Talk:Go (board game)

NOTE: The {{editintro}} template atop the article page should be removed prior approval.

Expand the character section?

This section is too short. I've never played Go, and would still have no idea how to do so after reading this section. I can infer that pieces don't move once placed, or are perhaps flipped depending on adjacent pieces, in order to control territory, but I don't know... Anton Sweeney 05:49, 31 December 2007 (CST)

Perhaps the best way to address wei-qi beginners would be by providing a diagram by a diagram a whole game on a 5x5 board, to the very end. First couple of diagrams would be of a good size, say 2x2 inches, and the remaining could be 1x1 inch, so that they would not take unreasonable space.

I could provide an example but it'd be better if it was done by a truly strong wei-qi player. I would even impose on the first player (on blacks) to start with a non-central first move, to make it more interesting.

Also, I don't know wiki graphics. However, if somebody would provide one diagram, wtih one white and one black stone, then perhaps anybody could edit such a diagram to create new diagrams(???). Wlodzimierz Holsztynski 05:25, 1 January 2008 (CST)

Rules

I took the liberty of cleaning up the terrible grammar and spelling errors in the Rules section to some extent.. i don't think i changed any intended meanings. Bram De Clerck 18:44, 31 December 2007 (CST)

I have some doubts about this section in its present shape. Perhaps it should be called: Rules--some ideas, and there should be also a solid section with rules, called Rules--precise, something like this. To help the cause, I may first write about the geometric notions involved in wei-qi. Wei-qi is such a wonderful intellectual achievement that it deserves and should be given full justice. Wlodzimierz Holsztynski 05:35, 1 January 2008 (CST)

There are no real Rules--precise in Go. There are Japanese Rules (also used in Europe), Chinese rules, Korean Rules, American Rules, New Zealand rules and Ing-Rules. At present there are Congresses that try to find International Go rules. In addition you have a bunch of other rule sets (for example the rule sets used on the different computer Go Servers). Which Go rules do you want to formulate precisely?Christian Kleineidam 09:41, 1 January 2008 (CST)

The ultimate, elegant rules were arrived at during the 1958 conference in Taiwan. I used to have their brochure. While indeed, there are all kind of unnecessary awkward formulations elsewhere, the spirit of the game is clear, and it is expressed by the mentioned Taiwanese rules. They got rid of the special cases of ko, especially of that configuration in the corner. Instead, a simple and elegant rule says that it's illegal to make a move which would repeat any previous position (not just the previous one), thus covering the special cases, like simple ko, triple ko, etc. (There is still room for two versions of this rule, which are equally profound, and which in practice are virtually the same; thus the one which is slightly simpler is preferable). Also, the Chinese scoring of counting stones + territory, s+t for short (see the configuration score in the article) is preferable to subtracting the prisoners from the territory, t-p for short, for four reasons:

• with s+t there is no issue of gambling a large territory in order to avoid a loss of a scoring point due to playing into that territory a defensive stone; the game is more pure and profound with s+t than with with t-p;
• s+t is simpler, as witnessed by the fact that you don't need to involve the game, as in t-s; with t+s it is enough to know the configuration only; you don't need to know about the captures made in the game;
• with s+t one dos not need to know the number of prisoners;
• you don't need to worry about a cat sneakily snatching a prisoner, and hiding it out of sight, when you think about the next move.

The argument for t+p counting is often that it is easier (takes less time) to count that way.

You don't have to fill the last dame points and still get the right result. That means more time for the actually game.

I also don't think that CZ is a place to make the value judgment on which counting method and rule set is the best one. Christian Kleineidam 11:39, 1 January 2008 (CST)

True, the difference for the game score is not too significant, but occasionally a difference of one score point may be extremely important to a player.

Anyway, I am almost finished with the geometric notions of the game. Now it will be very easy to write down one version of the precise rules.

BTW, there must be sufficiently precise rules or else it would make no sense to play seriously, e.g. for big money. And there are precise rules. There is just more than one (sufficiently precise) variation, i.e. more than one set of rules. Wlodzimierz Holsztynski 10:33, 1 January 2008 (CST)

You can probably get a precise description for the rules that use t+s counting. On the other hand the Japanese rules have concepts like "Bent for in the Corner Shapes" that aren't easily mathematically definable. Japanese Rules also eliminate the Ko-Threads that come from Double Ko's which means that some shapes die which wouldn't in Chinese rules with t+s counting. There are some variantions of those shapes that get complicated and where the Japanese rules don't really say what you have to do. Then it's like law, law doesn't clearly define whether someone is guilty or isn't but a judge or jury has to decide what is "right". It would be practically impossible to describe the American law (or any other law system) with mathematical precision. Japanese rules are a bit like this but fortunately for most games both players agree on the result.Christian Kleineidam 11:39, 1 January 2008 (CST)

Perhaps we should also make a separate page for the different rule sets. I don't know whether someone who just wants an overview over Go would find the mathematical description of the rules useful.Christian Kleineidam 11:39, 1 January 2008 (CST)

The name of the game

I never ever saw GO refferred to as "go" (lower case g). It was always GO or Go.

Also, the game was invented by Chinese. It would be perhaps nicer to refer to it as wei-qi or wei qi or Wei qi. This seems to be the tendency these day(?). Of course, it should be mentioned that for a long time (centuries?) the main place where the game was flourishing was Japan. Japanese were even bringing Chinise wei qi prodigies to Japan, and some of these Chinese became world champions. That once again shows how seriously Japanese were treating wei qi (GO :-).

In conclusion, I propose to change the name of the article to Wei qi (and at the same time to give Japan credit for its contribution to the game). Wlodzimierz Holsztynski 05:46, 1 January 2008 (CST)

According to http://www.m-w.com/dictionary go is the noun that describes the game in the English language. We aren't using either the original name in which chess was invented in the chess article but the English word for chess. Christian Kleineidam 09:42, 1 January 2008 (CST)

What about "go" versus "Go"? (In this discussion, elsewhere, you yourself were writing "Go", not "go").

• Weiqi board game
• Go board game
• Baduk board game

Definitely Go has bigger lead. I've never heard of "weiqi" in my life. I see that the title may give less credit to the Chinese, but Japanese culture is so popular in the west that the westerners know everything that the Japanese adopted from the Chinese or the Koreans as Japanese and in Japanese names/titles. (Chunbum Park 08:49, 1 January 2008 (CST))

Bibliography

Note that "notes section" is for within-the-article citing, while "Bibliography" is for all the books used for this article. We need real books to write this article, not just web site links. (Chunbum Park 09:10, 1 January 2008 (CST))

Most books that you could use as good sources are written in Chinese, Japanese or Korean. There are "How to play Go"-books but those books focus on specific parts of the game and I don't think they make good sources for the history of the game or it's character. On the other hand I think that a PDF that is published by sciencedirect.com or by the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College can be used as a scholarly source.Christian Kleineidam 10:34, 1 January 2008 (CST)