Talk:Rules of Go

removing "any" versus "all" stones
As a newcomer to go trying to understand the rules, I found steps 2 and 3 of rule 7 confusing: "Removing from the board any stones...that have no liberties". Can the player choose how many of those stones to remove, or is the intended meaning, "Removing from the board all stones...that have no liberties"?

It becomes apparent later in the article that the intended meaning is all, not any. Even though the text is quoted from an (unofficial) external source, I recommend changing any to all throughout the article because for an introduction in an encyclopedia article clarity is more important than officialness.

Related is the wording at the beginning of Rule 7: "When it is their turn, a player may either pass...or play." Probably clearer would be, "When it is their turn, a player must either pass...or play." Contrast the following two combinations of text. "When it is their turn, a player may...remove from the board any stones...that have no liberties." "When it is their turn, a player must...remove from the board all stones...that have no liberties." IOLJeff (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

description of scoring rests on unclear definition of "dead"
I am not very experienced at Go, so things that may be obvious to most people reading this page may not be obvious to me. I hoped that this page would provide a clear and well-founded (non-circular) statement of the rules of play and scoring, without requiring prior knowledge. I have found that it succeeds in describing the *rules of play* in a self-contained way that I believe I understand, but it fails to describe the *scoring* in a way that I understand. I'm happy to restrict attention to "area scoring" for now (since I understand that "territory scoring" complicates the definition of end-of-game).

Please understand that I am in no way nitpicking or trying to be difficult-- I honestly do not understand the scoring of Go and I have not found a well-founded description of it, here or anywhere else.

I'll point out one key section of this page that I think would need to be cleared up in order for me to understand the scoring: it is the definition of "Dead" (upon which rests the definitions of Territory, then Area, then Score):

Definition. [23] ("Dead") In the final position, stones are said to be dead if the players agree they would inevitably be removed if the game continued.

The phrase "if the game continued" isn't clear-- continued from what point? Continued for how long? Continued with what additional restrictions on passing, if any? Continued with what frames of mind and goals of the two players? Possible interpretations of "if the game continued" that I can think of: 1) if the player who passed second had played instead   (so one of the possible continuation games consists of the game ending with two passes immediately afterwards) 2) if the player who passed first had played instead (so one of the possible continuation games consists of the game   ending with two passes immediately afterwards) 3) if the player who passed second had played instead,   and the game continued with neither player allowed to pass    unless they have no legal play, until there are two consecutive passes 4) if the player who passed first had played instead, and the game continued with neither player allowed to pass unless they have no legal play, until there are two consecutive passes

The phrase "would inevitably be removed" is similarly unclear. Possible interpretations of "would inevitably be removed" that I can think of: A) gets removed in every possible legal game proceeding from this point    (where "this point" depends on which of 1,2,3,4 is chosen above, and "legal game" means normal rules plus possible restrictions on passing, again depending on which of 1,2,3,4 is chosen) B) gets removed in every possible legal game proceeding from this point in which each of my moves is the move I would/might actually make if I were trying to win but the other player isn't C) gets removed in every possible game proceeding from this point     in which each move is a move an experienced player might actually make     if they were trying to win  D) gets removed in the game or games consisting of moves both players would actually make if they were both trying to win E) gets removed in every possible game proceeding from this point    in which each move is a move I would/might actually make     if my sole goal were to preserve the single stone in question     (if it's my stone) or to capture it (if it's the other player's stone) However, note that any occurrence of "win" in the above possibilities is problematic, since winning hasn't been defined yet, and can't be: the definition of winning will depend on scoring, which depends on the definition of "Dead" which is what we're in the process of defining here, so depending on the definition of winning here would be circular. So it seems this rules out interpretations B,C,D.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donhatchgo (talk • contribs) 06:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with this, and I have removed the reference to "dead" stones in the basic rules. 45.3.27.150 (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Inadequate definition of 'eye'
In §Seki, the definition of an 'eye' is too broad: a group of empty sections surrounded by one colour is clearly not an eye if it is large enough for a viable group in it. I do not know what the standard definition of this is (it is inherently quite complicated), but the article should at least mention this nuance. —Quondum 03:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Definition of territory
In the current state, the definition of a territory says:

"In the final position, an empty intersection is said to belong to a player's territory if all stones adjacent to it or to an empty intersection connected to it are of that player's color."

Shouldn't "or" be changed to "and", so that the new definition would read:

"In the final position, an empty intersection is said to belong to a player's territory if all stones adjacent to it and to an empty intersection connected to it are of that player's color."
 * I think that the or is correct, but the sentence could be rewritten to remove the and/or ambiguity. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 09:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)