Talk:Go (game)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Categorization

It seems the search "Go" and "GO" direct users to different entries in the encyclopedia causing confusion. I attempted to fix the problem by redirecting them together but I lack the skill. Also it seems less than consensus to have those entries refer staight to a disambugation page rather than the most common usage of the term "outside of the verb usage "to go". see comments at village pump

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) I learned weiqi growing up in China.

We were taught to hold the stone between the index and the middle finger

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!

Ok, that makes perfect sense to me. Perhaps the main article should contain a "Spelling" section with a brief summary of this rule. I'll make a bold unsubstantiated claim and say that the lower-case spelling is counter-intuitive to most people, and I think a prominent explanation would benefit the uninformed reader. I'll add this when I have time to word it well, unless someone beats me to it. Rickyp 11:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Is there a WikiProject that could make all of these game names standard across different articles? --DDG 19:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In the FA section I see that the capitalization issue is one reason this article lost FA status. So can we now fix this please? If no one else does, I will soon, unless someone else wants to argue about it. And while I'm at it, the other go-related pages have the same problem, let's fix them too. kibi 15:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In other places, I've seen it either capitalized, placed in quotes, or both. I assumed this was done, not only to distinguish it from the English verb, but to suggest the term had been transliterated from another language. Mr. Ing tried to solve the problem by changing the spelling to “goe,” but this never caught on in the United States. SlowJog 18:45, 19 November 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)

It might actually be a bit more complicated than that since one might argue that one of the theories of the origins of xiangqi was that a general, Han Xin was preparing for an upcoming battle thus he developed xiangqi to hone his skills in battle which in go terms would be local situations. I think the whole part of the eastern vs western philosophy thing is to emphasize how the games represents a bit of the culture that plays that game. As it is with psychology, one would say Eastern cultures are mostly collectivist cultures but that doesn't exclude some individualism. The analogy is perhaps focusing on the minor status of whole board thinking in the West. Strategy is the general idea/direction one wants to achieve a goal with, tactics are the tools that is used to achieve this strategy or goal thus chess would probably be a tactical game since it mostly mirrors a battle rather than a campaign. Go is more of a mix of battles and campaigns but a greater emphasis on the whole thus it can argueably be both a strategical and tactical game with a greater emphasis on strategy. EvilSai

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)

There's a little thing here. "Amateur high dan diplomas are often reserved for players who has achieved an exceptional standard. For example, in Japan, the amateur 8 dan diploma is issued to the winner of the World Amateur Go Championship, Amateur Honinbo? and the national champion; it is hardly possible to achieve a 8 dan diploma through other means. In some countries, such as Japan, rank diplomas up to the low dans are said to be rather easily acquired, and results in rank inflation in those countries."

In China, for example, they'll have amateur players near pro rank as "probation" professionals, where there are given 1 dan pro diplomas temporarily until they prove that they have earned the dimploma. —Canbek - 张 - Esen 02:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe Amateur Dan rankings were created only after WW2 in Japan, and were fairly slow to catch on in Korea and China (Anyone know if this is correct?) When a professional plays an Amateur in Japan, the Professional's rank is given, but the Amateur's strength is noted only in how many handicap stones he received (John Smith, 2 stones)

Weasel words

In regards to "The Name 'Go'," who are "some Chinese people," and why do we care? This seems like a prime example of weasel words. In fact, if you look at the weasel words page, it is in fact the first example.

In fact, I do not see the point of this bit at all. Lots of things have different names in a foreign language than in their nation of origin. Go seems entirely unexceptional in this regard. - Stellmach 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You are both right and wrong about the presence of "weasel words" in that section. It is a weasel word, but any active participant in the international Go community knows about the popular debate over which language is proper to use for Go lexicography. So while those are weasel words, they are necessary to the article because they address a very important issue relating to Go i.e. what to call it. The very nature of the debate as an oral one without acutal text sources to speak of means that it is unable to be cited. In other words, get over it. Rules were made to be broken, and nothing in life is consistent except death and taxes. VanTucky 19:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The weasel words should be removed. Rules are made to be followed. In this case a simple sentence saying there is a dispute and citation reflecting that dispute is what is needed, not weasel words like "some chinese". 2005 19:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it doesn't need clean-up for proper NV and wiki format, but Stellmach was suggesting that the mention of a lexicographical debate in Go was totally unecessary altogether. VanTucky 21:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, "I don't see" and "this seems" weren't meant as assertions. But yes, if there's a significant debate going on in Go organizations, it's poorly described as "some Chinese say". -Stellmach 13:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree Stellmach. It seems the inappropriate parts have been removed already, so all's well that ends well. VanTucky 21:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Link Butchery

Ok, I have made two list pages to house Go Servers and Go Software external links. I have also removed the video of the London Open, I am not sure why it was there in the first place. There was also a link to a story in Go Learning which I have removed. As I am not an experienced wikipedian I would appreciate somebody tidying up this butchery, I only did it because nobody else looked like they could be bothered too. -ZincBelief

Deepest game?

Is it really accurate to cite Go as the Deepest Game based on the span of the ELO ratings. Unless every known game uses an ELO rating I don't see that we can verify this. Which games currently have ELO ratings at the moment? -ZincBelief

I'm very comfortable with this description. ELO is a nice proof of the depth, but all you reall need is a little common sense. Considering the size of the board; the additive nature of the game (more complex as each stone is added); and the fact that 99.999% of all moves are possible at any time, unless you can suggest a specific rival game, let's leave it at "the Deepest". kibi 14:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes the claim is undoubtably true, but there is a problem with that citation, which, lets remember, is ELO specific. It links to another page in wikipedia which, when it comes down to it, states that the ELO range is wider for Go than Chess. I would prefer a higher quality citation. Surely somebody needs to put down some facts and figures with regards to ELO ranges for other games. I can find Chess, Xianqi, Tantrix and Scrabble ELO ranges which are all smaller. Nowhere can I find the same for Othello, Amazons, Poker, Bridge or whatever. If you want to bring complexity into an argument an citation can and should be provided ;-) For me it's just not a FA Class wording right now. -ZincBelief

I want to return to this point. There are two instances Go is generally considered the most complex game in the world (by whom?) and Go is deep, as playing against any stronger player will demonstrate (depth of the game as established by ELO ranking in Go). (that's totally vapid). The first quote about complexity cites a page as reference, which is listed under articles without sources, specifically Go_ranks_and_ratings. Firstly, to link to an article without sources as a reference seems to me to be folly. Secondly, neither of these are using encyclopedic language. They are blatant opinions. Why should we not consider Shogi the deepest game, or Chess the deepest game, or Xianqi. If there are reasons and references lets present them. Otherwise the article is just not FA quality. Personally I am a little sceptical about the validity/robustness of Ales Cieply's ProGor ELO, but if we take it at face value, then one could at least put down a range of ELO ratings for the main strategy games to illustrate the argument. All I'm asking for is some evidence. Perhaps [[1]] to start with? No evidence, no NPOV. Isn't that the standard we have on wikipedia? -ZincBelief

We can't just assert 'deepest', certainly. The depth of the game has been established by very long practice. The wording needs an overhaul. Charles Matthews 10:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Rank in Computer go

The article discribes the rank of computers here as 8-10k. Which is true, al be it a bit on the high side if you ask me, but the explanation of kyu and dan level is lower in the article. If anybody sees a way to solve this problem...HichamVanborm 17:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Comparing Chess and Go by Computer

Go players (I do not know a published citation for this) sometimes say, "go is more sophisticated/comlex/better than chess, because computers can play chess well, but not go." The difference in strength (measured statistically) is vivid, but I wish to remind people that Chess was very involved in the development of Artificial Intelligence from the very beginning of electonic computing. John von Neuman built a chess computer, for example; a list mentioning Claude Shannon and Ken Thompson is at [2]

Investment in machine Go started much later. In the 1950's, scientists in Japan were busy rebuilding their country.

--Peter H. St.John, M.S. 00:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Opinion on this, for example from Peter Fotland, is that the gap in performance is not now, in the 21st century, much to do with the earlier start on chess. Further it is worth understanding that the leaders in computer go have not generally been Japanese. Charles Matthews 08:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a very simple explanation for this, which is that the combinatorics involved in examining all possible legal moves in Go far exceeds the same problem in Chess. The University of Michigan had a world class Chess program (in the 70s) that worked by pruning the tree of possible moves to those that made "reasonable sense" according to an evaluation algorithm. This program ended up not being competitive against programs that evaluated every possible move to some depth (depth like 4 or 5 moves ahead). Contemporary computer chess at this point has very little to do with "intelligence" but everything to do with speed of evaluating every possible board position. The same technique applied to Go is completely ineffective since the depth at which exhaustive enumeration of all possible moves is possible is extremely limited (like perhaps 2 moves ahead). Because of the extremely large number of possible future board positions, exhaustively enumerating them is computationly infeasible. That computers can play chess better than they can play go is exactly related to the relative explosion of future board positions (and reliance on brute force algorithms). Brute force examination of all possible future board positions simply doesn't work for go. Computers are fast enough that it does work for chess. Does this mean go is more sophisticated/complex/better than chess? Playing a stone near a corner is a possible move, but one that anyone who plays go understands is nearly always ridiculous. There are lots and lots of possible moves that no serious go player would ever make. Is the total number of "sensible" moves at any point in a chess game more or less than the total number of "sensible" moves in a go game? I don't think comparing the relative strengths of current chess and go programs answers this question. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention, that Go is said to be a pattern-recognition game, at which the human brain is said to be good at. :) Chess, on the other hand, is said to be a calculating game (and a memory game for openings :( ) , at which the human brain not exactly excels... So, in chess, the computer beats humans because humans have very little calculating ability, while at Go, it loses, because it has no pattern-recognition ability. Altough, it is easy to mention, that Go's game-tree is much deeper than chess's, but i dont think, that 9p players consider 10^40 variations per stone. :)

Teaching/Learning Go

Even though Go is experiencing a bit of a resurgence, I'm still surprised when I stumble upon acquaintences who know how to play. In other words, I suspect that for most people, finding someone to teach them Go may vary from extremely difficult to virtually impossible, though they still may be able to locate others who have a mutual interest in learning the game.

I have seen a couple of different techniques that seem to be fairly effective at teaching someone the rudiments of Go, and in many circumstances they don't really require much feedback from the instructor once the student is set on the right path. It might be worth having a section in the Go page or a related page that discusses some of these (like First to Capture).

Capture Go is mentioned in [Go_Variants]. To be honest there are probably too many sections in this article already. --ZincBelief 09:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Time control

What exactly is the merit of this section? With the recent addition of one tournament in the USA uses Fischer Time, it seems to be getting increasingly niche. What is wrong with simply stating that, like most other mind games, Go competitions are played with a clock. To be brash, it seems overly long for such a trite sideline.--ZincBelief 15:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that there is a time control article already. I suggest that, yes, this be reduced here to a small item, and the bulk of the information be moved to that article, where its style won't be cramped. Charles Matthews 09:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to rewrite the time control section as follows

Like many other games, a game of Go may be timed using a game clock. Game clocks are often used in tournaments so that all players finish in a timely way and the next round can be paired on time. Players may also use game clocks for casual play, for instance if playing an opponent who is known to play slowly. There are two widely used methods that are associated with Go.

Standard Byo-Yomi: After the main time is depleted, a player has a certain number of time periods (typically around thirty seconds). After each move, the number of time periods that the player took (possibly zero) is subtracted. For example, if a player has three thirty-second time periods and takes thirty or more (but less than sixty) seconds to make a move, he loses one time period. With 60-89 seconds, he loses two time periods, and so on. If, however, he takes less than thirty seconds, the timer simply resets without subtracting any periods. Using up the last period means that the player has lost on time.

Canadian Byo-Yomi: After using all of his/her main time, a player must make a certain number of moves within a certain period of time — for example, twenty moves within five minutes. Typically, players stop the clock, and the player in overtime sets his/her clock for the desired interval, counts out the required number of stones and sets the remaining stones out of reach, so as not to become confused. If twenty moves are made in time, the timer is reset to five minutes again. If the time period expires without the required number of stones having been played, then the player has lost on time.

Further details on this subject can be found at time control , The Origins of Canadian Byo-Yomi (and maybe a link to a BGA rules page too. ) --ZincBelief 11:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If I don't see any objections I will hack down what I see as an overly long Time control article down to a form as shown above on the 27th of November. --ZincBelief 15:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is one set of objections. Go is different from other games in ways that make time controls work differently, so a section devoted to them does not seem out of place. To give one obvious example, how would "penalty points" work in chess? Were you planning to cut that section entirely? True, penalty points are rarely used, but they are a valid option -- for this game only, among the great strategic games. Canadian byo-yomi would also be difficult to enforce in chess -- a referee would have to count the moves, whereas in go, we just count out the right number of playing pieces. Another unique aspect is that at the end of the game, many opportunities often exist for players to create mischief, playing inside of live groups, making ataris, forcing the opponent to respond in order to use up time on the clock if the opponent is running short and try to win on time. That's why most chess games are SD and most go games are not. In fact I may have to ADD something to the time control section about that . . .  :>} I also see that here is no mention of Candian style OT in the time control section, have to do something about that. kibi 19:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the first thing that strikes me is the length of this section, compare to History or Culture, it is enormous. When you read an article about Go in an encyclopedia, do you really want a detailed lesson on the time controls that could be used in a Go Tournament? Personally I don't want something so long. The other points, Chess gave birth to Fischer time of course ;-) In Chess there was also a system where an additional 30 minutes was added on once you passed 45 moves - so perhaps something like overtime there. For bughouse chess a common time penalty in my school was to take off a pawn (points penalty). So I don't think there is really such a wild gulf, between the two. However I don't want to erase these and other sections, I just want to put them somewhere more appropriate. All that material can be moved into the time control article, which is overly chesscentric at the moment. This whole thing is a terribly overblown section on tournament rules, it is not pure Go. I want to purify the article by summarising the essential information. Other opinions?--ZincBelief 20:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to summarize this section here, and create a new article, perhaps go time control. It's interesting material, and in my opinion, it's encyclopedic, but I think you're right that it's too long and detailed of a discussion for the main article. The small amount of go information in the time control article can be removed from there and merged into the new article; eventually, [[time controll] will probably become a disambiguation page once there are more articles about time control in specific games. —ptk✰fgs 21:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy says similar articles should be merged. Methods of time control for board games are similiar, the overlap in content is large.

Zinc, I see your point. perhaps the go article can make do with a statement somwhere - "Nature of the game" section? -- that in tournament play, unique feature of go make some special time control options available, and then point to an expanded time control section. But I don't se a ned for a special "Go time control" section -- I'd rather see the special go options discussed in the main time control article. kibi 17:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly a possibility, but I think it does belong in the competive play section. I'd prefer a short concise summary and work done on augmenting time control. Any other opinions?--ZincBelief 12:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Go

I have started Wikipedia:WikiProject Go, not before time. Charles Matthews 16:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Tell me, for these infoboxes inserted into gaming articles, what basis is being used to determine things like "rule complexity" and "strategy depth"? Is it purely subjective? In any case, I for one would like to see a category page related to this so that games can be cross reference via their complexity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.3.109 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about other games, but the enormous strategic depth of Go is clear compared to other games, as is made plain in the article. Similarly, the rules of Go are low complexity compared to Games like any modern multi-user networked computer game. New Talk page comments are to be written at the end of the page, and signed by using four tildes ~~~~ for automatic ID and time-date stamp. Hu 08:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a big problem with all infoboxes everywhere, that they are a way of making assertions that are not even argued for, let alone referenced. Charles Matthews 10:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What about adding "pattern recognition" to "Skills" ? SlowJog 03:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

name

the lead paragraph was practically unreadable owing to the parade of parenthetical remarks and appositives needed to introduce the name of the game in so many other languages. obviously the article does need a discussion of these names, and it has it -- the section "origin of the name". might I suggest leaving these to this section, where it is clearly appropriate to list off the name of the game in every single language that has a word for it? in english, it's "go" and that's sufficient for the first sentence. there's no need to try to cram them all into the first sentence, and look how much more easily that sentence flows without a whole bunch of words from other languages transcribed and translated inline, all before we even say it's a board game!

remember, this is the english wikipedia, and "go" is the predominant english word for the game. the discussion under "origin of the name" is more than sufficient. please let's try to keep that first sentence short and to the point, and remember that this article makes it very, very clear where the game originated and where it's most popular today. —ptk✰fgs 07:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Your "every single language that has a word for it" argument has no basis. Go/Weiqi/Baduk was played in China and Korea before it spread to Japan. Therefore, the Chinese and Korean names have precedence over the Japanese name or "names in every [other] language that has a word for it". As names, "weiqi" and "baduk" are every bit as valid as Go. It is only a matter of historical coincidence that most (but not all) English speakers happen to call the game by its Japanese name. Besides, there is no mention of the Korean name "baduk" in the Origins section. Face it: This is a Chinese game and it spread to Japan through Korea.

Very well, I will not revert the first paragraph to its "unreadable" previous form. I do believe, however, that the names "weiqi" and "baduk" should be introduced in the second sentence at the very latest. --Lapin rossignol 16:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I still don't see the point. "Go" is the English word used for the game, and it's not a judgement on the validity of the names in other languages at all. It's certainly better now than it was before, but for the lead paragraph, should we be introducing significant aspects of go, or trying to satisfy national sentiments regarding the game? The section "origin of the name" is fine for this -- heck, it's even the first thing out of the gate after the lead paragraph. —ptk✰fgs 16:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about my outburst there! I'll admit that I had a hissy fit that was to some extent influenced by national sentiment, but Weiqi and Baduk have indeed made inroads into English. In some English-speaking places with large Chinese populations (Singapore, for instance), "Weiqi" is the predominant word even in English. Besides, there is no consensus about "Go" being the *only* English word for the game. Yes, significant aspects of Go should be given priority, but "Weiqi" and "Baduk" deserve mention on an equal level as "Go". They should not be thought of merely as "foreign words" or nothing more than anecdotes in the game's origin. --Lapin rossignol 16:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, that makes sense. —ptk✰fgs 18:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The English word is go. That's been the case for more than 50 years. Chauvinistic arguments are not welcome on Wikipedia. Charles Matthews 19:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

After checking the OED, the only one of these that's documented as being in use in English is "go". If the other names do being to make inroads into English, the OED can be trusted to document them as that happens — but it doesn't appear to be happening yet. Why do we need to list the other names right up there in the lead? Surely, the most significant issues in go are not who calls it what! —ptk✰fgs 19:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My statement that "Weiqi" is a valid name in English remains true. For examples, here are the websites of the New York Weiqi Society, the Singapore Weiqi Association, and the Malaysia Weiqi Association. There are also historical examples: According to the British Go Association, a book named "The Game of Wei-chi" by Pecorini and Shu was published and distributed in London bookshops in 1929 (see here).

The OED is certainly a respectable resource but its word is not law. The OED explicitly states that it attempts to describe and not dictate the English language. This statement may seem to support your point (that "the other names" are not common currency in the English language and hence not described). Yet, the OED is unavoidably slanted towards English as it is currently used in the UK and US. It might fail to consider examples from other English-speaking countries where alternative words may enjoy dominance. It would also be impossible to scavenge every little instance of historical usage.

And finally, my dear Mr Matthews, I agree that chauvinism has no place on Wikipedia. This debate, however, is not based on chauvinistic arguments but on history, culture, and international usage.--Lapin rossignol 20:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Rare/minority uses of other names are important enough to be included in the section "Origin of the name". This is not disputed. The problem here is that you seem to think that "the names are used, therefore we put them in the lead paragraph." Yes, you'll hear native English speakers referring to backgammon as "shesh besh" and as "takteh nard". No, those are not significant names for the game in English. This is not something like the split we see with football (soccer); "go" is the established name in English with no real competition from other names.

The "Origin of the name" section comprehensively covers the issues of history, cuture, and international usage for the name. You still do not seem to want to come up with a reason why the "Origin of the name" section is not sufficient for a discussion of these issues. Would you please try explaining it again? Baduk and weiqi redirect to this article, so it's not like anyone's going to get lost trying to find it. —ptk✰fgs 22:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The very wording "Origin of the name" lends a connotation of obsolescence and "historical worth" to the terms Weiqi and Baduk whereas they are still very much used in the modern world. Besides, Eastern society (which I come from) values respect for tradition and culture, and it would be disrespectful to relegate the Chinese and Korean versions of the name to purely historical or anecdotal status. Even the official website of the American Go Association refers to "weiqi" and "baduk" as alternative names of Go, and not as "foreign" or "historical" names (see here). I am sorry if I come across as rather stubborn to you. You may think of this as a meaningless debate, but cultural sensitivity and deference to traditions are extremely crucial in East Asian society.--Lapin rossignol 11:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The English usage of Go I have already mentioned. Unlike your examples of shesh besh and takteh nard, Weiqi is used in English in an official context, as per the examples I have given. The Singapore Weiqi Association, for instance, has ties to institutions such as the National University of Singapore and Nanyang University (whose English websites also refer to weiqi).--Lapin rossignol 11:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

So how about changing the section title to "Name"? And how is anything being "relegated" here? —ptk✰fgs 14:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am beginning to believe a sub article could be written on the name alone.--ZincBelief 11:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Nomination

I don't pass or fail articles, but if I did I'd fail this one as it stands. The article is just too listy and whole sections remain uncited. LuciferMorgan 03:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps lists are the clearest way to describe and explain a complex game like Go. Such explanations would be hard to follow in essay format. Citations are not wholly necessary - there are enough Wikipedians who play Go to verify the validity of statements. To be fair, however, it is not difficult to find sources for citation so some effort should be put into this.--Lapin rossignol 14:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations are absolutely necessary. The article is clearly under-referenced; that's one of the major reasons it was removed from FA. There are not "enough Wikipedians who play go to verify the validity of the statements" -- please see WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS. There is no verifiability policy relying on a large number of Wikipedians to vouch for statements. —ptk✰fgs 16:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

GA ON HOLD for seven days for these reasons: entire sections/paras have no or too few refs. The huge one on Japanese has only one. Refs are not in a consistent format--use cite php/web. Many sections have few wikilinks. All the citation needed tags need valid refs. Refs go immediately after punctuation with no space between them, not in the middle of a sentence. Rlevse 23:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

GA failed: While there has been much done, there are still SEVEN "citation needed" tags, several refs appearing before punctuation, and refs are still in inconsistent format. Resubmit for GA when this is fixed.Rlevse 15:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been renominated, but the nominator forgot to add in the tag --ZincBelief 20:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Numerical Estimates

I apologise if this point seems overly pedantic. The passage opens with It is commonly said that no Go game has ever been played twice. Calculations suggest this may be true: . Whilst calculations may suggest this to be true, we can see in actualy play evidence that this claim is false. I have had several opponents resign in a huff on move 2, either because I played tengen, or a 7-7 opening move. There are also instances of people using the copycat cheating technique online. We can also theorise that mistakes in lines such as the Nadare or Taisha will create situations were an early resignation occurs frequently enough for a game to have been replicated.--ZincBelief 14:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont see what the problem is here. The article states that: "It is commonly said that no Go game has ever been played twice." and this is true, as it is indeed commonly said. Calculations indeed do suggest that this may be true. Weather no game has indeed ever been the same is not the issue. The article simply states that this is commonly said to illustrate the complexity and great range of possibilities that go holds. --– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 22:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The only issue I see is the weasel-wording of "it is commonly said". A cite is required for this so a reader can verify that this is, indeed, commonly said. Until a notable source is found, I've tagged this in the article. --Ds13 06:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the point of this section though? We can place material in the nature of the game section to illustrate how complex it is. There is no evidence that this is commonly said. There is evidence show the statement to be false. Why should wikipedia contain false statements?--ZincBelief 10:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, not that it should matter, but you are obviously not a go player zincbelief. it IS commonly used as an anecdote by go players that no game has been played twice. in fact, I've yet to hear someone explain the game to a novice without proudly reciting it. True, in the article it is without a doubt "weasel words", but that doesnt make it a lie, weasel words are by definition unquatifiable. so what evidence for the contrary do you provide? I doubt there are ANY studies of the culture of contemporary go that provide evidence about common statements by players. either for or against. again, its true but unprovable, the areguement is whether it still belongs in the article, not about the truth/falsehood of the statement. that is irrelevent. VanTucky 19:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Evidence showing the statement to be false is interesting, though it cannot be presented as original research here — it should also be cited. (Unless, maybe, the math is indisputedly trivial and couldn't be approached or presented in more than one way.) But I think we all agree that the verifiability of a statement is more important than whether it is true.

IF this "never played twice" statement is commonly said (even if completely, provably false from a math perspective) then it likely still deserves inclusion because the statement or myth is a common part of the game and its culture. --Ds13 20:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought my saying I have had several opponents resign in a huff on move 2 would provide some evidence that I was a go player, but nevermind ;-) Speaking for myself, I haven't heard this phrase bandied about, that no game has ever been played twice. At the moment this article has a rather bloated feel. We should be looking at sections like this and asking ourselves how useful they are inside an encyclopedia.--ZincBelief 10:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

well, youre right about it feeling bloated. maybe some of this can be moved into the ancillary pages. but the info about the math of go and its unique qualities as a game are absolutely essential, either to the primary article or a culture of go article, because it is one of the big reasons for the popularity of an obscure asian game. VanTucky 20:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Go is not obscure. And in the places where it is well known, I doubt the mathematical points are well known. Charles Matthews 19:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, can we all agree that the following statement is true and should be included in the article: "Numerical estimates suggest that no Go game has ever been the same." I am including it in the article now, please post any problems you have with it. --– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 19:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember that verifiability, not truth, is the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. I've tagged the estimates section as requiring sources for its statements and, especially, its math. There are multiple ways to estimate these things and simplifying assumptions may be implied but not stated (e.g. about ko, about unreachable positions, etc.) At any rate, this math should be verifiable at a notable source elsewhere. (I'm not sure another community-editable wiki like Sensei's Library qualifies.) We definitely can't be publishing our own math approaches to estimating. That looks like original research. --Ds13 20:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I vote against inclusion. This is a small subsection based around a single claim which isn't mentioned in many clubs. There may be some truth to it, but overall I feel it has little merit. A simple reference to the number of valid positions, such as J.Tromp has calculated would suffice.--ZincBelief 10:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are we so preoccupied with the question of whether a game has been played twice? This is far from the most significant fact about the complexity of the game. How games games have been played in the game's 2000 year history? Even if 100,000,000 players played 100 games every year (and that's surely a generous estimate) there have only been a few trillion games; falls a few hundred zeroes short of the total possible number of games. I have never used this fact to convey the awesome complexity of go. I'm more likely to point out that there are many more possible games than there are sub-atomic particles in the known universe.

kibi 17:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If the mathematics is wanted, perhaps we should do it properly, i.e. in terms of the birthday paradox. Charles Matthews 16:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, to simplify the debate, the only question that should be considered in its inclusion (rather than how popluar it is to say so etc.) is whether the statement is VERIFIABLE. that is the foremost criteria for wiki material. Its a simple yes or no question. It seems the answer is that there is no good bibliographic source on the subject, so under the wiki rules we should delete it.

If you want to debate about the popularity of saying that to impress upon newbs the coolness of Go, I have to say all those who say it's false just because YOU never hear people say it are fools. First of all, how can you say its unpopular? Do you travel to clubs all over the world asking people whether they think it's true? obviously not, b/c in my club and in the surrounding region people say it all the time. Secondly, whether or not it's commonly spoken of is completely irrelavant to the veracity of the statement. VanTucky 21:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Traditional Equipment

Only Japanese traditional equipment is described. Go equipment used by other cultures should also be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.97.226.120 (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Stone shape

Go Stones are flat in their country of origin, China, aren't they?

the most widely used stones are the biconvex japanese style ones, which have been used for hundreds of years. but yes, in china the stones are single convex (i.e. flat on one side). This is all addressed in the main "go equipment" article. VanTucky 06:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Optical Illusion

There is a request for a reference on this, which I find rather tiresome because it's very easy to prove. Take two objects the same size, paint one black, paint one white, the darker one always looks bigger. Can anyone find a cite for it, I'm damned if I can. You can try it out in Paint or some other software tool. Do we really need the one about the goban grid being non square? That seems too trivial to demand a cite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZincBelief (talk • contribs) 11:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

both of these are, I think, not necessarry to cite because they are both simply empirically true. minus the show-offy vocab, it means that anyone can just measure/look at the stones or the board and know that its true. they are verifiable, which is the inclusion criteria that supersedes citation I think. VanTucky 17:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)