Talk:Go (game)/Archive 9

Moving toward FA
With the copy editing in place, it really shouldn't be too much more work to move for an FA nomination again. I can probably spend some time on it in the coming weeks. If anyone has suggestions on work that needs to be done, please post them here HermanHiddema (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

We are never going to get there, nobody does any work :)--ZincBelief (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Usage of CJK terms in the lead
Personally, I think the big problem with the article is the intro section, which has no narrative flow, and is encumbered by non-essential points (e.g. the whole of "Go reached the West through Japan, which is why it is commonly known there by its Japanese name. Additionally, many Go concepts for which there is no ready English equivalent have become known by their Japanese names." is not relevant to someone trying to get an overview of the game from the intro). The opening paragraph with all the CJK stuff is also really off-putting to the vast majority of English Wiki readers who don't know CJK. Perhaps the opening para should simply state that the game is known as weiqi/go/baduk in CJK (without any CJK characters), and give the details in a new section on the name of the game. In short, I think that the intro needs to be completely rewritten from scratch to give a succinct and readable overview of the game to the casual wiki-reader -- because it is the intro section that will be visible if it ever gets to FA status. BabelStone (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That is there because people question why Japanese terms are used, it can be moved downwards I suppose.--ZincBelief (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made an attempt. I've moved the complete Chinese traditional/simplified/pinyin/wadegiles thing to the Chinese history section, and have moved the Korean to the Japanese/Korean history section. I've kept the Japanese Kanji in the lead, as well as the mention about the terminology, to prevent people getting confused by Japanese terms before they know what's going on. HermanHiddema (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that is much better, but given that the intro section does not include any Japanese terminology I still do not think there is any need for the long "Go reached the West through Japan, which is why it is commonly known there by its Japanese name. Additionally, many Go concepts for which there is no ready English equivalent have become known by their Japanese names." section at this point. From the point of view of someone trying to get an overview of the game it is a not very useful distraction. Knowing that "Go is played by two players who alternately place black and white stones ..." is far more important, I think.
 * How about adding a new Terminology section as Section 1 before Rules ? BabelStone (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have made a further effort. I don't think the terminology issue is important enough to merit its own section. I have now added the note to the intro of the rules, since that is where the first such terms are introduced (ko, seki, etc). HermanHiddema (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I added back the single kanji for go because without it readers may wrongly assume that game is named after the English verb BabelStone (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * hello - I undid the kanji without reading here first - I believe that it shouldn't be there - seeing as "Go" is the english word for it and "igo" is the japanese word. I would say that reading the whole introduction would clarify that it is not based on the English verb.  just out of interest - are the japanese and chinese characters used to represent it identical?  Whitehatnetizen (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Chinese weiqi 圍棋 = Japanese igo 囲碁 (basically the same characters, just written differently and pronounced differently), but in Japanese igo is usually abbreviated to plain go 碁. BabelStone (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * also at the end of the second paragraph - there is an note refference explaining that the english word is based on the japanese reading. I'm of the (humble) opinion that if we're going to put any non-english characters in the intro, then it should be there for all three (CJK).  thoughts?  Whitehatnetizen (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a difficult one -- we just took all the CJK characters out because they are too intrusive in the opening paragraph, but then I feel that it is not right not to give the Japanese character for the English name. BabelStone (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ahh - now I understand that the english is really a commonly abreviated japanese word, then it makes a whole lot more sense - you're probably right. perhaps if we move the second sentance of the second paragraph into the first paragraph ("Go reached the West...") with the footnote, then it would assist in clarifying? hmm it's a delicate thing... Whitehatnetizen (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Organization of sections
There are a few sections that might be better if they were moved around a bit. For example, the "Software Players" and "Software Assistance" subsections would perhaps be better placed under the "Computer Go" section. The sections on tactics and strategy might be better placed closer to the discussion of the rules. Captainfwiffo (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Damn. Well spotted. That was the way it was supposed to be, but someone (lyctc) reordered really badly the article it in december. I thought I fixed all that back then, but apparantly missed this one. Thanks! HermanHiddema (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

History paragraph in the lead
I expanded the history paragraph to add some (hopefully) interesting and informative details, and also casually mentioning the transmission of Go to Korea and Japan. I also moved it the end of the intro section so that it does not interrupt the discussion of how the game is played (starting with "Go is noted for being rich in strategic complexity despite its simple rules ..."); and also because mention of the historical board size needs to go after the basic description of the game. BabelStone (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The addition, reading "by the 5th century BC it was already considered a worthy pastime for a gentleman, as indicated by a reference to the game in the Analects of Confucius" is perhaps a bit dubious. The mention in Analects is actually not very positive about the game, is it? :-) HermanHiddema (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Although Confucius is not positively advocating playing bo 博 and yi 弈 (personally I'm not convinced that in the time of Confucius yi does refer to the game of Go, but I seem to be the only one in world who has any doubts about that), he does say that playing such games are much better than being idle, which is some sort of an endorsement of the games as worthwhile activities for a gentleman (君子). I guess changing worthy to worthwhile might be an improvement. I ought to add a reference as well. BabelStone (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The lead should not contain references. It summarizes the article, so the appropriate content and reference should be in the article. In this case, the content is in the "Origin in China" section, and the reference is John Fairbairn's "Go in Ancient China". JF's translation of the passage in question: "It is difficult for a man who always has a full stomach to put his mind to some use. Are there not players of [liu]bo and go? Even playing these games is better than being idle." The way I read that, playing go is just one step up from doing nothing. Not as bad as idleness, but not very good either. I don't really see a very strong case here for calling it a "worthy/worthwhile pastime for a gentleman". :-) HermanHiddema (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * JF's translation is rather inaccurate, but I'm not going to argue about Confucius' attitude to Go from a single sentence, so I changed "it was already considered a worthy pastime for a gentleman" to "it was already a popular pastime", which I think is appropriately neutral. (I hope that you agree that it must have been a popular pastime or Confucius would not have used it as an example). BabelStone (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, popular is an appropriate term there, I'd say. I've updated it to read "3rd century BC" instead of "5th century BC" to stay in line with the content of the "Origin in China" section and the reference used there. HermanHiddema (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that 3rd Century is a very late possible date for the passage in question given the putative dates of Confucius (551 BC – 479 BC) and the fact that the Analects article states that the book was written sometime during the period 479 BCE - 221 BCE. BabelStone (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The reference for this, Bruce E Brooks, estimates a date of 270BC for book 17 of Analects, which is where the passage occurs. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

ALT tags for board representations
Currently SVG icons are used to represent the board states in diagrams. These have ALT="", which is extremely unhelpful.

Please add (say) ALT=" " for an empty position, ALT=" O " for white and ALT=" X " for black, with parens ALT="(O)" to show the current move. This is in line with the representation used by gnugo's character-cell interface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.7.155.64 (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As I remember it, according to web protocol the alt tag should simply say "Diagram of a position" --ZincBelief (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Each diagram is built up with dozens of images, each representing one intersection. So although an alt text of the form "Diagram of..." would be the right way to go for the entire diagram, it does not make sense a the alt text for every intersection. The above suggestion might work, but would still require something to be though up for empty intersections (of which there are 10 types: corner (4), edge(4), center and star point). One way to handle them would be to us something like " " or " . " for all of them, but then there would be no way to distinguish between corner/side and center diagrams. Then there's markers (triangles, squares, circles) and letters on either stones and empty intersections, further confusing the issue. A genuinely hard problem, I see no easy answer. HermanHiddema (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

names of "go"
4 points here:

1. the kanji in the intro have been a part of the article for an extended period of time; now they have been dropped almost unilaterally, without proper discussion.

2. "go" is almost certainly the dominant/most common english name for the game, but it is NOT the only one. the fact that "go" is easily confused with the common english verb, to which it is unrelated, also makes clarity & precise definition more important here (what abt adding an IPA, and/or ogg file, to illustrate the subtly different pronunciation?).

3.standard wp & common practice allows for the use of non-english characters in articles like this.

4.given the complex history of the game & names for it, the fact that ALL the common names used for the game in english are transliterations from east asian languages, & "go" is not the original name of the game, this material belongs in this article. if somebody wants to do a separate article about "names of go", feel free; i'll be glad to work on it.

this is the main article about the game, & this is not simple english wikip; taking out this material diminishes the quality of the article considerably. this is moving us AWAY FROM feature article status, NOT toward it.

(the intro, as a whole, is kind of a mess actually; recent edits have not made significant improvements. i'm sorry, but it's true... )

Lx 121 (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Largely disagree -- the recent changes have made the intro much more readable in my opinion. However, I think that you may be right that the CJK should be put back, but in a less intrusive way than it was previously. BabelStone (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

1. What constitutes proper discussion? Babelstone proposed it, ZincBelief supported moving it down, and I implemented it. Given that those are three of the most active editors of the article, I don't really see a problem.

2. Go is, in fact, the only official English term for the game. I do not think you will find baduk, weiqi or igo in any English dictionary. Those terms are used sometimes, but almost always in a context which has to do with the country of origin of the term.

3. Yes, and they have not been removed, only moved down.

4. The material is in the article, but I do not think it needs to be in the lead. The lead should summarize the article, and not go into detail on anything. Mentioning weiqi, igo and baduk in the lead is proper because those are redirects to the article, but the lead is not the place for going into detail on those names.

Note that the material has not been removed. I have only moved it around, so that now the Chinese name is mentioned in the section on its Chinese history, and the Korean/Japanese names in the section on Korean/Japanese history of the game. Seems to me that that is the proper place for it. HermanHiddema (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * On reflection I think that it is important to address the name of the game in the opening paragraph, as readers will want to know where the name comes from and what it means (cf. the articles on Xiangqi and Shogi), so I'd like to propose the following text for the first paragraph of the intro:
 * Go is a strategic board game for two players. The Japanese name for the game, igo (囲碁), usually abbreviated to go (碁), as well as the corresponding Chinese name from which it derives, weiqi, means the "board game of surrounding". In Korean the game is known as baduk (hangul: 바둑).
 * and move "Go is noted for being rich in strategic complexity despite its simple rules" to the start of the second paragraph. I think that the above suggested text is informative without the CJK being overly intrusive. BabelStone (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the French Article on Go which has a nice infobox with all the names of Go in various languages and orthographies. I think that it would be a good idea to add such an info box to our Go article -- it would make all the details of names easily accessible at the top of the page without cluttering the prose of the article. What does everyone think ? BabelStone (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Too much space?
Why is there so much space between the intro paragraph and the TOC?

kibi (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing this, so I guess it is a browser issue. I do remember that some versions of Internet Explorer have some kind of problem where they refuse to put some boxes next to each other, and push the TOC to below the infobox and the foreign character warning box. Which browser are you seeing this with? HermanHiddema (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Summary style
With the article at 90K, further efforts should be made to place material in subarticles with a correct use of "summary style". This main article shouldn't be getting into certain detailed matters, such as ko fights (for example). Charles Matthews (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I found the discussion of the difference between area and territory scoring rules to be one candidate for streamlining. Equipment and the muddy waters of the Strategy and Tactics sections are other safe bets. --HogweedRapture (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

History of Scoring Systems
I don't know whether HermanHiddema or Reagle is correct, but I have reverted Reagle's latest change as it makes no sense to me. If territory scoring is the older system (as Reagle's latest edit states) but it was only invented in the 15th century (as Reagle's latest edit also states), them what scoring system was used before the 15th century, and when was area scoring invented? You can't make the changes you did unless you address these two questions. I suggest we try to achieve consensus on this issue here before making any further changes to this paragraph. BabelStone (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The quoted reference for the paragraph, http://www.gogod.co.uk/NewInGo/C&IP.htm, goes into much detail on the usage of Territory Scoring in ancient China and the introduction of Area Scoring around the 15th century. More on this can also be found in "THE HISTORY OF RULES CHANGES IN BADUK" by John Fairbairn, presented at the 4th International Conference on Baduk (ICOB). Unless someone comes up with better references that claim differently, the paragraph should remain as is (content wise, if someone wants to improve the language or readability, by all means go ahead). HermanHiddema (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is a good reference, and the content of the paragraph should not be changed unless there is a reliable source that disputes Fairbairn's conclusions. Incidentally, I have added a section on "Group Tax" to Rules_of_Go as it does not seem to be mentioned anywhere, but I'm not sure if that is the right place to put it. BabelStone (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My edits were only an attempt to clarify confusing introductory text. I'm no expert on scoring, and came to this page to learn about it, but was confused by three things:
 * 1) "very occasionally" is poor English, and sounds equivalent to "frequently." I've tweaked this accordingly.
 * 2) In an introduction, I was frustrated to be reading two paragraphs of history with references to scoring systems not yet explained. We should include as concise a definition as possible.
 * 3) And those references were used inconsistently within those two paragraphs, as they were called by their descriptive and geographical names.  We should call them by area/territory (following the Davies convention) to avoid any confusion.

To the actual substance, when I looked at the provided reference, I’m not sure where the “15th century” claim came from. Most all references of a switch over are to books printed in the 1500s, so that’s the “16th” century. Perhaps this is the relevant text: “This book (also known as Riben Difeng, Japanese customs), was published in 1592~1593. It seems that the Chinese author had no memory of Chinese go being played the Japanese way. That pushes the date of the completed switchover, according to Yang, to around the middle of Ming (say, 1500).” Even so, when I look at other sources, this seems quite beside the point, for instance Olli Salmi says: “According to the available evidence this way of scoring was used throughout Chinese history until the first half of the 20th century, when Japanese go entered the country (Hé Yúnbō 2001). The modern Chinese scoring is a compromise between original Chinese scoring and Japanese scoring.” So I find the historical claims to be a muddle in any case.

All that said, here are my offerings for improved text. Aside from fixing “very occasionally” I won’t mess with the article text further and will let someone else tweak this and port it over if appropriate. Note, because I can't find a clear source about the history, I haven't included the 15th century claim here but I think the text is otherwise improved. Please use it, even if you want to add the 15th century claim to it.--Reagle (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There are two basic scoring systems used to determine the winner at the end of a game; they almost always give the same score. Territory scoring counts the number of empty points your stones surround plus the number of stones you captured. While it originated in China, it is most used in Japan and Korea today. Area scoring counts the number of points your stones occupy or surround and is used in China today.


 * In Western countries, players have in most cases customarily used territory scoring, though practice varies, particularly at an official level. New Zealand has long used area scoring, while national Go federations in the US, France and the UK have shifted more recently to an area scoring system. The later countries have adopted a counting method (a method of calculating the score) designed to resemble that of territory scoring—while nonetheless giving the same result as if the normal area counting method had been applied—so as to minimize the practical effect of the change.

Note that Olli Salmi mentions: "The score can be calculated before all the possible stones have been placed on the board, by territory, which was the custom in Tang and Song dynasties, or by area, which was the rule in Ming and Qing dynasties."", supporting the assertion that area scoring was introduced during the Ming dynasty. But anyway, I have no preference for 15th or 16th century, the evidence seems to be somewhat vague on exact times, so either one will do, or a phrasing like "around 1500 AD" or "in about the 15th or 16th century" might be better. But anyway, as I've said before, I have no objection to improving the text like above. The reason I reverted was because your edits seemed to me to combine a rather small textual change with an outright factual error. So I thought the reason you edited was to make that factual change, and I did not understand from your edit summaries that you were merely trying to improve on the "very occasionally" phrasing and other textual matters. Please feel free to make further improvements. HermanHiddema (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The line you quote suggests that the most ancient method of counting score is actually the fill-in method, where "all possible stones have been placed on the board". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.89.1.32 (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, one suggested improvement: Instead of "they almost always give the same score", write "they almost always give the same result". The scoring methods give each players very different scores, but the "net score" (ie: difference between the scores of the players) will generally be very close, and in those cases that the "net score" differs, the result (win/loss) will very rarely be effected (I would estimate that the "net score" differs in about 50% of games, but that this affects the result in less than 2% of games). HermanHiddema (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for your help. --Reagle (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Psychology and go
I was bold and removed three statements (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Go_(game)&diff=296689814&oldid=296687620);

"Given the large search tree, knowledge and pattern recognition seem to be more important than look-ahead search." "Seems"? To whom? Important in what sense? This seems like original research, that the editor is writing about his own impression of things, instead of attributing it to a source.

"[source does not show difference between chess and go], probably due to the fact that both games engage pattern recognition mechanisms." Who estimated the probability? Where is the estimate? Again seems like the editors own hypothesis.

"[source shows right hemisphere used more for go], which suggests that Go calls upon intuitive functions more." This seems like a controversial claim. Is intuition the only function which uses the right hemisphere more? Also, the word "suggests" seems like poor prose. If the source really shows that go calls upon intuitive functions more, we can just attribute that directly, without such words.

I could not access any of the sources mentioned to check what they are actually saying; if they do indeed make claims as indicated in what I removed, this should be added back in, but with much better wording. I intended to put this talk section here when I made the edit, but forgot, thanks to sampi for reminding me. W (talk) 05:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well like I've said before, I think the first sentence should be changed to: Given the large search tree, it is likely that knowledge and pattern recognition are more important in Go than in other strategy games, such as Chess. It is clear that given a larger search tree, look-ahead search will be less effective than in other games with less possibilities. In recent developments in Computer Go we have seen programmers move away from brute-force methods (which partially worked in Chess) to pattern recognition and heuristics(for example). I would refer you to the Computer Go article but unfortunately it doesn't have many sources either :) I have found this source that supports the claim that look-ahead search is less effective in Go than in Chess. Please let me know if you find the reference appropriate.

About the second statement, I agree it should be removed. Both games do engage in pattern recognition algorithms but that doesn't mean that similar brain activity is associated with that fact. The study does not make this claim.

The third statement is just a matter of simple association of the right hemisphere with intuitive functions. This is supported by neuroscientific consensus. Just look at the (thoroughly sourced) graph found in this article. It is clear that right hemisphere activity is associated with: holistic, prosodic, intuitive, estimation and non-literal use of language skills. Linguistic, verbal and similar skills are not commonly associated with any strategic board game. If you want, you can add holistic and estimation skills.

Last but not least I would like to thank W for removing weasel words and looking for unverified claims. I fully support changing the wording. We are a little closer to WP:FA status now.

Thats my input :). Cheers--– sampi ( talk • contrib • email ) 02:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The neuroscience seems not to be culture-independent, though. The last I heard, they had found that Asian players used their brains differently from Westerners in playing. Whether or not that is then latest research, this kind of speculation is way off what should appear in a main article about a topic like go. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if y'all are looking for criticism about that section... The statements are entirely unobjectionable from a computer Go standpoint, but Sampi seems to have that covered. What I'd really like to see is any information about kids playing Go; there's a slew of studies about teaching kids chess with various benefits redounding, but I don't think I've ever run into any study conducted using Go instead. --Gwern (contribs) 02:46 26 June 2009 (GMT)

Neuroscience is not known to be a culture-dependent discipline. If Asian brains function differently in certain situations, it is more likely that they are using a different mix of rational/intuitive thought than that they actually employ those sections of the brain for different functions.

And yes, a study of the impact of Go on kids would be great! And not necessarily that difficult. No need for time-intensive special testing; just analyze data from report cards and achievement tests. The challenges would be, identifying valid Ss and controls, and getting consent from parents, and before that getting consent from schools to ask parents for consent. However, while we await those studies, there are enough similarities between chess and go to lend a certain "face validity" to the proposition that Go students would enjoy similar benefits. kibi (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, just correlating grades and Go-playing isn't very interesting. One knows in advance the answer: the smart kids play Go more than the others, and they get better grades. What one really wants is what the chess studies are doing - teaching one group chess and having a control group (perhaps doing extra classwork), so you can get some data on actual causation, and not just obvious correlation. --Gwern (contribs) 02:35 2 July 2009 (GMT)

Putting the children playing go subject aside, I re-added one of the statements with different wording. I noticed that the citation I was gonna use to support it is already added to the article so I just used ref name. The specific pages of the book that talks about pattern recognition and look-ahead search are 18-20. Let me know if anybody has any objections.--– sampi ( talk • contrib • email ) 09:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Random chance
Why is random chance said to be "Virtually None" in the article's infobox? I see that the one on the Chess article just says "None". Go is a deterministic, perfect information game. I think this should be changed. Any comments?--– sampi ( talk • contrib • email ) 05:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "None" was changed to "Virtually none" in this edit by an IP. In the same edit they also changed setup time from "None" to "1-3 min", which I think is not reasonable as placing handicap stones only takes a few seconds, and in non-handicap games there is nothing to setup at all. I think we should revert both setup time and random chance back to "None". BabelStone (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * agree with BabelStone. Make it so. RomaC (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Skills required: Strategy, tactics, observation
The line appears in the infobox. But observation? Really? I think that kind of goes without saying. Should we include it in the badminton and bull fighting articles too?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Baduk disamb.
I suggest that Baduk redirects to this article with an 'other uses' thingy in this article. It currently goes to a dab article with the game and a movie. Certainly 99.9% of searches intent to come here and not the obscure film, therefore a big waste of time for many. If nobody objects within a day or so, I will just go ahead and do it. Please forgive me if this has been covered before. Thanks.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I had waaayyyy too much coffee when I wrote that.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy
The section starts with ''A comparison of Go and chess is often used as a parallel to explain Western versus Eastern strategic thinking. Go begins with an empty board ...''. As if Go were the only game in the "East" and Shogi did not exist. While the claim in itself is strange, it is corroborated by one source only. The second part of the section, "three games", refers to another idea that comes from one source only, a Westerner, and neglects Shogi again. The musings and projections of some Westerners hardly deserve the caption "Philosophy", nor are they relevant. -- Zz (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I also don't see a reason why his point of view is relevant presented as it is. You could also argue that the use of specific types pieces in chess reflects how alchemy played a large role in Western thought (as did the opposition of the king and queen / male and female as two elements of nature). So that chess isn't so much 'man vs. man', it just reflects a belief in different elemental forces that all keep each other in check. The author thats cited seems to be a Japanophile so naturally he looks at the game in a particular perspective. If his perspective on this is popular and influential he should be cited as a popular and influential author on the game, instead of how it is with his views cited but his name absent except in the footnomtes.
 * Does anyone see a better solution than deleting the whole section (while maybe moving the reference to The Protracted Game elsewhere)? -- Zz (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think just removing Western and Eastern strategic thinking is sufficient. The statement without the burden of that segment is fairly valid comparison of the philosophy behind the two Chess (including all the variants Shogi/Xiangqi) and Go.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilsai (talk • contribs) 08:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * And just to add another point to the discussion, "an honestly ranked player can expect to lose about half of their games" should be removed. In any game with a fair ranking system, you can expect to lose about half of your games against an equally ranked opponent. To go from there to say that "therefore, Go can be seen as embodying the quest for self-improvement" - in other words, "Go must be special" - is nonsensical. Any fair game, regardless of complexity, will by definition have a 50/50 chance of victory against an equally skilled opponent. Go is no more the embodiment of the quest for self-improvement than rock-paper-scissors is. Commodore Pedantic (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The comment beginning "an honestly ranked player" is about more than players of equal ranking: it is also asserting that the handicap system works effectively to level the situation between players of different abilities. I hope the original comment is retained. 81.144.234.220 (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ye gads, I hadn't noticed that bit of piffle - it should absolutely be removed. In fact, I think I'll remove it right now! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any part of that "philosophy" section that wasn't empty piffle, so I removed both paragraphs. There's lots and lots of good, meaty stuff in this article; we don't need to pad it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Age
The article claims that Go is mentioned in the analects of Confuzius. Quotes are missing and the sources hardly refer to the claim as such. Further, no evidence is presented, that the reference to a boardgame is a reference to Go. The claim should be corrected or corroborated. If not, I will tag the article. -- Zz (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look here, thats the part of the Analects of Confucius where most people claim he mentions Go. The moder-day word 围棋(weiqi) is obviously not used. This was written thousands of years ago in Traditional Chinese. In order to understand the problem with the quote, you have to understand that translating the 2500-year old use of the word "弈" is kind of hard. It is the general consensus that he was talking about some form of chess. Based on the fact that Go seems to be the oldest chess-like game, historians and translators usually credit the Analects as the first historical reference to Go. I agree that this needs a more sources to support it, but I doubt we would find them in English. – sampi ( talk • contrib • email ) 13:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually weiqi 圍棋 is not just a modern term, but was the name of the game in the earliest sources that we can be 100% certain referred to the game of Go. Specifically, in the Shuowen dictionary compiled by Xu Shen 許慎 in about 100 CE the character yì 弈 is defined as wéiqí 圍棊 (I believe this is the first occurence of the word weiqi). The very fact that Xu Shen defines yì 弈 as weiqi 圍棊 makes me suspect that the game was originally called weiqi, and that Xu Shen may have just been guessing that yì 弈 referred to the game of weiqi. Of course, once Xu Shen defined yì 弈 thus it becomes a literary synonym for weiqi, but that does not tell us anything about what Confucius meant by the word. BabelStone (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * John Fairbairn mentions "Fang Yan" [Dialects] by the Han scholar Yang Xiong (53 BC - 18 AD) which he claims says: "Yi refers to weiqi. East of the Hangu Pass in the states of Qi and Lu everyone says yi." HermanHiddema (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was wondering why (and when) this source was removed. It talks specifically about Go in the Analects. Is it not a WP:RS? – sampi ( talk • contrib • email ) 14:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It wasn't removed, it is referred to as "Potter 1984" and "Potter 1985" in notes 18 and 20, and can be found in the Sources section (the article on kiseido.com is actually two articles combined, which were published two different issues of Go World, one in 1984, one in 1985). HermanHiddema (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Notwithstanding the fact that it was me who added in the sentence about Confucius to the article lede, I am personally very doubtful that the word yi 弈 used in the Analects and other pre-Han sources does actually refer to the game of Go:
 * (1) There is abundant archaeological evidence for the ancient Chinese board game of Liubo, with dozens of examples of Liubo boards having been found in Han and pre-Han tombs, dating as far back as the 4th century BCE. In contrast, only a single Go board has ever been discovered in a Han or pre-Han tomb, and that was a late Eastern Han tomb (late 2nd or early 3rd century CE). If Liubo and Weiqi were of equal standing as the quotation from Confucius suggests, then why is there so much archaeological evidence for Liubo but so little for Weiqi? Aside from the late Eastern Han stone Go board from Wangdu the only other early archaeological artefact to have been discovered is an undated fragment of a crude pottery Go board from a Western Han site (but as the board was not excavated from the main archaeological feature, without the benefit of thermoluminescence dating we cannot be sure that the board does not date to a later period). The absence of archaeological evidence for Weiqi contrasted with the abundance of archaeogical evidence for Liubo suggests to me that at the very least Weiqi was not a very popular game before the Eastern Han dynasty.
 * (2) None of the pre-Han sources use the term yi 弈 in a way that can certainly be understood as meaning the game of Go. Again we can contrast this with the situation for Liubo, where pre-Han sources such as the Chu Ci give concrete descriptions of the game of Liubo and how it is played.
 * For these reasons I think we should be very cautious about dating the origins of the game of Go to the time of Confucius or earlier. In fact I once changed the article lede to state that Go originated in China, where it has been played for at least two thousand years, on the basis that is the best we can be certain of from the archaeological and documentary evidence. However, I am definitely in a minority with regard to my conservative dating of the origins of Go, and the consensus of editors of this article seems to be that "more than 2,500 years ago" is appropriate (and even so, it frequently gets changed to 4,500 years ago by IP editors). BabelStone (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In answer to the issue raised by Zz: The mention of Go in Analects is quite well referenced, actually. It is supported by note 20 "Potter 1984; Fairbairn 1995". Both those sources can be found in the "Sources" section, and both are available online. Both mention that go is the correct translation, and Fairbairn actually goes into some detail on why the word yi 弈 used in Analects does refer to go (in section 5 of his work). HermanHiddema (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the archeological evidence is a bit scarce and we cannot say for certain that Go was played in 5 century BCE. However, many sources attribute yi 弈 to mean Go, and we should stick to whatever the sources say, regardless of our opinion. We can play with the language so it's clear that it's not certain that Confucius was talking about Go. What do you guys think? – sampi ( talk • contrib • email ) 10:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So, there is a term of unclear reference in the Analects. Go lovers assume it means Go, although there are other board games around. I propose a wording alone the lines of "some/several scholars assume that a term in the Analects refers to Go". -- Zz (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note that our conventions are not to debate the status of the reference, but to report the claims in other sources that it is a reference to go. If there is a scholarly source casting doubt on this point, then of course we should also mention that claim. It is not a help just to weaken the assertion simply on "suspicion". Charles Matthews (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * When there is no established scientific consensus, it is possible and good practice to state that this is the opinion of researchers. The fact that the attribution of the word is unclear is relevant. However, it might be misplaced in the article about Go and should rather go to the article on the History of Go.-- Zz (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to go with Charles' point here. Even though other sources often translate the word as simply "chess" or "board game", no source makes the specific claim that Confucius was not referring to Go. The sources in the article specifically deal with Go and provide evidence and analysis. We cannot change the article unless we have sources to support the changes. However, like I mentioned before, I do believe that we can change the wording to acknowledge the fact that it might not refer to go and that it remains uncertain what Confucius actually said. – sampi ( talk • contrib • email ) 04:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Go is also referred to, albeit negatively, in Sun Tsu's The Art of War circa 6th Century BCE. Valid for inclusion here (once I find the reference)? Or better in the History of Go article? Iblis.Bane (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is certainly better not to overburden this article with more than the "consensus" position, and transfer all other discussion of the point to the article on the history. It's exactly what the is designed for. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Literature, Television & Film
Aware of several other examples of Go in modern literature, two in which it is of minor importance, one in which it is of fairly major importance. All by well known authors. Worth adding to this section? Or unneccessary? Iblis.Bane (talk) 09:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Huge outdoor Go-board-in-ancient-Fenghuang-city
I came across a site - http://www.361points.com/blog/2009/10/30/huge-go-board-in-ancient-fenghuang-city/ - which readers may care to see. Also, I'd love it if editor(s) had time to link this (and poss. its photos?) into the main Go article. I see there's already - albeit via red-link at the moment - a place for Fenghuang on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenghuang_%28disambiguation%29.

Maybe it could be linked to from there, & cross-linked into the main Go pages?

Any volunteers? Best wishes in Go, Trafford09 (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

GO perfect play at all board size
A stealing-argument taught that since go board size is always odd numbers, consist of odd chances and have a perfect center in the board, this give an advantage to the black player (the starting player) that it can always win in a perfect play at all board size - by putting the first stone at the only center within the board and closely put the next stones near the enemy while preventing of being encircled or captured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.18.126 (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Mirror go is a very bad strategy, in fact. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mirror go is not necessarily a bad strategy, but there is a caveat, it's not enough to just blindly follow your opponent. It's virtue is that it forces the other player to play correctly, as a slow move will be responded to by a symmetry-break. If you blindly follow your opponent, it's a terrible strategy, but some famous pro's have played it correctly to great success. User) 01:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that board sizes must be odd. 6x6 is very good for teaching complete beginners, for example. A good player can teach a large number of students at the same time by walking around the inside of a rectangle of tables, using 6x6 cardboard boards, making one move for each student and making maybe one quick comment before moving on. David spector (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
Several of these go pages use Sensei's Library as reference, which is a wiki that anyone can edit and therefor is unreliable. This article looks okay but some of the other ones do not (Rules of Go). I think S.L. should be removed as a source and replaced with something else. 83.142.0.60 (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Case-by-case, I think. SL is fine for illustrations of many of the basic fighting concepts; and go books are often misleading. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Go (碁)
I am afraid that User:HermanHiddema seems to misunderstand the interpretation of WP:UEIA. It says " The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is widely known. When the native name is written in a non-Latin alphabet this representation should be included along with Latin alphabet transliteration. For example, the Beijing article should mention that the city is also known as Peking, and that both names derive from the Chinese name 北京.

Above sentence does not describes about a "foreign name" but an "English name". "Beijing" is not a "foreign name" but an "English name" and "北京" is a native name whose transliteration is "Běijīng". So does "Go". "Go" is an English name and its native name is 碁 whose transliteration is go. So above sentence can be read " As the native name "碁"is written in a non-Latin alphabet this representation should be included along with Latin alphabet transliteration go." Then Go (碁) is correct. However transliteration go is the same spelling as the English name "Go", it is omitted from the lead. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Phoenix7777. Although the Chinese, Japanese and Korean names are given in the side box, it is still useful to put in the kanji for Go on its first occurence to indicate to the reader that the name is a transliteration of a Japanese word, and not simply derived from the common English word. However you read WP:UEIA, it is clear that the lead paragraph should contain the native name corresponding to the English name (i.e. the common Japanese name). BabelStone (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Beijing case is different, Beijing clearly has a "native name", it being a city in China. Go is different. If anything is its native name, it would be WeiQi (it originates in China, after all). The fact that Go derives etymologically from the Japanese word Go (碁) is not the same. We don't list "anchor" as having the native name ἄγκυρα (the original Greek), or "vodka" as having the native name водкa (the original Russian). Such words have entered the English language, and are now normal English words. I think it is fine to mention that Go derives etymologically from Japanese Go (碁), short form of Igo (囲碁), which derives from Chinese WeiQi (围棋). That's telling the whole etymological background. Right now that is done in a footnote, but maybe it deserves a more prominent place than that. But I see no reason to describe the game as being named Go (碁) when it also has a perfectly fine English name: Go. HermanHiddema (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * First, a native name is not necessarily the original name. the native name of Go is apparently go (碁). Of course, original name is WeiQi (围棋).
 * As for the recognition of an English name, as you seem to be a regular editor of Go and accustom to Go, you take it for granted that Go is an English name. However there are many readers who have not much knowledge about Go, it is beneficial for them to know Go originates from a foreign country. Please see Judo, Kendo, Sudoku, Bonsai, and so on. You may say those names are not widely accepted English names, however those who accustomed to them believe they are true English names. The argument that there is a dedicated section where etymology is fully described, so there is no need to put the native name to the lead is not correct. Because many readers tend to read just a lead only. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Those are widely accepted English names. Some of them are definitely natively Japanese, and say so in their lead ("...is a Japanese martial art"), for others, I think an etymological note would be more appropriate. HermanHiddema (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Go may be the game's English name, but the name is borrowed directly from Japanese, and thus 碁 is its native name (although not its "original name"). Most casual readers, who will often not get beyond the lead section, will assume that "Go" is derived from the English verb "to go", so I think it is important to make it clear in the opening sentence that the name is derived from Japanese, and give the corresponding kanji. That the name of this game is derived from Japanese is in my opinion an important fact, and it should not be something that readers have to discover in an etymological note. If ever this article reaches FA status then it will be the lead section that readers see on the main page, not the side box with the CJK names or the note on etymology. All other analogous articles, such as Shogi and Xiangqi, give the native name in the opening sentence, and I think that HermanHiddema is being unreasonable in opposing the inclusion of the native name in the opening sentence.
 * At one time the lede was almost unreadable because of the proliferation of kanji/hanzi/hangul and multiple associated transliterations, and I suggested removing them to make it read more fluently. Now that they are in a side box, there should be room for one little kanji. BabelStone (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to including the kanji, but to how it is presented. It should be part of an etymological note, and not be indicated as a "native name". Where to place that etymological note is an different matter. Personally, I think a footnote is fine, but I have no big objection to including a short note between parenthesis in the lead. HermanHiddema (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are some more examples. Alchemy, Angel, Apricot, Avatar, Bungalow, Gazelle, Guru, and Tariff ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, these show that there really is no consistent precedent on this. Alchemy gives two different language names, Angel gives an etymological note (translated), Apricot gives the Armenian name, unrelated to the English name, Avatar gives a native name, Bungalow give an an etymological note (derives from), Gazelle gives a native name, Guru gives a native name, and Tariff gives an etymological note (from). Other articles (such as [Vodka] or [Anchor]) do not put anything in the lead. But as they say: WP:OSE is not a good argument. There is a clear policy on this. The only issue is how to interpret "native name" in the policy. My interpretation is based on the word "native", which would mean its "birth name" or "local name in the country of origin", not "closest etymological ancestor". There is a difference between a lead staring "Go (碁) is a board game..." and a lead starting "Go (from Japanese: 碁 translit. Go) is a board game...". The first, in my opinion, is an indication that Go is a natively Japanese game. Compare "Judo (柔道)...is a modern Japanese martial art" (from the lead for Judo, my emphasis). The second, in my opinion, is an indication that Go is a board game whose English name derives from Japanese. HermanHiddema (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As Wikipedia guidlines and the precedent of other articles indicate that the native name should be included, and as HermanHiddema has not given any convincing arguments for not giving the Japanese name from which the English name is derived, I have put the kanji for go 碁 back in the lead sentence. However, I still think it is not right that the reader has to wait until the fourth and fifth paragraphs to find out that the game originated in China and spread to the West via Japan. I understand that Go is now an international game and so there would be objections to saying something like "Go is a Chinese/Japanese/Korean board game ..." but I am sure most casual readers would like to know from the beginning of the artiicle that the game was until the 20th century really only played in China, Japan and Korea. How about "Go (碁) is a board game for two players, originating in East Asia, that is noted for being rich in strategic complexity despite its simple rules." ? BabelStone (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to your proposal. I think Igo is also the common name. See . What do you think about it? ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "As Wikipedia guidlines and the precedent of other articles indicate that the native name should be included, and as HermanHiddema has not given any convincing arguments for not giving the Japanese name from which the English name is derived...". Here, you are making the interpretation that "native name" is the same as "Japanese name from which the English name is derived". And this is exactly what I disagree with. As I said above: My interpretation is based on the word "native", which would mean its "birth name" or "local name in the country of origin", not "closest etymological ancestor". HermanHiddema (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to give a proper etymological note, it should be something like: "Go (from 碁 (go) short form of 囲碁 (igo), the Japanese reading of the earlier Chinese 	围棋 (wéiqí)) is a boardgame..." But personally, I dislike such a long and clunky note in the text, and prefer to keep it in a footnote. I do not think that the etymological origin of the word go is of high enough importance (or interest) to most readers to include it in the lead like that. HermanHiddema (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the etymology of the name is of primary interest to many readers, and should be in the body of the article rather than a footnote. I don't want to see the opening paragraph cluttered up with the name of the game in three or four different languages with multiple transliterations for each, as it once was, but a short and concise statement of etymology could be unobtrusively added as long as we ensured that it stays simple (i.e. don't allow any more languages and/or transliterations to be added to it). My proposal for the opening sentence of the article would be:
 * "Go (Japanese go 碁 or igo 囲碁 from Chinese wéiqí 圍棋, roughly meaning 'board game of surrounding') is a board game for two players, originating in East Asia, that is noted for being rich in strategic complexity despite its simple rules."
 * I am not that happy with the English translation; it captures the modern sense of the name, but is etymologically incorrect as qi 棋/棊/碁 originally (Han and pre-Han) meant a game piece used in board games such as Weiqi and Liubo, not the board game itself. BabelStone (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally I have to say that I find the article to be disrupted by the constant insertion of pinyin, kanji and hangul into sentences. If I read an English encyclopedia page about a board game I am unlikely to find this material to be of much use. My own preference would be to move such terms into the 'child' articles where more detailed information can be offered. As it is, the current wikipedia page has a terribly disjointed feel, its a fact-fact-fact-clunky chain orientated type read. I don't want to say that these terms are unimportant, but they don't help present the main article in a good light. These terms belong elsewhere if you ask me. --ZincBelief (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Article too big now?
I just did a minor edit and got a warning saying the article is getting too big and might be better split into smaller articles. Your thoughts on that? Tayste (talk - contrib) 17:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good question. I wouldn't want to see it split further, due to loss of its status as a comprehensive overview. I do feel that the article has way too much historical detail, which could be moved and merged to the history article. IMO, it needs a few more definitions and a bit more discussion of fundamental tactics and strategy. These changes could leave the article slightly shorter. I don't see any advantage to reducing the size much more than that, in spite of automatic warnings. David Spector (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Good Article Status
I noticed today that Good Article Status had been taken away from Go. However there appears to be no indication of any review or discussion on the Go homepage. That seems very strange to me. Does anyone know what happened and why it happened. Part of the reason I withdrew from editing wikipedia was that the GA sweep team appeared to be acting slightly irrationally. Of course, some editors like to thrust self importance upon themselves, change the rules, and generally create something for themselves to do that has no worth, but they could at least surely tell us about it?--ZincBelief (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A Good Article Reassessment was carried out by User:David Fuchs in September last year. See Talk:Go_(game)/GA1. If you were not paying attention you could easily have missed it (as I did, evidently) as he only added a template to the top of the talk page, and did not add a new section announcing it on the talk page. BabelStone (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing he complained of was that the lead section was too long, and needed "condensing". My personal opinion is the opposite, and that the lead article needs expanding to give a more comprehensive overview of the game. All the featured articles I have seen have a quite expansive lead section, so I am puzzled by his criticism of the lead section being too long. BabelStone (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well his expertise seems to be in writing up Comic Book characters for FA status, so I'm not sure he's exactly a good judge. Anyway, here he appeared to act as judge, jury and executioner. I saw exactly one comment on the GA review page, pretty pathetic review there.--ZincBelief (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Had another look at the review page this morning, what do you think about the comments on Rules? Does the article drone on about the rules for too long?--ZincBelief (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Only if you are not interested in learning about Go, and are just reviewing an article you have no particular interest in. The rules are very important, and need proper treatment, which is what the article gives them. However, making the rules the first section of the article could be hard-reading for some. Maybe it would be better to reorder the rules after Equipment, so the reader is led more gently into the intracies of the game via History and then Equipment. BabelStone (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Advanced Strategy and Phases of the Game
I am in favour of wholesale deletion of the advanced strategy section, how about everyone else? It's too slim and of no use to the reader. Sacrifice is just a basic technique, not an advanced one. Playing a moyo game isn't advanced either. Poppycock! Also phases of the game, can anyone with a yose / chuban book please please please add in some references here? --ZincBelief (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They don't belong here, but if they were properly sourced they could be moved to the Go proverb article, which could do with a few examples. BabelStone (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Some food for thought on the phases of the game question -> From 200 endgame problems (abridged) 'The avg. game of Go takes ~230 moves to complete. This can de div. into 3 parts: scattering stones around (fuseki) in the opening, fighting in the middle game, and yose in the endgame. The opening can be splendid, but lasts 30 moves at most, and middlegame fighting, though lively, rarely continues beyond 100 moves. So the endgame usually takes up more than 1/2 the game.' This is slightly contradictory to the present text, but sinceit's a yose book it is probably biased. :)--ZincBelief (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Goal of the game
The article states that the goal of Go is "control". I replaced this with a definition of territory (surrounded empty intersections) along with a statement that whoever has more territory (and prisoners) wins. My edit was undone because it ignored Chinese scoring. The article's use of the undefined term "control" leaves it as murky as some other introductions to Go. A newcomer reads this and wonders "what is 'control'?" If they scan the article, they find no definition of "control" (because the closest Go term to "control", influence, has little or nothing to do with the goal of the game). All Go books I've seen emphasize territory over the capture of stones. Why can we not mention this up front? Go is a game of strategic and tactical balance with the goal of acquiring more territory than the opponent. Why can't we just agree to say this? Then a newcomer can understand the goal very clearly. While it's true that Chinese scoring is very different from Japanese scoring, the goal of the game is independent of the way the score is calculated. David spector (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fundamentally, regardless of which scoring method you use, the goal is to claim more than half the board (or at least more than your opponent does, in the case of seki). Chinese scoring makes this explicit, but the goal is the same under Japanese scoring when all's said and done. Tayste (edits) 23:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead gives what is a reasonable description. The body gives a more complete description. If you read the article I don't see why you should get confused.--ZincBelief (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Emptytriangle.com
There was a recent edit by an anon which added http://www.emptytriangle.com to the 'In culture and science' section. I'm not certain this is notable, but it's the most popular English-language webcomic that I know of which features Go, should we keep it? --– sampi ( talk • contrib • email ) 18:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, definitely not. The original edit was just an excuse to spamlink, and I have already deleted it. BabelStone (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Confusing definition and use of term "group"
This article uses the confusing term "group". It defines it as a chain of stones of the same color.

The usual term for this is "string". The useful (and usual) term when considering life and death is not the strings, but the groups, where "group" is defined as a set of one or more linked strings (a "link" is a diagonal, skip, small or large knight, or double skip gap between strings of the same color).

I'm not sure why the article uses this limited terminology, but I would propose that we change the article to use the more widely-used related definitions:


 * Stone
 * String (one set of all horizontally/vertically adjacent stones of same color)
 * Link (one of a set of particular defensible gaps between strings of same color)
 * Group (one or more strings of same color connected by unthreatened links)
 * Moyo (strings of same color farther apart than links with no opponent stones inside the 'imaginary territory' surrounded by the component strings) David Spector


 * There has been some discussion on this issue before (eg: Talk:Rules_of_Go and Talk:Go_(board_game)/Archive_6). Both "chain" and "string" are common terms for this concept, and both are unambiguous. The same thing is also casually called "group", but that term is ambiguous and should be avoided. I see no real reason to switch from chain to string, however. HermanHiddema (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Chain and String are not used at all outside of the rules. Anyway, I preferred the wordage before, using Chain and Group. The main page is not designed to give an arduous and complete course about the game. I think the language used is fine there. I don't see the need to say both Chain and String - that seems like overkill. Link is something I have never come across before. Your definition of Moyo is very inaccurate. :)--ZincBelief (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Post GA Review
Once we dreamed of FA status, then we were deemed not even worthy of GA status. Well, some thoughts from myself. Time Control and Game Recording - why are these under the equipment section? I think they should be moved down below into competitive play. The Rules section is too long, but how to go about shortening it? I think there is too much focus on the differences between Japanese and Chinese styles of rules. This is best shoved into the main Rules of Go article. The equipment section is said to be too long as well, not sure what to cut there though.--ZincBelief (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have corrected a couple of links and done some very minor condensation of passages. If anyone else would like to do more please indulge yourselves.--ZincBelief (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm also quite sad that we can't even meet the GA criteria, when we were once fighting for FA. The biggest problems according to the review seem to be the length of the Rules of Go section and the lack of sources in the Strategy section. Something tells me the latter is a much more difficult problem to deal with: finding reliable sources on this topic isn't very easy. I hope we can work together to get GA again. --– sampi ( talk • contrib • email ) 19:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Green Party Advert
Found Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvKO91CF7nA This advert from the Green Party of England and Wales is clearly the Game of GO. Once all liberties are exhausted, the dots vanish. Does this deserve a mention on either this page, the Green Party page, or not at all? Nickjbor (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See my response at the identical discussion at Talk:Green Party of England and Wales. We don't make reference to every occasion where a metaphor is used. Road Wizard (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Age Range
The "Age Range" in the info box is given as "3+", but an IP changed it to "5+", which has since been twice reverted. From personal experience, I agree that 3 years olds can play Go at a very basic level, but most do not have the concentration to play a full game on even a small board (in my experience they are more interested in making patterns with the stones on the board). I would think that "5+" is a more realistic age range. BabelStone (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there any sources to support either age? If we have no sources at all then it would be best to leave the field blank. Road Wizard (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just did a quick check & found this on Amazon: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Go-Game-Fantastic-Board-Strategy/dp/B000NHOFBA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=toys&qid=1272837946&sr=8-1
 * It suggests age 6+ for this product. Maybe it varies by stone-size? But I bet Japanese & Chinese start at earlier ages, if only to play simpler versions such as capture-go? Trafford09 (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty (no pun intended) of altering the Age Range line - please see if you approve. I've added 6+ and the above source reference. Trafford09 (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The info box is only eye candy. 5 years plus seems fine to me.--ZincBelief (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I take your point, that the info. box is less important than the main body. But without a source, obviously the fact was challenged.
 * As @Road Wizard said, some people prefer to see a source, even in the less-important sections.
 * I agree that a lower min. age may be more appropriate - perhaps between us all we can find a (sourced?) (lower?) alternative. Trafford09 (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Psychology
"White matter neuroplastic changes in long-term trained players of the game of "Baduk" (GO): a voxel-based diffusion-tensor imaging study" (full text available at link):

"'Currently, one of the most challenging issues in modern neuroscience is learning-induced neural plasticity. Many researchers have identified activation-dependent structural brain plasticity in gray and white matter. The game of Baduk is known to require many cognitive processes, and long-term training in such processes would be expected to cause structural changes in related brain areas. We conducted voxel-based analyses of diffusion-tensor imaging (DTI) data and found that, compared to inexperienced controls, long-term trained Baduk players developed larger regions of white matter with increased fractional anisotropy (FA) values in the frontal, cingulum, and striato-thalamic areas that are related to attentional control, working memory, executive regulation, and problem-solving. In addition, inferior temporal regions with increased FA indicate that Baduk experts tend to develop a task-specific template for the game, as compared to controls. In contrast, decreased FA found in dorsolateral premotor and parietal areas indicate that Baduk experts were less likely than were controls to use structures related to load-dependent memory capacity. Right-side dominance in Baduk experts suggests that the tasks involved are mainly spatial processes. Altogether, long-term Baduk training appears to cause structural brain changes associated with many of the cognitive aspects necessary for game play, and investigation of the mechanism underpinning such changes might be helpful for improving higher-order cognitive capacities, such as learning, abstract reasoning, and self-control, which can facilitate education and cognitive therapies.'"

--Gwern (contribs) 10:02 17 August 2010 (GMT)