an official arbiter (立会人, tachiainin) officially assigned by the JSA to each game. This person's job is to make sure that there are no problems at all. This person is always a shogi pro, usually a high dan, whose judgment and impartiality is supposed to be beyond question. So, it would be scandalous for them (or any other professional observing the game) not to point out an illegal move and let play continue if is clear that the two players playing did not notice it. It just wouldn't happen. In less serious amateur games, at the club level perhaps, people might be less enthusiastic about such a rule, and those who say something might not make many friends. Even so, it's still in the rule book.

A few years ago, Hifumi Katō, a very famous pro (a former Meijin and multiple title holder), played what is now considered to be a take back move (待った, matta) in an official Ginga tournament game. Takashi Abe his opponent actually scolded the women's pro time keeper for stopping her byōyomi countdown and is clearly annoyed with Katō's action and attempts at an explanation. The official game score keeper (an apprentice pro) even whispered I'm sorry (すみません, sumimasen) when Abe scolded him. Katō is known for his aggressive playing style. He's also famous for the way he moves his pieces. He slams a piece down multiple times before very forcefully placing it down for the last time (completing his move). Other pieces sometimes get accidentally moved in the process. He does this for all his moves, and it's kind of funny to see. He is, however, sometimes a little too enthusiastic, especially in complicated positions. The time keeper shouldn't have been surprised by any of this and stopped her countdown, so it's easy to understand why Abe got so mad. Play resumed and Katō went on to win the game and advance to the next round of the tournament.

The game was recorded for broadcast at a later date. It was during that broadcast that some viewers noticed that Katō's move was actually illegal and somebody contacted the JSA about it. Katō captured Abe's knight with his own knight, but did not promote it (he set the piece down as a knight). He then picked up the his same knight, rolled around in his hand and placed it down again only this time as a promoted knight. The JSA examined the video and decided Katō's move was a matta. Katō was fined (the money he won from beating Abe) and was prohibited from participating in the following year's Ginga tournament. The final result stood because Abe did not claim a win by illegal move before the game finished. It was a complicated and Abe just didn't notice it (probably because he was pissed off). I don't think anybody really knows for sure whether either the time keeper or score keeper noticed it. Neither of them said anything at the time. Maybe they were too scared because Abe had already gotten mad at them. You can see it here if you're interested.

It does seem a little unusual, but it does happen in other sports. I don't play golf, but I have heard of examples where a person watching on TV at home has noticed a rule being violated, called into the tournament, and reported it to the tournament officials who after reviewing things then went a penalized (even disqualified) the offending player. -Marchjuly (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@OneWeirdDude: Have you had the chance to read through any of the above, particularly the stuff by Ihardlythinkso? Are you still of the opinion that tsumi does not win the game or can we go back to the original wording? - Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the "[checkmate] guarantees a won game" language doing in the article?! It's vague and inherently confusing, and even misleading (implying the game might play on, which it can't). What's going on? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso:. That is same thing I asked at the very beginning of this thread. I disagree with this edit . I've tried show why it is not correct in various different ways, but I may have just confused things unnecessarily. The reason I started this particular thread, however, is still the same: Tsumi (mate) does not guarantee a won game. Tsumi wins the game. It wins the game regardless of whether the mated opponent resigns (as a courtesy) on their next move. Once tsumi has been established the game is over and cannot continue. You (= Ihardythinkso) verified this via email with the British Shogi Association, so I hope that is convincing enough for OneWeirdDude and we can return the wording back to the original text. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Marchjuly, Ihardlythinkso, thanks for your comments. I'm fine with keeping it as saying tsumi wins, but I'd like to keep the part about players resigning when the situation is hopeless, even if it's necessary to change it to sound less like a rule, like, "In practice, it's normal for a player to resign before this happens" or something. Also, would it be a bad idea to include that the losing player ought to acknowledge defeat, even if that doesn't affect the outcome? OneWeirdDude (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

OneWeirdDude I have no problem with anything that directly states or implies that a game can end in resignation. I just don't think that is the case with tsumi. As currently worded, the article seems to imply that in the case of tsumi the game cannot end unless the mated player actually resigns. This is not correct. Personally, I think that the Winning section should (at least briefly) cover all of the ways a game can end decisively, and not just tsumi. Maybe a bulleted list would be best. For example, "A a game can be won in any of the following ways: A, B, or C with a brief explanation given for each. In my opinion, there a 6 such ways in (Japanese) shogi: (1) tsumi, (2) resignation, (3) illegal/forbidden move, (4) time forfeit, (5) win when both kings have entered (neither king can be mated) and one player has less than 24 points (i.e., there's no jishōgi established), (6) win by entering your king and successfully satisfying the conditions for declaration of nyūgyoku. (No. 6 really only applies to Japanese amateur tournament shogi, since things almost never get that far in a pro game.) Finally, I also don't think there is particularly any need for anything at all about saying check or saying too much about resigning out of courtesy in this section. Those things seem more suitable for section on manners, etc. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not unusual?

I am wondering if Tom Jones, perhaps using an alias, was the editor who added the following to the Winning section: (I added the bold)

The 1982 Meijin title match between Makoto Nakahara and Hifumi Katō was unusual in this regard, with jishōgi in the first game (only the fifth draw in the then 40-year history of the tournament), a game which lasted for an unusual 223 moves (not counting in pairs of moves), with an unusual 114 minutes spent pondering a single move, and sennichite in the sixth and eighth games.

I guess some might feel that it's not unusual to use the word unusual three times in the same sentence, but it seems a bit strange to me.

All joking aside, this seems does seem a little excessive and like puffery to me. Personally, I think that whole sentence could be simplified. 223 moves is a lot, but jishōgi takes time to achieve. Moreover, 200+ move games do happen and they don't always end in jishōgi. Furthermore, 114 minutes for a single move is also a lot for an amateur perhaps, but it's not really so unusual for a pro, especially in a major title match. There are many players who have taken much longer to make a single move. In a 2005 B1 Jun'isen game between Teruichi Aono 9D and Kazushisa Horiguchi 7D, Horiguchi used more that 5 of his 6 hours of allotted time to think about a single move. (He won the game so apparently it was time well spent.) So, the second and third usages of unusual seem pretty subjective in my opinion. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Another thing I am not sure about is whether it is correct to say that the match between Nakahara and Katō lasted 10 games. In professional shogi, games that end in sen'nichite are not counted as an official game. Such games are almost immediately replayed with sente-gote reversed with the time controls adjusted accordingly to take into account the time remaining on each player's clock. The reply game and the sen'nichite game are then together counted as the official game. If the replay game also ends in a sen'nichite then sente-gote are reversed once again and there is a second replay game. If the result of that game is decisive, then (even though 3 games have actually been played) it is still only counted as one game. I am not sure where the lasted 10 games came from, but this is not really how it is officially recorded by the JSA; The JSA only considers the match to have lasted 8 games. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"Better Moves for Better Shogi" by Teruichi Aono

It appears that Teruichi Aono's book Better Moves for Better Shogi was reissued in 2009 by Ishi Press International. This seems to be the [http://www.amazon.com/Better-moves-better-shogi-books/dp/B0007C74CS original] that is referenced in the article and [http://www.amazon.com/Better-Moves-Shogi-Aono-Teruichi/dp/4871879992/ this] is the version that was released in 2009. They appear to be the same book, but I'm not entirely sure. Should the older version referenced in the article be replaced by the newer version if they are indeed the same book? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

These are the same books from amazon.co.jp: 1983 version and 2009 version. In addition to the publishing companies, the number of pages and isbn-13 numbers are also different. The 2009 version also includes a forward by Sam Sloan and lists him as a coauthor. The Japanese titles of books are pretty much the same. My guess is that the 1983 version was based on a shogi lecture that Aono probably did for NHK-E, but any reference to this was dropped from the Ishi Press version (at least from the cover). - Marchjuly (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Dragoon

Hi,

I am going to revert this edit because I don't feel dragoon is the term used by most English materials on shogi. For example, Hosking uses dragon-king on page 11 of his Art of Shogi and although I no longer have their books, I believe John Fairbairn and Trevor Leggett use the same term as well. Moreover, I have never seen the term dragoon used to describe this piece in any shogi-related materials or on any shogi-related websites. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, the Japanese kanji are always translated into English as dragon. Maybe dragoon is an alternative spelling of dragon? Even if it is, we should stick with dragon since that is the term used throughout the shogi article and through out other shogi-related articles such as Ryu-oh. Unless it can be cited that dragoon is the preferred usage, this change should not be made. If others feel differently, then please discuss. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

References (cleanup)

Hi,

There is some inconsistency in the format used for the the dates and access dates in the references throughout the article. I have helped contribute to this by using the DD MM YYYY format. MOS:DATEUNIFY says the same format should be used and WP:CITEVAR says that we should defer to the format chosen by the first primary contributor as long as there is no consensus to change formats. I've tried finding the first primary contributor to add a reference, but have had no luck so far. It appears that early on urls were just added without templates or dates. Maybe the best thing to do is to just agree upon a particular format to use. Anybody else have any suggestions. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Year JSA founded.

There are two places in the article where the year the Japan Shogi Association was founded is mentioned. Both of these mentions cite exactly the same page of the JSA's official website. The first one is in the Shogi#History which says the following:

In 1909, the Shogi Association (将棋同盟社?) was formed, and in 1924, the Tokyo Shogi Association (東京将棋同盟社?) was formed. This was an early incarnation of the modern Japan Shogi Association (日本将棋連盟?), founded in 1947.[12]

The second mention is in Shogi#Tournament play and is as follows:

The JSA is the primary organization for men and women's professional shogi and was founded in 1924.[14]

The "Tournament play" section originally did list 1947 as well, but I changed it with this edit. I did not notice at the time that the same link and information was also being used in the "History" section. If I had I would've probably changed it too. I don't 1947 is being incorrectly cited, at least not according to that JSA page, and that 1924 is the correct year. 1924 is indeed the year that the "Tokyo Shogi Association" was formed, but even though the name is different, this is the year, not 1947, the JSA considers that it was founded.

The "Tokyo Shogi Association" changed it's name to the "Japan Shogi Association" for the first time in 1927. It continued to use this name until 1936, when it changed it's name to "Shogi Taisei Association". This was used up until 1947, when the name was changed back to the "Japan Shogi Association". This is all the cited JSA page says. It does not say it was founded in 1947. The same page does, however, go on to say that the JSA celebrated its 創立75周年 (75th Anniversary) in 1999, its 創立81周年 (81st Anniversary) in 2005 (this was really significant because a shogi board has 81 squares) and its 創立90周年 (90th Anniversary) in 2014. The word 創立 (sōritsu) means founding, establishment, etc. and none of these anniversary dates would make any sense at all if the JSA considered is founding year to be 1947; They literally do not add up. They do make sense, on the other hand, if 1924 is the year the JSA considers itself to have been founded. The "Art of Shogi" by Hosking (and perhaps some other books as well) also makes reference to "1947", but I believe now as when I first read that book that the year 1947 is misleading. The problem then becomes how reliable does Wikipedia consider the JSA's official website to be according to WP:PSTS. I think it's probably as reliable a site as we are going to find, but I am interested in hearing what others say. For what it's worth, the JSA's Japanese Wikipedia article pretty much follows the timeline given on JSA's official website. There is also this archived JSA page which gives a list of the some of the events it was planning to celebrate its 81st Anniversary as well as this Kyodo article and this blog post by shogi professional Takayuki Yamasaki which talk about the 81st Anniversary Party held in Osaka in November 2005. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Sub-commander Kozou Fuyutsuki

For the same reasons given in Talk:Shogi#Shikamaru Nara of Naruto, I am not sure how any of the information about "Rebuild" or "Sub-commander Kozou Fuyutsuki" improves the reader's understanding of shogi or shogi in pop culture. This seems to be nothing more than another trivial mention of shogi and anime per WP:IINFO. Also, it is not sourced so per WP:UNSOURCED it can be removed. Unlike the "Shion no O", etc. information, nothing of significance is being claimed so simply adding adding a {{citation needed}} seems inappropriate. Please discuss if you feel differently. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Shikamaru Nara of Naruto

Not sure how this edit made by 199.126.36.103 is an improvement. In my opinion there are three problems with it.

1. The forst problem is that this edit does not seem to add information designed to improve the reader's understanding of shogi, or even shogi in popular culture. So, Shikamara Nara of Naruto has never been beaten in shogi. How does knowing that improve the reader's understanding of shogi? It may improve their understanding of Shikamara Nara or of Naruto, but not shogi or shogi impact on popular culture. Seems like nothing but a trivial bit of information that doesn't improve the article per WP:IINFO and WP:WONTWORK
2. The second problem is that this edit does not seem to be accurately reflecting the source it is citing. The source says, "Well-noted for his strategic and tactical skills, he is most commonly seen winning in games requiring a methodical approach like shōgi, having never lost to Asuma.". The source does not say that Shikamaru has never been beaten in shogi. I have no idea as to Asuma is. I am assuming Asuma is another character from Naruto. Even if this information was important to understanding shogi's impact on popular culture, "having never lost to Asuma" and "having never lost" are quite different in meaning. This seems to be unintentional synthesis or original research of what the cited source is really saying. So, the verifiability of the information added is not clear.
3. The third problem is the cited source itself. This Naruto Wiki is a user generated source, so there is some question as to how reliable it is per WP:RS. UGCs, which includes wikis, may be used as sources if the "material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." I looked at that page and that site and could find no such statement. I did find lots of inline citations to various pages of Naruto, but none of them were specifically related to Shikamaru Nara having never been beaten in shogi. If the cited source is not reliable, then the information added becomes problematic per WP:UNSOURCED. If the source was the only problem, then adding a {{citation needed}} would probably be OK. However, as stated in one and two above, there are other problems as well so just adding a template does not seem an appropriate course of action.

Popular culture references should be information that improves the reader's understanding of the relationship of shogi to popular culture. They should be things that show how popular culture significantly affects shogi or how shogi significantly affects popular culture. I am not familiar at all with Naruto, but I am aware that shogi plays some sort of role in its narrative. So, any information added should show how shogi has impacted Naruto or vice versa. If Naruto's impact on shogi's popularity is significant and can be properly sourced, then add that. If shogi is a critical part of understanding Naruto and that can be properly sourced, then add that. Plot summaries or simple statements about a particular character's attributes may work well in Wikipedia articles about Naruto or Shikamaru Nara, but they don't work well in this article. Please discuss if you feel differently. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: The subject of Shikamaru has already been brought up on here six years ago on "Talk:Shogi". I didn't check the archives like I should have per WP:EXHAUST so sorry for the double thread. Anyway, I am not sure how to combine the two threads or whether it is even appropriate to do so in this case. If another editor does know how then please feel free to do so. Just be advised that my edit sum to this edit does specifically refer to this particular talk page post. Now regarding the archived post, it says Can someone please put a Shogi in pop culture here, so i can read about how well Shikamaru Nara can play it. In my opinion, this kind of information is not what Wikipedia is about at all. Shikamaru is a fictional character which means that their shogi playing ability is also fictional, and thus cannot possibly be verified per WP:V. Moreover, such information seems more suitable for a Shikamaru fan page than a Wikipedia article. Again, if people feel differently, please discuss. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Date formats

I have eliminated inconsistencies in the "date" and "accessdate" formats found in the various citation templates used in the article. I have chosen the "day-month-year" format (e.g., 26 September 2014) per WP:CITEVAR simply because this was the format used in the oldest edit adding a citation still used in the article that I could find which used the "accessdate" parameter and a citation template. A post titled "References (cleanup)" suggesting this change was made on June 23, 2014 on this talk page. Since that thread has been recently archived without any response or comments, I am assuming per WP:SILENCE that it is now OK to go ahead and fix these inconsistencies. If anyone prefers a different format, please discuss. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Pop culture

Well it should be expanded: include drama, song, novel, past major manga works and so on. But besides that, on the current article. What means "the third party"? All three works are sold as "shogi manga" by their publishers (so advertized, in another word). Is it not enough?

Just for information, JSA picked up 81divers, 3gatsu no lion and "55 no ryu" (a manga classics) in one article http://www.shogi.or.jp/topics/2011/08/716i.html as "shogi manga". Not known if you are satisfied. "Shion no O" is a shogi manga defintely but its script writer Masaru Katori aka Naoko Hayashiba ex-female shogi player had a series of trouble with JSA, I wouldn't expect they refer to it favorably. --Aphaia (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Mochi goma

There are several Japanese terms in the article. Wouldn't "mochi-goma" (pieces in hand) be a term worthy of including also? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. There are two places where "piece in hand" is used: Shogi#Drops and Shogi#Winning. Maybe the Japanese can be added at the first mention. If it it's better to have the English term come first, then the mark up could be {{nihongo|"piece in hand"|持ち駒|mochi goma}} which looks like this "piece in hand" (持ち駒, mochi goma). If it's better to have the Japanese term come first, then the markup could be {{nihongo krt||持ち駒|mochi goma|piece in hand}} which looks like this 持ち駒 (mochi goma, piece in hand). If no readings are needed, then the simple "piece in hand ({{langx|ja|持ち駒}}) which looks like "piece in hand" (Japanese: 持ち駒) should suffice. I don't think we need to have both the kana and romaji if readings are to be used, but the kana can be easily added if others think it's necessary. - Marchjuly (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed info. I put it in the earlier section "Movement" which is first reference to pieces in hand, the best spot for it too since komadai is also introduced there. (Please check out the edit, since I made the English plural, assuming was okay to do.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I didn't even notice the other mention in "Movement". Nice catch. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Edo period notation?

The section on notation states that the notation based on Western chess algebraic notation is not used in Japan because "it is no more concise than traditional notation with kanji and two ciphers which was originated in Edo period". What is this traditional notation, and what does that passage mean by "ciphers"? It can't be the variation on algebraic notation using kanji instead of letters a-i for the rank discussed later, because arabic numerals would have been virtually unknown in Japan during the Edo period. Can anyone expand on this? — Gwalla | Talk 21:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gwalla. I've been trying to find an answer to your question, but so far I haven't had any luck. I am no expert on Japanese history, so I can't say exactly when Arabic numerals were introduced to Japan. The Japanese Wikipedia article for Arabic numerals says that during the 19th century their use had become established throughout the "Kanji-using countries" and Arabic numerals#Adoption in China says that were introduced to China as early as 1271 AD by Muslims and again in the 17th century by the Jesuits. Given that there was missionary activity in certain parts of Japan during that time, it's not totally far-fetched to assume those numbers were also introduced to Japan around roughly the same time. I do know that there is a sort of short-hand for game scores that is sometimes used in newspapers, etc. like this or this (sorry both links are in Japanese). Most of the really old game scores I've ever seen were written in the "Arabic number" + "kanji numeral" + "kanji" format, but they were probably rewritten. I'm not sure if that exactly answers your question, but I'll keep searching. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. There had certainly been missionary activity in the 17th century, but the missionaries were kicked out and Christianity was suppressed, with the only foreign contact allowed being Dutch traders at Nagasaki (since they weren't interested in converting people, just in making money). It seems unlikely that they would have been adopted for something as non-Western as shogi. Commodore Perry and the opening of Japan in the mid-19th century were technically Edo Period, but at the very tail end. — Gwalla | Talk 17:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Gwalla. It looks like that information was added here by Aphaia. Since the information is not cited and there was no editsum left, I can't really say why that was added to the article. I guess it could possibly be considered WP:OR, so you could just be bold and change it directly yourself or try and reach a consensus on this talk page first. Or, you could, if you want, leave a message at User talk:Aphaia talk and ask for a more detailed explanation. Maybe Aphaia knows of a source that could be added. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

r

Hi, I saw the original saying "it is no more concise than kanji" meaningless (at least I cannot guess what it had meant) and tried to change it to fit to the current system. The modern notation of shogi is Japan is as follows: it begins as

76歩　34歩

66歩　84歩　

68飛　62銀

16歩 14歩

every here three letter set (two numbers/ciphers and one kanji) represents where the given piece moves to, that is readers are expected to know its original place. For our 76歩, it settled in 77 (in some notation variant, it would be ７七 for readability).　I have no idea if it is more or less concise of chess notation, but anyway each move represents of two numeric letters and one kanji, not kanji only as the original saying suggested. Traditionally there were other type of notations: one of them assigned one particular kanji to each place, so our 76歩 would be called 春歩 instead, because the latter notation assigned the kanji 春 to the place today we call 76. In almost all well known shogi notations the destination of pieces and only it was noted, different from chess, as far as I know, but I don't have sources at hand, sorry. The modern notation could be find in Shogi Association website, if you would like to add a detailed and cited description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aphaia (talk • contribs) 00:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC+9)

(Added signature and fixed the indentation of this post to make this discussion easier to follow per WP:TPO - Marchjuly (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC))

Eh? The usual notation for chess also only states the piece type and its destination square, except when that would be ambiguous, same as for shogi. (Perhaps a little different: in chess you would disambiguate using the starting file, failing which you would use the starting rank, and the starting square if both failed to resolve the ambiguity. Shogi would use the entire starting square in any ambiguous cases.) Double sharp (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

So in Edo-period notation each square of the board had a particular kanji assigned to it? Interesting. Do you know if large-board variants used a similar system? — Gwalla | Talk 17:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

(Fixed indentation of this post to make this discussion easier to follow per WP:TPO - Marchjuly (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC))

Good question. I don't know but try to find information. --Aphaia (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

User generated sources and YouTube videos

I've removed the following as references because they are just links to discussion board forums or personal websites and, therefore, do not seem to be acceptable as reliable sources per WP:UGC

1. "Topica Email List Directory" - links to some archived version of an email; Information may be true, but is the author a recognized authority.
2. Shogi Pineapple - link given in article is dead, but this archived version shows that it is just to some online discussion board. Again information may be true, but are any of these people recognized authorities.
3. "Lucky Dogs Games" - links to personal website, which may contain copyrighted images and other information.
4. "Rules and Manners of Shogi – 81Dojo Manual" - links to an open Wiki which seemingly can be edited by anyone who registers for the site.
5. "The Basic Rules, par. 2" - links to personal website which apparaently is reproducing material written by another person.
6. "Grades and Handicaps" - links to archived page for online forum/personal website
7. "Shogi Rules" - links to archived page for online forum/personal website

I have also removed the following links to YouTube videos per WP:YOUTUBE because for possible copyright considerations. Not only regarding the videos themselves, but also the YouTube video appearing on the right side of the page which also may be copyrighted.

1. "How to play Shogi(将棋) -Lesson#15- Repetition ('Sen-nichi-te')"
2. "How to play Shogi(将棋) -Lesson#16- Impasse"

All of the above was done in good faith and I feel in accordance with WP:RS, etc. If anyone feels that any of the above deserves to be re-added, then please discuss. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Dragon horse used to be agate dragon?

On [2] it says that the dragon horse used to be an agate dragon: "The diagonal slider is here an "Angle Goer". Its move is exactly as the European Bishop. Its promoted form is a Ryuuma or Dragon Horse moving like a Bishop or stepping 1 space orthogonally. It is often named just Uma, simply meaning Horse. Etymologically, it was a Ryumeno, meaning Agate Dragon." Unfortunately I could not find any other sources to corroborate this. Is there anyone who knows more about this? MarSch (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure where they got their information from, but the character 馬 (uma) (meaning "horse") in 竜馬 (ryūma) (or its older version ) has a couple of different on-yomi. The most common (standard) one is ば (ba), but there are also non-standard readings such as ま (ma) and め (me). Apparently ryūma can take the meaning "fast horse" when read as "ryūme" in addition to the "promoted horse" shogi meaning. The word "Agate" in Japanese is menō which can be written in kanji as . One of the components of the character is and the other is (which can mean jade/jewel). Agate is jewel-like, isn't it?　So, I guess it's entirely possible that at one point in time was written as , pronounced as "ryūme", and taken to mean "dragon agate/agate dragon". Over time it just was changed to what is more commonly known today as 竜馬 (ryūma). Total OR on my part, but it doesn't seem totally implausible. Just for reference, googling or got me a hit for the name of a race horse and for pages of dragon-motif jewelry/good-luck beads that appear to be connected somehow to feng shui. You can try asking at WP:RD/L since editors really knowledgeable about languages often hang out there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion and interesting information. I have asked on the reference desk. MarSch (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)