Talk:Go (game)

---

Archives
2002-June 2004 June 2004-January 2005 January 2005-July 2006

Categorization

Go is right now listed in both Board games and Abstract strategy games. Everyone can find Go in both categories. There is no need for it to be listed twice in both categories. 2005 01:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've told you in another place. It may not be so since there are some cases (eg Monopoly (game)) which listed in multiple locations. Anyway, the case is not really settled as either party has its own interpretation on the policy, but I'm not going to repeat the same discussion here.--Wai Wai (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Result

I seeked a third-party judgement from a senior person who have more expertise in Categorization Policy. The result is it's good to add the Go article to all the related categories, including Category:Board games and Category:Abstract strategy games and Category:Go, which is the same as what others (eg Monopoly (game)) do.

For details of this judgement, see: Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Categorization:_.22Board_game.22_and_.22Abstract_strategy_game.22.

The following is the previous argument of each party on the interpretation of the "Categorization Policy" (Thanks to Falcorian for the initial copy):
--Wai Wai (talk) 07:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Previous argument about the interpretation of the "Categorization Policy"

Go category Comments made by your edit: [a]bstract strategy games is a subcat of boardgames I wonder if we should add the main category, in addition to sub-category. A few checks don't get me anywhere. Different pages do differently. Personally I think it's beneficial to add the article to the main category too since someone who search for board games may not notice abstract strategy games. It may miss that article in this regard. After all, it's no hurt to provide multiple ways to access to the same article. Some sorting/category trees do the same, placing the same link/resource in different possible categories. --User:Wai Wai When I reverted, I thought that was policy. I have since checked and it's not only a guideline, but also says "There are many cases where articles should be in both". So, basicly, having checked, and thought about it a little, I now agree that it probably should go in both places based on "When an article is put into a subcategory based on an attribute that is not the first thing most people would think of to categorise it, it should be left in the parent category as well." from Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories. --Falcorian (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC) As I've explained to User:Wai Wai, please follow the guidelines, and the work of countless editors before you. "In straightforward cases an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory" and this is as straightforward as it gets. The article is in a subcategory that is only a subcategory of a very general parent. Clearly we do not want to put all articles in higher level categories as it destroys the usefulness of categories and makes parent categories with thousands of listings. Thank you. (Added... also you both seem unaware there is a Category:Go, which is a subcategory of both Board games and Abstract strategy games. It should be clear that the individual entries in the abstract category for the Go article is redundant already, but ignoring the Go category completely and placing the article in parent and child categories too is completely inappropriate. The Go category exists for a reason.) I hope that helps clear things up. 2005 23:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC) After a second thought, it might be okay not to add the Go article in Category:Board games. It is because I forget Category:Go is listed already in Category:Board games, so the article Go may exempt from it. However this reason do not apply to other articles of board games like backgammon. They should still be included in Category:Board games.--Wai Wai (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC) After a check, it is not true. There are cases where it is listed in several places, eg Monopoly has been listed itself as a subcategory. It is also listed in various board-gamed-related field, namely "Party board games", "Board games", "Economic simulation board games". --Wai Wai (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Individual board games and category of board game Sorry to say, but what you say appears you haven't read the guideline before you make your judgement. You simply judge based on your own reasoning which is inappropriate. The reasons why your categorization method is wrong is as follows: From the sound of it, what you try to do is to avoid duplication. However the wiki policy has stated it prefers duplication to "1 article must be in only 1 category". You keep mentioning there is redundancy, as in "the individual entries in the abstract category for the Go article is redundant already". Again the wiki policy is written after the long discussion by many editors. As stated in the page, this policy has general acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. You shouldn't delete a cetegory simply because you don't like duplication/redundancy. It appears you don't understand why the category of Go and its related duplication are for, as you just keep it because "The Go category exists for a reason." If it were me who created the category and the duplication, you would have deleted it. They are here due to the "Topic Article Rule". You misunderstood the straightforward case. "Straightforward" is not the rule when you judge where to put your article. This word merely describe the case (the author thought it is easy to understand why. However the case is not straightforward as shown in your understanding to the situation). Actually the article does not specify the reason for this categorization. You may have imagined the reasons behind and made the wrong judgement. Maybe the article should rewrite to provide a better overview, so less misunderstanding will occur. The reason why the bridge case is similar to "Board games" vs "games". "Games" is the structure head of the category. People will not expect to find "Game of Go" when they browse at "Games". But this case does not apply when it goes to "board games" VS "abstract strategy games". I will explain it later. All these imply you haven't read the policy before making your own judgment. Don't get me wrong. I'm not criticising or blaming you. The reasons why I spend time on listing all these is to encourage you in revisting the WHOLE policy before making your judgement again. I have attempted to ask you to revisit, but you may be in a hurry, you probably just read the first introductory statement or so and perform the action. I guess you haven't read the WHOLE article once, have you? If negative, it would be great if you read the whole policy of Wikipedia:Categorization CAREFULLY (not just the sub-topic which I mention previously). As a reminder, judgement should be made based on the reasons given in the policy, but not one's own. Next time, if similar things appear, please back up your decision with citation of specific statements of the policy, not just the policy name because we have arguments within the policy. As to "board games" VS "abstract strategy games", the reasons are simple. If you care to read Falcorian's explanation, you may understand why. It is simply due to the following policy: Quoted from Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories_and_subcategories#Reasons for duplication: SECONDARY CATEGORIZATION METHODS When an article is put into a subcategory based on an attribute that is not the first thing most people would think of to categorise it, it should be left in the parent category as well. This includes articles placed in ethnic subcategories within national menus, for example articles in Category:African American basketball players should also be left in Category:American basketball players. --Wai Wai (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC) I don't know why you insist on duplicating this discussion everywhere, but please go to the Go talk page if you want to present an argument for why Go should be listed twice in both Board games and Abstract strategy games. You have as yet, on several talk pages to even address that. Go is in both categories you want it in. In the future I suggest you read the guidelines as guidelines and not looking for exceptions, and also familiarize yourself with the categories since it appears you are still unaware of what is actually in them. 2005 01:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC) It is because you have missed reading my reply. Sorry about the confusion. In the Go talk page I am to ask third-party advice, not your advice again. Read this reply as it seems you have missed it: "After a second thought, it might be okay not to add the Go article in Go. It is because I forget Go is listed already in Category:Board games, so the article Go may exempt from it. However this reason do not apply to other articles of board games like backgammon. They should still be included in Category:Board games. " Go is a special case. But why do you revert others too? You have to explain your reasons with reference to the policy. (Updated) I'm wrong. There are cases where it is listed as well.--Wai Wai (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC) I'm not sure if we should continue as this page is Falcorian. Maybe I should copy (but not cut) the whole discussion to your page.--Wai Wai (talk) 01:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Please use the discussion pages for articles, rather than make comments on multiple user pages. 2005 01:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC) I have no idea where we should ask. This question is not specific to any particular board game. --Wai Wai (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC) On a page for any game or article or category you want to change policy on, or in one of the general wiki discussion areas/pages. 2005 01:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion location

Normally discussions like this are held on Village pump to ensure a consistent result across related articles. Stephen B Streater 07:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you requested for third-party comments, Stephen B Streater? --Wai Wai (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Normally editors do not act like Wai Wai and remove comments and then label those comments "vandalism". Just for the record, my post he deleted was:

Actually no it isn't, and please don't make statements that are counter to the guidelines of the encyclopedia. The "result" is you continue to think you can do what you want no matter what the guidelines say. You can't. The fact that certain things are miscategorized now is no "judgement" that it is acceptable to not follow Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories. It is a Guideline. You can't ignore it just because you want to, and it you can't ignore it just because you want something that interests you treated differently. The Board games category does need a clean up, and if you want to be productive, please contribute. Just making more of a mess is not helping, and it will be cleaned up at a later date. Finally, please do not act in bad faith. The Wikipedia is a cooperative venture with existing policies and procedures that thousands contribute to, not your private sandbox where you make "judgments" and "results." 2005 07:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The basic problem is Wai Wai isn't interested in discussions, let alone where they are usually held. Too bad. 2005 08:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice I have deleted your comment. At that time, I just tried to recover the "previous discussion" part. As to the "categorization" discussion, it has been discussed above and in the "categorization policy" talk page. Repetition helps nothing to solve the dispute.--Wai Wai (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't done much yet, though there was a reply which suggested a RfC. This would allow many people to contribute. I'll think about how to do this (you can go ahead first if you have time). The key is to stick to the main issue of categories. Stephen B Streater 22:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A RfC seems like the best thing to do at this time. --Falcorian ^(talk) 00:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have done it. Meantime, if you have any opinion on the interpretation of the policy, please feel free to make your comments. --Wai Wai (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

What is roughly the average margin of victory (difference in point's between white and black) and how often roughly are Komi point's a decieseve factor in games between the strongest players. I think it might be a good idea to put this in the articile.

I don't know if I can find statistical data to confirm this, but the margin of victory should be close to zero, since komi is usually adjusted if the margin becomes big enough. From the article Komidashi:"At first, komi started as low as 2.5 points. It was later increased to 4.5, and then 5.5 points. 5.5 points was used for a long time, but recent research found that 5.5 points was insufficient to compensate for White's disadvantage. It was then raised to 6.5. Some use as high as 7.5 points".

As for komi's decisiveness in games between the strongest players, I'd say it is very decisive, since professional games a lot of times end with a half point or one point win for one of them. Before there was no komi, the white player usually had to play more agressively, and one player in particular (Honinbo_Shusaku) supposedly never lost when he played as black.

Oh, and please sign your edits on talk pages. Phelan 14:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It is considered rude to win by a wide margin. Many games won by half a point are in fact not as close as they appear. If komi was increased or reduced, the margin would be the same. Stephen B Streater 21:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

By margin of victory I meant in percentage of won games(I must have have not have read the question right, sorry). I think the Nihon Kiin and other associations keep a record of victory-loss for white and black in all games. If one of the colors begins to have a win percentage larger than 50%, they increase or decrease komi accordingly. Phelan 15:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong, especially among players of similar strength, with winning by a wide margin -- however it is rude to continue playing when you are LOSING by a wide margin, especially in casual play against a stronger player, or when playing with a pofessional who is playing several games at once. Margins of victory do not seem to me significant to include in the article, because many games are won by resignation, and the margin is never known. However, it is interesting that over the years, komi keep increasing.

When one player is significantly stronger than the other, say more than six stones, the stronger player may not play all out, and may permit a narrow margin of victory, especially if the opponent has played well. However, I have on occasion played weak opponents who did not understand the importance of deferring to the experience of a stronger player, and found it repugnant to take a handicap. In this circumstance, I do not hesitate to administer a lesson by killing everything on the board. kibi 02:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Stone Etiquette

As far as the description for picking up a stone goes, as I understand it the proper method invloves first picking up a stone between the middle finger and thumb...and then you slide the index finger under the stone as you place it on the board. this is what creates a real click sound instead of just a loose rattle or thump. I think the misperception that you just pick the stone up with the index and middle fingers derives from westerners primarily. I can try to source my claim if anyone is interested. -VanTucky

No, never come across that in over 30 years of playing. Charles Matthews 06:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you can source a wrong thing. -- G.S.K.Lee 20:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see no references on this page or the go equipment page for the stated technique of play. Also, it seems that everyone who advocates the alternative to my suggestion is of western origin, and as such has only secondary cultural experience with the proper technique (as well as I). Anyone who has actually lived in a country where Go is native, please chime in. or try and find a reference for the technique you suggest, instead of just posting to refute my point of view baselessly. I'm trying to have a conversation towards improving the accuracy of the article, not listening to people's witty remarks. thanks.

Two references, one from Sensei's Library, and one from the Nihon Kiin. Hope this helps. Phelan 22:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is from the Nihon Kiin site that is linked. "First, take a stone from the bowl with your thumb and index (or middle) finger, transfer it to between the index and middle fingers, then place it on the board."

Guess I was right after all. VanTucky 23:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the Nihon Kiin site is not correct. I have played thousands of games with Asian players for many years. I have played at the Nihon Kiin and the Hanguk Kiwon. I have been instructed by professionals from Japan, China and Korea. I assure you that as Charles says above, this is not the "traditional". In fact it is clunky and awkward to transfer the stone in that way, and much easier to simply grip it between the two fingers in the first place.

kibi 14:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, then I guess it was a translation error on the Nihon Kiin site. Even though personally I've found that the method I described gets less dropped stones and more acoustic pleasure, I'll not revert the article. especially because it seems that the Nihon site was the only online reference advocating the alternative. thanks for the input.VanTucky 21:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization

Why are English capitalization rules not followed? Why is go written Go?. I mean, look at chess or checkers articles. Shouldn't it have to be arranged? Or at least explained! --83.43.172.167 18:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

One reason: conflict with the common English word go. Capitalizing Go can make it less confusing to the reader. This is not such a problem with chess or checkers. --IanOsgood 16:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Proper nouns are typically capitalised in English. Who defines when the name of a game should stop being capitalised? Should I refer to Monopoly as "monopoly" now that it's become so popular? Surely both Go and Chess should be capitalised if no such definition exists. -- Rickyp 11:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ricky, you are right! "Go" the game should NOT be capitalized. The usual guideline as I understand it is, if it's copyrighted, it's a proper noun; if not, it's a "common name". However, it doesn't say so in the definition here, and I don't have a source for this gem of wisdom . . . but I'm going to look for one!

Making it "less confusing" to the reader is not a compelling argument. One hopes the average reader can tell the difference between a noun and a verb. One also notes that "bridge", another game whose name resembles a common English word, is not capitalized, not here in Wikipedia, and not on the American Contract Bridge League site. Go seems to create more confusion for some reason -- the American Go Association does not capitalize it, but the British Go Association does; and two prominent sites, Sensei's Library and gobase, DO capitalize it. At one point I actually de-capitalized go in the main article here, but it was turning into a "revert" standoff with someone who told me it wasn't important -- although it seemed important enough to them to keep reverting it. . . . I feel it IS important that go is more like chess than, say, Trivial Pursuit! But I didn't feel like fighting the battle alone.

kibi 16:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

External links

This article has way too many external links. I request editors knowledgable to the subject to review and retain only high quality external links. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparing Western vs Eastern philosophy (Chess vs Go)

It's funny to use Chess vs. Go to compare western to eastern strategy. In all aspects Chess is actually a Eastern game, since it is probably derived from xiangqi (China) and/or Chaturanga (India). How come a comparison of Go and Chess be a parallel to western versus eastern strategic thinking? Chess trace it's history to eastern games, and, by extension, to eastern strategic thinking too. Perhaps this part of the article could be refined or changed. Regards Loudenvier 18:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Need for FAR

I feel that this article will need to go through a Featured article review. I am concerned that this article is terribly low on references, and overdoes external links. If I don't see any progress (or an assurance) made in a couple of days, I would be recommending this article for FAR. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some more of the external links could be moved to lists, and replaced by stub internal links. This would also make the article shorter and more focussed. Stephen B Streater 21:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Go server would be a good article to create. Any server not warranting a mention in such an article can be treated as a spam link here, surely. Charles Matthews 12:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Pair Go

This probably covers the Team Go reference too actually. Pair Go is a subset of Rengo. I believe Rengo doesn't specifically dictate two players per team, but allows higher numbers as well. Can anyone confirm this for me? It certainly seems to me that Rengo should be mentioned in preference to Pair Go (and possibly annihilates the Team Go section). I am also slightly sceptical about Pair Go being first mentioned as a means of promoting Go and secondly as a means of increasing female participation. However I imagine this reflects the referenced preferences. ZincBelief

Rengo is just a traditional term for non-consulting team play, and there are numerous examples of such games with larger teams. Charles Matthews 12:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I thought so. It then seems that this section is in need of a rework. If we're talking about making the article more focused then perhaps Go Variants, together with the vast tract of games tenously linked to Go, could be moved to their own page? I think the deviant link underneath Pair Go could be deleted altogether. ZincBelief

I have never seen the need for the Other board games sometimes compared with Go section. Not very encyclopedic, and verifiable only in a dullish way. Yes, why not have go variants as a page? Charles Matthews 13:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I will create a Go Variants page then. However I shall leave the current content on the main page as I am not sure of the correct linking conventions, and moreover, the variants page will not be finished yet.

Article listed on FAR

This article has been listed on Featured Article Review due to the various concerns listed above:

Go (board game)

previous FAR

Go ranks

I have heard conflicting information on amateur ranks. The article says that 7d and 8d amateur ranks are possible, but I have also heard that 6d is the highest rank recognized for amateur players. Also, while the article says it's possible, I have never heard of a pro having a 10-dan rank. Could someone with more info on how Japan, Korea, and China deal with ranks speak up? (Note, I'm not talking about the US Go rating system, which gives numerical ratings that look like kyu and dan ranks, but are only presented as numerical ratings as opposed to ranks). --Zippy 19:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Re Pro 10-dan, I found a cite: Kato Masao that describes how this rank is attained. Unlike other pro ranks, you can drop back down from this rank (to 9-dan) --Zippy 19:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The rank of 10-dan, or Judan is not a permanent rank, but rather a tournament that is open to all players in Japan. Korea has a similar tournament, the Sibdang Cup. 7 dan and 8 dan ranks for amateur are usually attained through a special diploma given by the Nihon Ki-in. —Canbek - 张 - Esen 21:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the Judan link. This helped me to understand the pro ranks. Do you have more information on the amateur 7d and 8d certificates? --Zippy 23:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)