![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Does the boundary count as a liberty? If I have a piece on the boundary and it is surrounded by opposing pieces, is it always alive, or is it dead? 128.171.31.11 ( talk) 12:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I delete some of my outdated remarks. Jasiek 2006-03-10
Sorry Robert - I'm going to have to treat you as a complete newbie on this. You should not delete talk page material like this, normally. The comments are not addressed just to you - if I had wanted to explain just to you what is happening here, I would use your user talk page (well, you aren't a signed-in user, but that is the correct way). So, the history on this page is to explain to everyone what has been happening here; otherwise tomorrow exactly the same discussion might occur. Charles Matthews 18:07, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Robert - really:
(a) you are posting your opinions on go rules as factual, when they are just opinions;
(b) you are now posting your opinions on Wikipedia policy and etiquette as if they also mattered more.
Considering seven years of my reading your posts to rec.games.go, and I suppose vice versa, I am trying to explain things gently. But it seems to me you have to try to understand something about this large project, Wikipedia, to which 1000s of people contribute, before you begin to be helpful, rather than just making a mess which will need to be fixed up later.
Charles Matthews 18:34, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The go rules page is in a process of being edited these days. I hope that afterwards the degree of facts is higher again.
As you seem to indicate, you have more experience about Wikipedia here. I was not aware of that. Since you say that talks are not deleted quickly, I may as well not delete them quickly. May I ask who deletes them or are they expected to grow larger and larger despite a 32K per page warning?
OK, I was getting a bit depressed about stone counting. I think, clearly enough, we should segregate scoring/counting from the essential (outline) rules, saying that there is more than one recognised method of proceeding when the game is over, but for learning the game it doesn't matter so much. Charles Matthews 20:04, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think that's best - not to pretend to have a complete rule set, but links in particular to the ko rule section (so we don't have to distinguish superko from ko, which are equivalent in practice about 9999 times out of 10000, I suppose) and to something on scoring and counting (which ought to have diagrams). Charles Matthews 10:16, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think my solution would be to create SGFs and use the filters at http://gobase.org/software/sgf2misc/ to get images. I mean, this means in principle the same SGFs can be re-used to get different styles and standards of images. As I have not created any diagrams for Wikipedia, I'm not very confident in this area. Charles Matthews 12:25, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This article now uses the word chain where it used to use group. The few Go books I've read used "group", and I think "group" is the more common word among Go players, but I'm not certain. Are there any objections to changing it back to group instead of chain? ~ leif ☺ HELO 11:39, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I find it interesting that on the go (board game) page and this article, it mentions the thinking times policy, both linking to the other . "See GO Rules" "See GO(boardgame)". THey both seem to have the same information on this particular point.
The thing is that no one uses the term "chain" when discussing the game. So however ambiguous the word "group" is, that's what one would use to describe a strategic unit on the board. I am unable to imagine a situation in which one would confuse a "group" of connected stones with, say, a "group" that's under attack. Mimson 05:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Can't we just eliminate the terminology and say "solidly connected groups"? I think it would be better than having new players going out and talking about "chains", which may cause unnecessary confusion. Mimson 05:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
On another thought, who came up with the terminology of chains? How about a citation, at least on the discussions page? Mimson 23:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
How remarkable -- more than 200 books have been published in English without the need for distinct terms for "group" vs. "chain." The Japanese make no distinction per SL. How is it then that we cannot seem to do without this confusion? Go is confusing enough for new players. And if there is a need for a second term, "chain" isn't it. A "chain" is "a series of objects connected one after the other" (Dictionary.com) how does that describe an eyeless clump of stones? "String" has the same problem. Face it - the word is "group." kibi ( talk) 16:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Herman, are you disputing or agreeing? You seem to make the point that these terms are interchangeable; none of the books uses more than one for different concepts. Since "group" is the term one will encounter later on, it seems natural to use it from the start. "Chain" and "string" both imply a straight line, so I don't see how you can defend your unsupported assertion that they are less confusing than the term we all use.
kibi ( talk) 17:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I hate to throw cold water on so much work, but speaking as an enthusiastic (if crummy) Go player and a longtime wikipedian, I would urge people to change this article radically.
We can't make it so comprhensive that it could be used by a newcomer to learn the game. For one thing, trying to explain eyes and liberties and all that will make it FAR too long to be read on most browsers. ("The Way of Go" by Ishi Press is about as simple an introduction as you can get, and it's many pages long.) For another, and on a more general level, Wikipedia is not, and shouldn't try to be, a set of rulebooks or instruction manuals.
The role of this article (if it should be an article at all, which I doubt) is to (a) give people a sense of how Go is played and how it differs from chess and other similar games - a feel for Go, not a lesson - and (b) to explain the history of how the rules have developed and a general feel of how they differ around the world.
At least, that's my opinion! - DavidWBrooks 20:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I mainly created this template to play games under Wikipedia sandbox/userspaces, but it can be used in articles out of convenience as well. The talk page there documents it. For smaller sizes than 20 pixel fonts, for now you have to use the no coordinate version. Oh anyone up for a possible game of go at Wikipedia:Sandbox/Chess? Could hold one there, or from a separate page. -- Natalinasmpf 03:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I am in the process of documenting a manual for using the template. -- Natalinasmpf 01:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Back in high/school (in Ukraine), I used to play something of this game (we call it "the estate" or "the lands"). We used pens or pencils and regular "math" paper or construction design paper, the last one - almost never. One chose either a cross or a dot.
Another thing, I don't consider that the size of the board depends on a level of play. It's really not such a difficult game to understand. There's a saying "all genius is simple". The size of the board depends on time you would like to "kill" while playing the game.
Well it depends - a larger board allows you more freedom, but the enemy as well - hence you must plan ahead. With a smaller board it's harder to recover from a debacle or a mistake, but you have to plan ahead less. A larger board can be viewed as more advanced because both sides have to plan ahead more, in contrast to the smaller one. -- Natalinasmpf 06:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The previous version of the Winner rule was completely wrong; it pretended that the winner would be the player with more empty intersections surrounded by only his stones. If you do not notice what is wrong with that: either the stones on the board are missing for Area Scoring or the opposing prisoners are missing for Territory Scoring. To end the competition about which scoring to describe on the rules page, the only promisingly lasting solution is to describe them all, what I have done now. -- Jasiek
I believe that the philosophy behind Japanese scoring can be seen if it is compared to a war. First, consider each stone to be a soldier or group of soldiers. If Area scoring is used, then when a player places a stone in a dead terriritory, they have wasted a life or lives of people on their side of the war. These incongruencies only matter at the end of the game when the average scoring between white and black is similar. Obviously if one person has a huge advantage, the scoring methods are not a matter of consequence. Though I understand that the chances that white and black have very similar scores is small, I still think it is an issue.
Theoretically, a person in the lead can potentially lose using Territory scoring if he constantly puts stones in the opponents territory that are well under the opponents' control. Obviously a better player that is in the lead would unlikely do this since they've gone so far into the game and are winning. But the problem is if both players are of equal skill. If this is the case, then every point is critical. If one player thinks that trying to capture a questionable area is risky, he would attempt it under chinese rules and wouldn't attempt it under japanese rules, unless he evaluated it as profitable. If a position is profitable, then of course a player would capitalize on it, but if it isn't or if it is really hard to determine, then the scoring method matters.
If you consider yourself the General or King of all the soldiers represented by your stones, then you do not want to sacrifice lives in a war that is already won or lost. Before the endgame, with either scoring method, you are penalized for placing stones in your own territory. This isn't done explicitly, but it can be shown by you "wasting" a turn, where you could have put your stone somewhere else to capture more area or territory. During the endgame, most fights have determined a winner except for a few leftover risky manuevers. Territory scoring would penalize you for making the mistake if the risk you took was not good, and Area scoring wouldn't. This doesn't make sense.
It is in this way that the Japanese scoring method is more elegant; not because it is the tradition or that there is a "beauty of omission." Lives matter, and that is why in the game of Go, we consider things Alive or Dead. It doesn't make sense that a ruler would risk any more lives of his people if the war is over. In conclusion, Area scoring allows for riskier play and Territory scoring allows for a person to balance offense and defense, while agreeing on an end of the game sooner too. 70.111.251.203 14:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The AGA rules are basically the same as the Chinese rules. They have modified the Japanese territory scoring so that whenever a person passes they have to give one stone to the opponent as a prisoner and also that white has to be the last one to pass to end the game. This makes both area and territory scoring equivalent. Though it is not elegant, it cancels out the need for territory scoring and keeping track of prisoners at all for AGA rules. I think that this is a great simplification but it loses the value that Japanese scoring has instantiated. 128.6.175.17 13:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't find what are proper Komi values and handicape for other boards. Do they have same Komi/handicap as 19x19?
I don't know, either. But, on the Kisedo Go Server, the "default" number of handicap stones on a small board is less than those on the larger boards.
These have been pushed onto the page, but should they really be on Go Variants? -Zinc Belief
In the section Optional Rules -> Compensation -> Handicap there is a discussion of star points, or hoshi, which states:
Smaller boards such as the 13x13 and 9x9 also have star points. The 13x13 has 9 at the 3-3 points, 3-6 points, and the center.
It seems to me that if the 13x13 board has 9 hoshi then the right position for the side ones must be 3-7, not 3-6, as 7 is the centre line. A quick net search suggests to me that the 13x13 board commonly has only 5 hoshi so the 3-6 points should be taken out of the list, not altered. But being new to Wikipedia AND not a Go player I'm not game to change this; could someone familiar with the game check that the description is right? - Medb 17:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It should be Ing Rules, not ING, since they are named after a person, Ing Chang-Ki.
The article states that Ing rules use a “Super Ko” rule. However, Ing tried to create a ko rule that would avoid the need for players to keep track of whole-board positions. The result was a ko rule that classified a ko as either “disturbing” or “fighting,” and also created the term “hot stone.”
The Ing rules ( http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/SST.html ) seem to have problems. The definitions/terminology section contains arguments in favor of his rules; the definitions/terminology section uses terms that aren't in the definitions/terminology section; some of the terms are defined in other parts of the rules; some of the definitions simply refer to a diagram which gives an example of the term being defined.
I don't think there is a clear definition of “disturbing ko” or “fighting ko.” If, in fact, there is no clear definition, the result may be, in effect, that Ing rules use the “super ko” rule.
In order for Ing counting boxes to work, Ing stones were of uniform thickness. 206.53.197.12 16:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The Ing Rules were named after Chang-Ki Ing, and are not an abbreviation for Intelligent Go. I started making the change from ING to Ing. SlowJog ( talk) 02:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The section on Ing rules stated that this rule set used "super ko." I edited it to match what was stated in the section on ko. SlowJog ( talk) 17:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but I'm a complete newbie when it comes to GO and I have a question, when your counting up points at the end of a game how do you count them?
I added to the Chinese method of scoring to describe the actual method used at the Chinese Go club in Monterey Park, California in the 1990's. It's fun to make the rectangles and count by tens, especially when you win. Larry R. Holmgren 15:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this is objectively one of the best articles, even better than India, and other articles; it may not be as important, but is very well written just like Chess.
I really like this article except for the very last section which talks about the differences bettween diffrent rule sets. I would remove it beacuse it contains repetition of information already in the article and what appears to be orgional research. First it says the two rule set are almost the the same. Besides being somewhat obvious, this is stated peviouslly in the scoring section. If it is retained it should be in the introduction to the section not at the end. The second part of the section appears to me to be conjecture about how the diffrent rulesets alter play style, and that needless extending the game is dishonerable. I think this should be verified or removed. Lotu 20:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The article says:
"If the game ends with both players having passed the same number of times, then the score will be identical no matter which method is used."
But isn't this technically incorrect?
Consider a game where neither player passes and in the end they take turns in filling the dame points as usual. Under Japanese scoring the dame points don't increase the score of either player but under Chinese scoring all stones, including the ones placed at dame points, increase the player's score. Now, if there's an odd number of dame points, one of the players get one point more, which could theoretically be the difference between victory and defeat.
Or have I misunderstood something? Ossi ( talk) 22:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I have seen a few mentions of the ancient Chinese rules of Weiqi or Yi which are distinct from the modern Chinese rules. But I cannot find an English text for them. Apparently there was a two point tax on each living group. This suggests to me that originally one's score was the number of stones of one's color which were on the board at the end of the game. This would require you to capture all enemy stones within your territory and then fill it up with your own stones except for two one-point eyes to keep it alive. Does anyone know any more about the ancient rules? JRSpriggs ( talk) 09:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The subsection Rules of Go#Differences says "It's because of the design of the Chinese rules that players using this rule set will be more able to take greater risks than compared to playing under Japanese rules; this may draw games out a little longer and at certain times seem dishonorable." (emphasis added). I cannot see how playing by the Chinese rules could encourage dishonorable behavior. Can anyone explain this? Or is this an improper POV statement? JRSpriggs ( talk) 11:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Currently most major rule sets forbid playing such that a play results in that player's own stones being removed from the board, [...] in certain circumstances a suicidal move may threaten the opponent's eye shape, yielding a ko threat.
Emphasis mine. Shouldn't that be a snapback threat? --
Jokes Free4Me (
talk)
19:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, shouldn't the threat be left general, with no mention of ko, snapback, atari, or other particular kinds of threats? -- Jokes Free4Me ( talk) 19:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
All rule sets forbid suicide of a single stone; rule sets that allow suicide permit it for more than one stone. I forgot where I read that, so I added the "fact" tag when I edited the article. (Suicide of a single stone would be the same as a pass, anyway.)
As far as I can tell, there is no reason for a player to suicide his/her stones except as a ko-threat. SlowJog ( talk) 02:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Suicide can sometimes grant life, kill or make seki, see:
HermanHiddema ( talk) 09:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it me or is there an exception to territory and area count-scoring giving an equal result.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 15:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
pwaldron: I believe exceptions can occur in board positions where there is a seki involving an odd number of neutral points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.246.27.86 ( talk) 17:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
This is not an extremely serious question, since the rules can accommodate either interpretation. I have a preference for saying a stone is connected to itself. I think connectedness should be an equivalence relation. Two editors have expressed objections, or at least seem to dislike the idea. Here are the alternatives:
Definition 1. In a given position, two stones of the same color (resp. two empty intersections) are said to be connected if it is possible to pass from one to the other by a succession of stones of that color (resp. empty intersections), each one other than the first being adjacent to the one before it. Any stone (resp. empty intersection) is understood to be connected to itself.
Definition 2. In a given position, a liberty of a stone is an empty intersection adjacent to at least one stone to which that stone is connected.
Definition 3. In the final position, an empty intersection is said to be a point of a player's territory if it is not connected to any empty intersection adjacent to a stone of his opponent's color.
Definition 1'. In a given position, two stones of the same color (resp. two empty intersections) are said to be connected if it is possible to pass from one to the other by a succession of stones of that color (resp. empty intersections), each one other than the first being adjacent to the one before it.
Definition 2'. In a given position, a liberty of a stone is an empty intersection adjacent to that stone, or adjacent to any stone to which that stone is connected.
Definition 3'. In the final position, an empty intersection is said to be a point of a player's territory if neither that empty intersection nor any empty intersection connected to it is adjacent to a stone of his opponent's color.
I actually think a stone is connected to itself under Definition 1', since you can take the succession consisting of just that stone. Of course, in everyday life, when you see "two stones," you usually assume "two distinct stones" is meant.
HermanHiddema proposes a change to Definitions 1', 2', 3'. Since this would necessitate changes in a number of places (including commentary on the rules), I am temporarily reverting the change, but I am certainly amenable to the amendment if after discussion it appears most editors are favorable to it. 136.152.224.6 ( talk) 21:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
At least six rule sets exist, some of which have been developed over a period of centuries. None of them seems to require stating that a stone be "connected to itself." It is sufficient to say that stones are connected to the liberties they or connected stones share. This concept looks like "original research" to me, and does not belong here. Herman is right. The rules are confusing enough. BTW what does the abbreviation "resp." mean? kibi ( talk) 13:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
"Chain" or "string" don't work either. They imply stones lined up in a row, but in fact the term must also include any clump, or "group", that is connected by the lines of the board. kibi ( talk) 13:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(Their definition of connected doesn't make it clear, however.)
Sidebar on "resp:" The usage here is incorrect. According to Wiktionary, "respectively" means "In a relative manner; often used in lists, to clearly indicate that two (or more) separate items or lists correspond to each other, in terms of order." For instance one might say that "Go players use two sets of stones, black and white respectively, to play." But the whole phrase about "vacant intersections" seems unclear and unnecessary, the sentence works better without it. kibi ( talk) 13:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
OK 67.160.245.8, here are references for how resp. should be used, none of which supports your usage: Wiktionary
Please do not put it back unless you have more to back you up than an example of misuse on another web page. kibi ( talk) 15:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
two evils here is leaving in the version with resp. 67.150.255.98 ( talk) 00:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but the [phrase "two distinct stones of the same color (resp. two distinct empty intersections)" does not list more than one item in a given order. Your usage is incorrect and as far as I can tell, unnecessary. The statement "two distinct stones of the same color are said to be connected if it is possible to pass from one to the other by a succession of stones of that color, each one other than the first being adjacent to the one before it" is fully self-explanatory. Or, to be simpler, "Two stones of the same color are connected if there is an unbroken line of stones of that color from one to the other." If you're unhappy with this, there are at least six widely validated rule sets out there; if you can't find something there that says what you're trying to say, isn't that kind of weird?
Frankly, the whole emphasis of your statement seems confusing to beginners, since the point is not that any two stones are connected but that they are all connected. I don't think we want novices trying to figure out if this stone here is connected to that stone over there; just that it has a connection to a living group. Seems like a silly thing to have a revert war about, but if you insist. . . . To others, reading this thread, anyone else have a thought? kibi ( talk) 15:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful response, 67.150.253.118. (May I call you "67" for short?) Now I understand better what's happening. I'm not a mathematician so I was not aware of this special usage of "resp." I think Wikipedia is intended for the general public, so this usage will be confusing to many others non-math people as well. Still don't understand why the sentence doesn't work by merely removing the "resp." references, but it seems like I'm alone on that . . . kibi ( talk) 13:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick note: I am neither supporting nor opposing the usage of "resp." Since I am not a native English speaker, I have no idea whether it is correct or not. My position was merely that the answer to grammar mistakes is not to remove information from the article, but to fix the mistakes by rewording the text while keeping its intended meaning. HermanHiddema ( talk) 08:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
In the last few days, I have expanded the article a good deal, in large part by adding examples and diagrams. Most of that is directed at people looking for a basic idea of what go is. The page may be too big now, so I suggest splitting it into two articles, one for the basic rules and one focused on differences between rule sets. I can't think of good names, but two possibilities that come to mind are Basic rules of go/ Rules of go and Rules of go/ Variation in the rules of go.
The first article would contain:
The second article would contain:
I would like input on this, including suggestions for the names of the articles if the split seems like a good idea. 136.152.224.59 ( talk) 08:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This whole concept, presented as "Step 3" of the turn, is out of whack. There is no "Step 3." If suicide is permitted, the player committing suicide does not remove his/her own dead stones; they become the opponent's prisoners in the opponent's next turn. I started to clean this up, then decided to post this and see if anyone supports keeping this unnecessary, misleading and erroneous section. kibi ( talk) 16:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I accept that my attempt to address the self-capture issue has left some discrepancies in this article that must be addressed. In addition, in view of the reported research I withdraw my statement that there is "no step 3." Thank you 67.150.255.245 for bringing those facts into the discussion. I still insist however that "step 3" is a needless complication that does not appear in any major rule set. When is the last time that you played under New Zealand, Ing or Tromp-Taylor rules? In the Ing rules the player removes all captured black and white stones at the same time. There is no separate step -- that is an original idea. What happens to those stones? One infers that they go back in the bowl, which is fine since there are no prisoners in Ing rules (or Chinese rules). In the absence of further objection, I will do my best to revise the article so that it's all consistent without this needlessly complicating step. The question remains, what is the simplest way to present the rules? The current description of "basic rules" here makes it seem way more complicated than it needs to be. We need to boil it all down to the essential elements. I own a go shirt that tells you everything you need to play in about 100 words and 2 diagrams. Five-year-old children can play this game, but they could never begin to grasp all the twists and turns of our "basic rules." Explaining why a stone is "connected to itself" or an intersection is "adjacent" to itself does nothing to advance anyone's understanding. Let's aim for the normal person who can think clearly, not try to clarify every silly thought that a person could have. kibi ( talk) 14:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry for the slow reply, but I currently have extremely little time to spend on wikipedia. I will try to quickly give my opinion on some issues. First of, the basic rule should be: This is wikipedia, which means you do not invent new terms or methods, you make sure everything you write can be backed up with quotations, etc. So:
HermanHiddema ( talk) 10:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
"Adequate" seems fine.
I'm glad we seem to have settled the question of whether a stone is connected to itself, adjacent to itself, or otherwise in some weird parallel universe. Many other things to discuss however. One of the great beauties of go is its elegant simplicity, which is completely lost in the current article, which amounts to an inventory of every possible misunderstanding a reader could possibly reach. "Precise" is good but there is such a thing as too much information, cf. Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. Perhaps we should give up the fantasy that go can be learned by reading the rules. It really requires actually interacting with other players. kibi ( talk) 14:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
This section as originally written contains several important errors. A is not a neutral point; it is Black territory under "Area" rules. Even more clearly, c can end up as nothing but White territory. Herman reverted these changes on the basis that they refer to "the current situation rather than a hypothetical end situation." However, there is nothing "hypothetical" about it unless Black fails to see that g is atari. On the same note, Black could miss the atari at e, allowing White to start a ko with i; so h is not really 100% Black territory yet either. By the way, the footnoted document does not contain this example diagram, so I have removed that incorect footnote as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kibiusa ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Kibi, a beginner needs to know what would happen if both players passed, and the game ended that way. Otherwise, he doesn't know why the players need to make the moves you're talking about. 128.32.238.145 ( talk) 22:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
In any case, the reader is warned that good players wouldn't pass in this position, by the following paragraph:
As for the footnote, the example game is exactly the one in the rules. Obviously, those rules are written with the participants in mind, who are all dan-level, so it doesn't bother explaining what would happen if a game ended in the middle that way. I chose to use a point before the end of the game to illustrate what would happen. Since only the game, and not the diagram, comes from the source, perhaps I should have written "example of a game" instead of "example". However, the real final position is exactly as in the WMSG rules.
I'm reverting your changes for the reasons I've explained. 128.32.238.145 ( talk) 23:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to Kibi to acknowledge that you were right about the game not appearing in the rules. They appear in an appendix to the rules. I've corrected the link now. Thanks for pointing this out. 128.32.238.145 ( talk) 23:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, this section is only defining territory, so there is no need to speak of territory rules vs. area rules in this section. Though most rules with area scoring systems use the word territory, I chose to adopt the distinction between territory and area that appears in the AGA rules. The reason is that in the non-basic sections, this article needs to discuss both concepts, so different words are needed for clarity.
Territory scoring can be mentioned in the section "Score". However, only the existence of something called "territory scoring" should be mentioned there, because in order to understand it fully, a whole array of topics would have to be explained. These should be done in the section "Scoring systems", which is not part of the explanation of the basic rules. My opinion is that differences between the basic rules and other rule sets should only be mentioned in passing in the section "Explanation of the basic rules", and developed fully in other sections of the article. (I think the prohibition of suicide should be an exception, though.)
The topics for territory scoring include prisoners, and, most difficult of all, a confirmation phase. A simple rule like "the game ends when both players have passed consecutively" simply doesn't work any more, because that would force Black, for example, to play in his own territory to capture a dead white stone, and that would cost him points. So life and death then have to be defined somehow, so that you can come back to the position before the game was played out. That is a complicated task, and even the "advanced" parts of this article are very incomplete on the topic at the moment. Obviously, this is overload for a simple set of rules. That's also why the basic rules adopt area scoring. 128.32.238.145 ( talk) 00:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting the footnote. Now I see the problem -- you did not quote the source by reproducing the original diagram. Instead, you have omitted the last several moves, then tried to imagine how beginners might count the game if they think it is over. You're trying to teach beginners how to count a game that isn't finished, how does that make sense?
If the goal is to define territory, then it is perfectly appropriate, in fact necessary, to describe the two basic concepts of what territory is. "Area" and "territory" cannot be omitted from the discussion.
Your analysis is also simply incorrect. Ifa is not black territory because it is connected to b, the same can be said for all of the points marked X, which is of course ridiculous. And under no circumstances can c and d be considered anything but white territory. Sorry, but your whole approach here violates Wikipedia's "original research" policy. If you cannot accept a proper description of the state of affairs in this example, you probably need to redo from scratch with a record of a game that is actually finished. I'm undoing your reversion and in the absence of better support, will continue to do so. I revised the discussion of a and g slightly, since that's not what actually happens in the completed game record; less confusing for someone who actually checks the original source.
kibi ( talk) 18:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I give up. Assuming that there are actually two of you, not just one person logging in from two different IP addresses -- since neither of you has an editing account here -- I accept that I have been outvoted by two people, so I guess the page will just have to confuse people. Fortunately there are other resources for them. But neither of you will ever be able to show that c and d are anything but White territory, as it stands, under any rule set.
kibi ( talk) 14:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Kibiusa considers the section Rules of Go#Territory, most of which I contributed (variously as 136, 67 and 128), to contain original research.
Kibiusa has previously removed the disputed content, but was reverted by a third editor, HermanHiddema, here.
The section contains an example in which the players pass earlier than good players would, with the result that huge swaths of neutral territory are left on the board in the final position. Based on Kibiusa's previous comments on the talk page, I think this is what Kibiusa's objection is to.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
The diagram explains why a and similar points would be neutral territory in this situation. The statement that if the players passed in this position, all of that territory would be neutral, is not original research; it is a straightforward application of the rules, which are referenced. (Please see WP:NOTOR#Obvious deductions.)
Kibiusa's request for a citation for the fact that a is neutral territory is like asking for a citation from a published source establishing that 4,687 × 5,672 = 26,584,664. In one case we make a straightforward deduction from a previously published algorithm for multiplication; in the other, we make an obvious deduction from previously published rules of go.
Though the charge of original research here is absurd, it might be argued by Kibiusa that it's simply a bad idea to talk about things that would never really happen. Here is a hypothetical situation that would never occur in a game between good players:
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Before | Black plays | After removal |
Though this position would never really occur, it is useful in illustrating the operation of the capture rule. In the same way, the hypothetical premature game end is used to illustrate the definition of territory.
Kibiusa cannot make the argument that we are misleading readers either, because they are warned with this sentence that good players would not play this way:
I'd appreciate comment from other parties so we can remove the absurd "original research" template. I don't think I can do it myself without establishing consensus. 128.32.238.145 ( talk) 04:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
From the editing and the discussion so far, I get the feeling that Kibi feels that the current article is overly technical, will not help a reader unfamiliar with the rules in learning those rules, and may in fact put them off. That may be the case (I am not passing judgment here, just considering the option), but the right course of action in that case is to discuss that on the talk page, listing you concerns and how you suggest to address them. Accusations of "Original Research" are not the way to go in such a case.
It is perfectly possible to write an extremely complicated and technical article on go rules without any OR in it, because most formal rules text are very technical, and sometimes extremely complicated. From a Wikipedia point of view, such an article would be fine. As long as everything is neutral and backed up by citations, Wikipedia has no problem with such content. As go players, we may consider the additional goal of attracting the attention of potential new players. That goal is completely irrelevant by Wikipedia standards, but as long as the content of the text is correct by Wikipedia standards ( WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:VER), there is no objection to such an additional goal. In fact, Wikipedia encourages well written text (Refreshing Brilliant Prose, as it was once called).
So please, lets work together on how we can improve this article, ok? HermanHiddema ( talk) 10:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi 128, sorry if I haven't seemed responsive to your arguments, so let me clarify that. I believe the best way to teach is to show correct situations and explain them, not to show incorrect situations and try to make sense of what is not sensible. If the position you offer appeared in a real game between real beginners, according to AGA rules they would play it out and decide among themselves who won. There can be no "correct" or "precise" explanation of an incorrect situation, like the one you offer.
And if it's a choice between "precision" and "simplicity" with beginners, to me the choice is obvious . . .
BTW others have asked that you creat a login account as an editor so people can tell who you are when you log in from different URLs, I also request that you do so, perhaps you could explain why you haven't?
kibi ( talk) 13:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for creating an identity, ucbear. BTW we are actually using AGA rules, not Tromp-Taylor, at least those are the rules you cite to justify your assessment of the position. Going with that, you are right, the position given is valid under AGA rules. Perhaps a better word than "incorrect" would be "incomplete", since any experienced player can see that the position is unfinished. I strongly disagree with your premise that one must explain bad moves (except a game in which bad moves were actually played). If the position isn't finished, and you want to xplain something, explain how it should be finished!
I would agree that there is room for at-length explication of the rules, for experienced players who are interested in the differences, fine points, etc. But a detailed analysis of an incomplete position is not going to teach any beginner anything useful. kibi ( talk) 17:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this revision, I would like to obtain consensus on which edit is better for the article.
The first of the two edits, reversion to "...and that is not connected to any other stones", is a source of confusion for me. I am a novice Go player. Rather than explaining why I am confused (it's hard for some who doesn't understand something to explain why he doesn't understand it!), I want to focus everyone's attention on this phrase and double-check that it is as clearly written as possible?
For the second edit, Ucbear's observation that "'same color' is superfluous" is correct but in my opinion not sufficient reason to re-delete the phrase. My argument is that the intention and function of the phrase "... is the same as saying that" is exactly to be superfluous. In addition, the "same color" phrase reminds the reader that one should not ever refer to two stones of different colors as connected with each other. Bsoo ( talk) 04:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the first argument, I think the point is to show that in this example:
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
That B1 and B2 do not form a separate chain. So B1-B2-B3 is a chain because it is not connected to any other stones, but B1-B2 is no a chain because it is connected to other stones (and the same goes for B2-B3). I do think the wording can be improved here though, the current wording is somewhat formal, mathematical, one might say, and may indeed lead to confusion. HermanHiddema ( talk) 11:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Ucbear. I think that does the job!
Revisiting the first point, I have a suggestion now. First, to quote the sentence in question again: "A chain is a set of one or more stones of the same color that are all connected to each other and that are not connected to any other stones."
Suggestion: "When a set of stones are connected to each other, they are collectively referred to as a chain. A chain has the following properties:
- A single stone is itself a chain when it is not connected to any other stones.
- The term "chain" always refers to all members of the chain collectively, and never a subset. Therefore a chain cannot be said to be connected to any other stone (or chain)."
First of all, I think we can remove references to colors since it is already stated in the definition of connected. I think referring to colors adds confusion, as if we were focusing on a same-color "case" of connected stones. Secondly, I think this rewording requires less mental effort to comprehend but still paints a complete picture - I would think this is how most people actually understands this definition in their head - it is certainly how I understand it now. -- Bsoo ( talk) 14:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
" The oldest counting method is as follows: At the end of the game, all white stones are removed from the board, and the players use black stones to fill the entirety of the black territory. Score is determined by counting the black stones. Since the board contains 361 intersections, black must have 181 or more stones to win. This method is still widely used in mainland of China. " - Where does this come from? This is not the oldest known method. The oldest known method is something else entirely, and there has been speculation that the oldest method was to simply count the number of stones on the board (thus resembling area scoring with group tax), but this is by no means known. So where does this statement come from? I don't see any references. What's being described in the quote is a method for using area scoring, written quite hastily (it's not very thourough, and it's also not necessary to remove white stones). Area scoring - as described above - popped up in the 20th century when the chinese term of "land" (= "place where you can put a living stone") was replaced with the japanese term "territory" (= "an empty point surrounded by your own stones"). This is wrong so it should either be sourced or removed. 83.142.0.60 ( talk) 19:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Who gives a crap about the tromp-taylor rules? The rules that should be described in the lead and the "explanation of basic rules" should be either japanese rules or chinese rules (or even better: Both). Here they are: Chinese rules in english: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/Chinese.html ; More recent chinese rules in chinese: http://go.yenching.edu.hk/chirule.htm ; and japanese rules in english: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/Japanese.html . Here the tromp-taylor rules are presented first and then the article goes on to mention japanese, chinese, AGA, Ing and New Zealand rules as a curiosity - it should be the other way around. In fact, I don't see why the tromp-taylor rules need to mentioned at all - then we might aswell start to describe every little rule set along with toroidal boards ("daoqi") and so on; it's hardly notable enough in comparison to all the other major rule sets. The same goes for "simplified ing rules" and "logical rules". 83.142.0.60 ( talk) 20:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
grrrrrrrrrr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.79.23 ( talk) 02:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Stone scoring shouldn't be identified with area scoring. Please get that right. No matter if SC ever was used or how short. After all it's the most logical of all and should be at the top. RP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.232.133 ( talk) 11:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
This article feels morel like a how to than an encyclopedia article. You wouldn't include a game guide in an article for Super Mario Bros., so why include it in this.
The wording is even outside of the voice of an encyclopedia. for example:
"For simplicity, we will illustrate the rules mostly using 5 × 5 boards"
I have never seen "we" used on wikipedia. This article needs serious overhall TylerRDavis ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC).
In the section "Attempts at reconciling the scoring systems", if Black passes last, area counting will yield 1 more point for Black than territory counting because White did not have the opportunity to give a passing stone to balance the score. AGA rules forces White to pass last for this very reason. This should be made clear in the article. 199.180.97.5 ( talk) 07:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Does the boundary count as a liberty? If I have a piece on the boundary and it is surrounded by opposing pieces, is it always alive, or is it dead? 128.171.31.11 ( talk) 12:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I delete some of my outdated remarks. Jasiek 2006-03-10
Sorry Robert - I'm going to have to treat you as a complete newbie on this. You should not delete talk page material like this, normally. The comments are not addressed just to you - if I had wanted to explain just to you what is happening here, I would use your user talk page (well, you aren't a signed-in user, but that is the correct way). So, the history on this page is to explain to everyone what has been happening here; otherwise tomorrow exactly the same discussion might occur. Charles Matthews 18:07, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Robert - really:
(a) you are posting your opinions on go rules as factual, when they are just opinions;
(b) you are now posting your opinions on Wikipedia policy and etiquette as if they also mattered more.
Considering seven years of my reading your posts to rec.games.go, and I suppose vice versa, I am trying to explain things gently. But it seems to me you have to try to understand something about this large project, Wikipedia, to which 1000s of people contribute, before you begin to be helpful, rather than just making a mess which will need to be fixed up later.
Charles Matthews 18:34, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The go rules page is in a process of being edited these days. I hope that afterwards the degree of facts is higher again.
As you seem to indicate, you have more experience about Wikipedia here. I was not aware of that. Since you say that talks are not deleted quickly, I may as well not delete them quickly. May I ask who deletes them or are they expected to grow larger and larger despite a 32K per page warning?
OK, I was getting a bit depressed about stone counting. I think, clearly enough, we should segregate scoring/counting from the essential (outline) rules, saying that there is more than one recognised method of proceeding when the game is over, but for learning the game it doesn't matter so much. Charles Matthews 20:04, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think that's best - not to pretend to have a complete rule set, but links in particular to the ko rule section (so we don't have to distinguish superko from ko, which are equivalent in practice about 9999 times out of 10000, I suppose) and to something on scoring and counting (which ought to have diagrams). Charles Matthews 10:16, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think my solution would be to create SGFs and use the filters at http://gobase.org/software/sgf2misc/ to get images. I mean, this means in principle the same SGFs can be re-used to get different styles and standards of images. As I have not created any diagrams for Wikipedia, I'm not very confident in this area. Charles Matthews 12:25, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This article now uses the word chain where it used to use group. The few Go books I've read used "group", and I think "group" is the more common word among Go players, but I'm not certain. Are there any objections to changing it back to group instead of chain? ~ leif ☺ HELO 11:39, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I find it interesting that on the go (board game) page and this article, it mentions the thinking times policy, both linking to the other . "See GO Rules" "See GO(boardgame)". THey both seem to have the same information on this particular point.
The thing is that no one uses the term "chain" when discussing the game. So however ambiguous the word "group" is, that's what one would use to describe a strategic unit on the board. I am unable to imagine a situation in which one would confuse a "group" of connected stones with, say, a "group" that's under attack. Mimson 05:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Can't we just eliminate the terminology and say "solidly connected groups"? I think it would be better than having new players going out and talking about "chains", which may cause unnecessary confusion. Mimson 05:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
On another thought, who came up with the terminology of chains? How about a citation, at least on the discussions page? Mimson 23:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
How remarkable -- more than 200 books have been published in English without the need for distinct terms for "group" vs. "chain." The Japanese make no distinction per SL. How is it then that we cannot seem to do without this confusion? Go is confusing enough for new players. And if there is a need for a second term, "chain" isn't it. A "chain" is "a series of objects connected one after the other" (Dictionary.com) how does that describe an eyeless clump of stones? "String" has the same problem. Face it - the word is "group." kibi ( talk) 16:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Herman, are you disputing or agreeing? You seem to make the point that these terms are interchangeable; none of the books uses more than one for different concepts. Since "group" is the term one will encounter later on, it seems natural to use it from the start. "Chain" and "string" both imply a straight line, so I don't see how you can defend your unsupported assertion that they are less confusing than the term we all use.
kibi ( talk) 17:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I hate to throw cold water on so much work, but speaking as an enthusiastic (if crummy) Go player and a longtime wikipedian, I would urge people to change this article radically.
We can't make it so comprhensive that it could be used by a newcomer to learn the game. For one thing, trying to explain eyes and liberties and all that will make it FAR too long to be read on most browsers. ("The Way of Go" by Ishi Press is about as simple an introduction as you can get, and it's many pages long.) For another, and on a more general level, Wikipedia is not, and shouldn't try to be, a set of rulebooks or instruction manuals.
The role of this article (if it should be an article at all, which I doubt) is to (a) give people a sense of how Go is played and how it differs from chess and other similar games - a feel for Go, not a lesson - and (b) to explain the history of how the rules have developed and a general feel of how they differ around the world.
At least, that's my opinion! - DavidWBrooks 20:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I mainly created this template to play games under Wikipedia sandbox/userspaces, but it can be used in articles out of convenience as well. The talk page there documents it. For smaller sizes than 20 pixel fonts, for now you have to use the no coordinate version. Oh anyone up for a possible game of go at Wikipedia:Sandbox/Chess? Could hold one there, or from a separate page. -- Natalinasmpf 03:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I am in the process of documenting a manual for using the template. -- Natalinasmpf 01:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Back in high/school (in Ukraine), I used to play something of this game (we call it "the estate" or "the lands"). We used pens or pencils and regular "math" paper or construction design paper, the last one - almost never. One chose either a cross or a dot.
Another thing, I don't consider that the size of the board depends on a level of play. It's really not such a difficult game to understand. There's a saying "all genius is simple". The size of the board depends on time you would like to "kill" while playing the game.
Well it depends - a larger board allows you more freedom, but the enemy as well - hence you must plan ahead. With a smaller board it's harder to recover from a debacle or a mistake, but you have to plan ahead less. A larger board can be viewed as more advanced because both sides have to plan ahead more, in contrast to the smaller one. -- Natalinasmpf 06:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The previous version of the Winner rule was completely wrong; it pretended that the winner would be the player with more empty intersections surrounded by only his stones. If you do not notice what is wrong with that: either the stones on the board are missing for Area Scoring or the opposing prisoners are missing for Territory Scoring. To end the competition about which scoring to describe on the rules page, the only promisingly lasting solution is to describe them all, what I have done now. -- Jasiek
I believe that the philosophy behind Japanese scoring can be seen if it is compared to a war. First, consider each stone to be a soldier or group of soldiers. If Area scoring is used, then when a player places a stone in a dead terriritory, they have wasted a life or lives of people on their side of the war. These incongruencies only matter at the end of the game when the average scoring between white and black is similar. Obviously if one person has a huge advantage, the scoring methods are not a matter of consequence. Though I understand that the chances that white and black have very similar scores is small, I still think it is an issue.
Theoretically, a person in the lead can potentially lose using Territory scoring if he constantly puts stones in the opponents territory that are well under the opponents' control. Obviously a better player that is in the lead would unlikely do this since they've gone so far into the game and are winning. But the problem is if both players are of equal skill. If this is the case, then every point is critical. If one player thinks that trying to capture a questionable area is risky, he would attempt it under chinese rules and wouldn't attempt it under japanese rules, unless he evaluated it as profitable. If a position is profitable, then of course a player would capitalize on it, but if it isn't or if it is really hard to determine, then the scoring method matters.
If you consider yourself the General or King of all the soldiers represented by your stones, then you do not want to sacrifice lives in a war that is already won or lost. Before the endgame, with either scoring method, you are penalized for placing stones in your own territory. This isn't done explicitly, but it can be shown by you "wasting" a turn, where you could have put your stone somewhere else to capture more area or territory. During the endgame, most fights have determined a winner except for a few leftover risky manuevers. Territory scoring would penalize you for making the mistake if the risk you took was not good, and Area scoring wouldn't. This doesn't make sense.
It is in this way that the Japanese scoring method is more elegant; not because it is the tradition or that there is a "beauty of omission." Lives matter, and that is why in the game of Go, we consider things Alive or Dead. It doesn't make sense that a ruler would risk any more lives of his people if the war is over. In conclusion, Area scoring allows for riskier play and Territory scoring allows for a person to balance offense and defense, while agreeing on an end of the game sooner too. 70.111.251.203 14:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The AGA rules are basically the same as the Chinese rules. They have modified the Japanese territory scoring so that whenever a person passes they have to give one stone to the opponent as a prisoner and also that white has to be the last one to pass to end the game. This makes both area and territory scoring equivalent. Though it is not elegant, it cancels out the need for territory scoring and keeping track of prisoners at all for AGA rules. I think that this is a great simplification but it loses the value that Japanese scoring has instantiated. 128.6.175.17 13:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't find what are proper Komi values and handicape for other boards. Do they have same Komi/handicap as 19x19?
I don't know, either. But, on the Kisedo Go Server, the "default" number of handicap stones on a small board is less than those on the larger boards.
These have been pushed onto the page, but should they really be on Go Variants? -Zinc Belief
In the section Optional Rules -> Compensation -> Handicap there is a discussion of star points, or hoshi, which states:
Smaller boards such as the 13x13 and 9x9 also have star points. The 13x13 has 9 at the 3-3 points, 3-6 points, and the center.
It seems to me that if the 13x13 board has 9 hoshi then the right position for the side ones must be 3-7, not 3-6, as 7 is the centre line. A quick net search suggests to me that the 13x13 board commonly has only 5 hoshi so the 3-6 points should be taken out of the list, not altered. But being new to Wikipedia AND not a Go player I'm not game to change this; could someone familiar with the game check that the description is right? - Medb 17:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It should be Ing Rules, not ING, since they are named after a person, Ing Chang-Ki.
The article states that Ing rules use a “Super Ko” rule. However, Ing tried to create a ko rule that would avoid the need for players to keep track of whole-board positions. The result was a ko rule that classified a ko as either “disturbing” or “fighting,” and also created the term “hot stone.”
The Ing rules ( http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/SST.html ) seem to have problems. The definitions/terminology section contains arguments in favor of his rules; the definitions/terminology section uses terms that aren't in the definitions/terminology section; some of the terms are defined in other parts of the rules; some of the definitions simply refer to a diagram which gives an example of the term being defined.
I don't think there is a clear definition of “disturbing ko” or “fighting ko.” If, in fact, there is no clear definition, the result may be, in effect, that Ing rules use the “super ko” rule.
In order for Ing counting boxes to work, Ing stones were of uniform thickness. 206.53.197.12 16:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The Ing Rules were named after Chang-Ki Ing, and are not an abbreviation for Intelligent Go. I started making the change from ING to Ing. SlowJog ( talk) 02:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The section on Ing rules stated that this rule set used "super ko." I edited it to match what was stated in the section on ko. SlowJog ( talk) 17:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but I'm a complete newbie when it comes to GO and I have a question, when your counting up points at the end of a game how do you count them?
I added to the Chinese method of scoring to describe the actual method used at the Chinese Go club in Monterey Park, California in the 1990's. It's fun to make the rectangles and count by tens, especially when you win. Larry R. Holmgren 15:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this is objectively one of the best articles, even better than India, and other articles; it may not be as important, but is very well written just like Chess.
I really like this article except for the very last section which talks about the differences bettween diffrent rule sets. I would remove it beacuse it contains repetition of information already in the article and what appears to be orgional research. First it says the two rule set are almost the the same. Besides being somewhat obvious, this is stated peviouslly in the scoring section. If it is retained it should be in the introduction to the section not at the end. The second part of the section appears to me to be conjecture about how the diffrent rulesets alter play style, and that needless extending the game is dishonerable. I think this should be verified or removed. Lotu 20:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The article says:
"If the game ends with both players having passed the same number of times, then the score will be identical no matter which method is used."
But isn't this technically incorrect?
Consider a game where neither player passes and in the end they take turns in filling the dame points as usual. Under Japanese scoring the dame points don't increase the score of either player but under Chinese scoring all stones, including the ones placed at dame points, increase the player's score. Now, if there's an odd number of dame points, one of the players get one point more, which could theoretically be the difference between victory and defeat.
Or have I misunderstood something? Ossi ( talk) 22:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I have seen a few mentions of the ancient Chinese rules of Weiqi or Yi which are distinct from the modern Chinese rules. But I cannot find an English text for them. Apparently there was a two point tax on each living group. This suggests to me that originally one's score was the number of stones of one's color which were on the board at the end of the game. This would require you to capture all enemy stones within your territory and then fill it up with your own stones except for two one-point eyes to keep it alive. Does anyone know any more about the ancient rules? JRSpriggs ( talk) 09:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The subsection Rules of Go#Differences says "It's because of the design of the Chinese rules that players using this rule set will be more able to take greater risks than compared to playing under Japanese rules; this may draw games out a little longer and at certain times seem dishonorable." (emphasis added). I cannot see how playing by the Chinese rules could encourage dishonorable behavior. Can anyone explain this? Or is this an improper POV statement? JRSpriggs ( talk) 11:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Currently most major rule sets forbid playing such that a play results in that player's own stones being removed from the board, [...] in certain circumstances a suicidal move may threaten the opponent's eye shape, yielding a ko threat.
Emphasis mine. Shouldn't that be a snapback threat? --
Jokes Free4Me (
talk)
19:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, shouldn't the threat be left general, with no mention of ko, snapback, atari, or other particular kinds of threats? -- Jokes Free4Me ( talk) 19:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
All rule sets forbid suicide of a single stone; rule sets that allow suicide permit it for more than one stone. I forgot where I read that, so I added the "fact" tag when I edited the article. (Suicide of a single stone would be the same as a pass, anyway.)
As far as I can tell, there is no reason for a player to suicide his/her stones except as a ko-threat. SlowJog ( talk) 02:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Suicide can sometimes grant life, kill or make seki, see:
HermanHiddema ( talk) 09:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it me or is there an exception to territory and area count-scoring giving an equal result.-- ZincBelief ( talk) 15:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
pwaldron: I believe exceptions can occur in board positions where there is a seki involving an odd number of neutral points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.246.27.86 ( talk) 17:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
This is not an extremely serious question, since the rules can accommodate either interpretation. I have a preference for saying a stone is connected to itself. I think connectedness should be an equivalence relation. Two editors have expressed objections, or at least seem to dislike the idea. Here are the alternatives:
Definition 1. In a given position, two stones of the same color (resp. two empty intersections) are said to be connected if it is possible to pass from one to the other by a succession of stones of that color (resp. empty intersections), each one other than the first being adjacent to the one before it. Any stone (resp. empty intersection) is understood to be connected to itself.
Definition 2. In a given position, a liberty of a stone is an empty intersection adjacent to at least one stone to which that stone is connected.
Definition 3. In the final position, an empty intersection is said to be a point of a player's territory if it is not connected to any empty intersection adjacent to a stone of his opponent's color.
Definition 1'. In a given position, two stones of the same color (resp. two empty intersections) are said to be connected if it is possible to pass from one to the other by a succession of stones of that color (resp. empty intersections), each one other than the first being adjacent to the one before it.
Definition 2'. In a given position, a liberty of a stone is an empty intersection adjacent to that stone, or adjacent to any stone to which that stone is connected.
Definition 3'. In the final position, an empty intersection is said to be a point of a player's territory if neither that empty intersection nor any empty intersection connected to it is adjacent to a stone of his opponent's color.
I actually think a stone is connected to itself under Definition 1', since you can take the succession consisting of just that stone. Of course, in everyday life, when you see "two stones," you usually assume "two distinct stones" is meant.
HermanHiddema proposes a change to Definitions 1', 2', 3'. Since this would necessitate changes in a number of places (including commentary on the rules), I am temporarily reverting the change, but I am certainly amenable to the amendment if after discussion it appears most editors are favorable to it. 136.152.224.6 ( talk) 21:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
At least six rule sets exist, some of which have been developed over a period of centuries. None of them seems to require stating that a stone be "connected to itself." It is sufficient to say that stones are connected to the liberties they or connected stones share. This concept looks like "original research" to me, and does not belong here. Herman is right. The rules are confusing enough. BTW what does the abbreviation "resp." mean? kibi ( talk) 13:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
"Chain" or "string" don't work either. They imply stones lined up in a row, but in fact the term must also include any clump, or "group", that is connected by the lines of the board. kibi ( talk) 13:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(Their definition of connected doesn't make it clear, however.)
Sidebar on "resp:" The usage here is incorrect. According to Wiktionary, "respectively" means "In a relative manner; often used in lists, to clearly indicate that two (or more) separate items or lists correspond to each other, in terms of order." For instance one might say that "Go players use two sets of stones, black and white respectively, to play." But the whole phrase about "vacant intersections" seems unclear and unnecessary, the sentence works better without it. kibi ( talk) 13:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
OK 67.160.245.8, here are references for how resp. should be used, none of which supports your usage: Wiktionary
Please do not put it back unless you have more to back you up than an example of misuse on another web page. kibi ( talk) 15:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
two evils here is leaving in the version with resp. 67.150.255.98 ( talk) 00:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but the [phrase "two distinct stones of the same color (resp. two distinct empty intersections)" does not list more than one item in a given order. Your usage is incorrect and as far as I can tell, unnecessary. The statement "two distinct stones of the same color are said to be connected if it is possible to pass from one to the other by a succession of stones of that color, each one other than the first being adjacent to the one before it" is fully self-explanatory. Or, to be simpler, "Two stones of the same color are connected if there is an unbroken line of stones of that color from one to the other." If you're unhappy with this, there are at least six widely validated rule sets out there; if you can't find something there that says what you're trying to say, isn't that kind of weird?
Frankly, the whole emphasis of your statement seems confusing to beginners, since the point is not that any two stones are connected but that they are all connected. I don't think we want novices trying to figure out if this stone here is connected to that stone over there; just that it has a connection to a living group. Seems like a silly thing to have a revert war about, but if you insist. . . . To others, reading this thread, anyone else have a thought? kibi ( talk) 15:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful response, 67.150.253.118. (May I call you "67" for short?) Now I understand better what's happening. I'm not a mathematician so I was not aware of this special usage of "resp." I think Wikipedia is intended for the general public, so this usage will be confusing to many others non-math people as well. Still don't understand why the sentence doesn't work by merely removing the "resp." references, but it seems like I'm alone on that . . . kibi ( talk) 13:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick note: I am neither supporting nor opposing the usage of "resp." Since I am not a native English speaker, I have no idea whether it is correct or not. My position was merely that the answer to grammar mistakes is not to remove information from the article, but to fix the mistakes by rewording the text while keeping its intended meaning. HermanHiddema ( talk) 08:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
In the last few days, I have expanded the article a good deal, in large part by adding examples and diagrams. Most of that is directed at people looking for a basic idea of what go is. The page may be too big now, so I suggest splitting it into two articles, one for the basic rules and one focused on differences between rule sets. I can't think of good names, but two possibilities that come to mind are Basic rules of go/ Rules of go and Rules of go/ Variation in the rules of go.
The first article would contain:
The second article would contain:
I would like input on this, including suggestions for the names of the articles if the split seems like a good idea. 136.152.224.59 ( talk) 08:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This whole concept, presented as "Step 3" of the turn, is out of whack. There is no "Step 3." If suicide is permitted, the player committing suicide does not remove his/her own dead stones; they become the opponent's prisoners in the opponent's next turn. I started to clean this up, then decided to post this and see if anyone supports keeping this unnecessary, misleading and erroneous section. kibi ( talk) 16:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I accept that my attempt to address the self-capture issue has left some discrepancies in this article that must be addressed. In addition, in view of the reported research I withdraw my statement that there is "no step 3." Thank you 67.150.255.245 for bringing those facts into the discussion. I still insist however that "step 3" is a needless complication that does not appear in any major rule set. When is the last time that you played under New Zealand, Ing or Tromp-Taylor rules? In the Ing rules the player removes all captured black and white stones at the same time. There is no separate step -- that is an original idea. What happens to those stones? One infers that they go back in the bowl, which is fine since there are no prisoners in Ing rules (or Chinese rules). In the absence of further objection, I will do my best to revise the article so that it's all consistent without this needlessly complicating step. The question remains, what is the simplest way to present the rules? The current description of "basic rules" here makes it seem way more complicated than it needs to be. We need to boil it all down to the essential elements. I own a go shirt that tells you everything you need to play in about 100 words and 2 diagrams. Five-year-old children can play this game, but they could never begin to grasp all the twists and turns of our "basic rules." Explaining why a stone is "connected to itself" or an intersection is "adjacent" to itself does nothing to advance anyone's understanding. Let's aim for the normal person who can think clearly, not try to clarify every silly thought that a person could have. kibi ( talk) 14:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry for the slow reply, but I currently have extremely little time to spend on wikipedia. I will try to quickly give my opinion on some issues. First of, the basic rule should be: This is wikipedia, which means you do not invent new terms or methods, you make sure everything you write can be backed up with quotations, etc. So:
HermanHiddema ( talk) 10:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
"Adequate" seems fine.
I'm glad we seem to have settled the question of whether a stone is connected to itself, adjacent to itself, or otherwise in some weird parallel universe. Many other things to discuss however. One of the great beauties of go is its elegant simplicity, which is completely lost in the current article, which amounts to an inventory of every possible misunderstanding a reader could possibly reach. "Precise" is good but there is such a thing as too much information, cf. Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. Perhaps we should give up the fantasy that go can be learned by reading the rules. It really requires actually interacting with other players. kibi ( talk) 14:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
This section as originally written contains several important errors. A is not a neutral point; it is Black territory under "Area" rules. Even more clearly, c can end up as nothing but White territory. Herman reverted these changes on the basis that they refer to "the current situation rather than a hypothetical end situation." However, there is nothing "hypothetical" about it unless Black fails to see that g is atari. On the same note, Black could miss the atari at e, allowing White to start a ko with i; so h is not really 100% Black territory yet either. By the way, the footnoted document does not contain this example diagram, so I have removed that incorect footnote as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kibiusa ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Kibi, a beginner needs to know what would happen if both players passed, and the game ended that way. Otherwise, he doesn't know why the players need to make the moves you're talking about. 128.32.238.145 ( talk) 22:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
In any case, the reader is warned that good players wouldn't pass in this position, by the following paragraph:
As for the footnote, the example game is exactly the one in the rules. Obviously, those rules are written with the participants in mind, who are all dan-level, so it doesn't bother explaining what would happen if a game ended in the middle that way. I chose to use a point before the end of the game to illustrate what would happen. Since only the game, and not the diagram, comes from the source, perhaps I should have written "example of a game" instead of "example". However, the real final position is exactly as in the WMSG rules.
I'm reverting your changes for the reasons I've explained. 128.32.238.145 ( talk) 23:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to Kibi to acknowledge that you were right about the game not appearing in the rules. They appear in an appendix to the rules. I've corrected the link now. Thanks for pointing this out. 128.32.238.145 ( talk) 23:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, this section is only defining territory, so there is no need to speak of territory rules vs. area rules in this section. Though most rules with area scoring systems use the word territory, I chose to adopt the distinction between territory and area that appears in the AGA rules. The reason is that in the non-basic sections, this article needs to discuss both concepts, so different words are needed for clarity.
Territory scoring can be mentioned in the section "Score". However, only the existence of something called "territory scoring" should be mentioned there, because in order to understand it fully, a whole array of topics would have to be explained. These should be done in the section "Scoring systems", which is not part of the explanation of the basic rules. My opinion is that differences between the basic rules and other rule sets should only be mentioned in passing in the section "Explanation of the basic rules", and developed fully in other sections of the article. (I think the prohibition of suicide should be an exception, though.)
The topics for territory scoring include prisoners, and, most difficult of all, a confirmation phase. A simple rule like "the game ends when both players have passed consecutively" simply doesn't work any more, because that would force Black, for example, to play in his own territory to capture a dead white stone, and that would cost him points. So life and death then have to be defined somehow, so that you can come back to the position before the game was played out. That is a complicated task, and even the "advanced" parts of this article are very incomplete on the topic at the moment. Obviously, this is overload for a simple set of rules. That's also why the basic rules adopt area scoring. 128.32.238.145 ( talk) 00:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting the footnote. Now I see the problem -- you did not quote the source by reproducing the original diagram. Instead, you have omitted the last several moves, then tried to imagine how beginners might count the game if they think it is over. You're trying to teach beginners how to count a game that isn't finished, how does that make sense?
If the goal is to define territory, then it is perfectly appropriate, in fact necessary, to describe the two basic concepts of what territory is. "Area" and "territory" cannot be omitted from the discussion.
Your analysis is also simply incorrect. Ifa is not black territory because it is connected to b, the same can be said for all of the points marked X, which is of course ridiculous. And under no circumstances can c and d be considered anything but white territory. Sorry, but your whole approach here violates Wikipedia's "original research" policy. If you cannot accept a proper description of the state of affairs in this example, you probably need to redo from scratch with a record of a game that is actually finished. I'm undoing your reversion and in the absence of better support, will continue to do so. I revised the discussion of a and g slightly, since that's not what actually happens in the completed game record; less confusing for someone who actually checks the original source.
kibi ( talk) 18:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I give up. Assuming that there are actually two of you, not just one person logging in from two different IP addresses -- since neither of you has an editing account here -- I accept that I have been outvoted by two people, so I guess the page will just have to confuse people. Fortunately there are other resources for them. But neither of you will ever be able to show that c and d are anything but White territory, as it stands, under any rule set.
kibi ( talk) 14:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Kibiusa considers the section Rules of Go#Territory, most of which I contributed (variously as 136, 67 and 128), to contain original research.
Kibiusa has previously removed the disputed content, but was reverted by a third editor, HermanHiddema, here.
The section contains an example in which the players pass earlier than good players would, with the result that huge swaths of neutral territory are left on the board in the final position. Based on Kibiusa's previous comments on the talk page, I think this is what Kibiusa's objection is to.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
The diagram explains why a and similar points would be neutral territory in this situation. The statement that if the players passed in this position, all of that territory would be neutral, is not original research; it is a straightforward application of the rules, which are referenced. (Please see WP:NOTOR#Obvious deductions.)
Kibiusa's request for a citation for the fact that a is neutral territory is like asking for a citation from a published source establishing that 4,687 × 5,672 = 26,584,664. In one case we make a straightforward deduction from a previously published algorithm for multiplication; in the other, we make an obvious deduction from previously published rules of go.
Though the charge of original research here is absurd, it might be argued by Kibiusa that it's simply a bad idea to talk about things that would never really happen. Here is a hypothetical situation that would never occur in a game between good players:
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Before | Black plays | After removal |
Though this position would never really occur, it is useful in illustrating the operation of the capture rule. In the same way, the hypothetical premature game end is used to illustrate the definition of territory.
Kibiusa cannot make the argument that we are misleading readers either, because they are warned with this sentence that good players would not play this way:
I'd appreciate comment from other parties so we can remove the absurd "original research" template. I don't think I can do it myself without establishing consensus. 128.32.238.145 ( talk) 04:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
From the editing and the discussion so far, I get the feeling that Kibi feels that the current article is overly technical, will not help a reader unfamiliar with the rules in learning those rules, and may in fact put them off. That may be the case (I am not passing judgment here, just considering the option), but the right course of action in that case is to discuss that on the talk page, listing you concerns and how you suggest to address them. Accusations of "Original Research" are not the way to go in such a case.
It is perfectly possible to write an extremely complicated and technical article on go rules without any OR in it, because most formal rules text are very technical, and sometimes extremely complicated. From a Wikipedia point of view, such an article would be fine. As long as everything is neutral and backed up by citations, Wikipedia has no problem with such content. As go players, we may consider the additional goal of attracting the attention of potential new players. That goal is completely irrelevant by Wikipedia standards, but as long as the content of the text is correct by Wikipedia standards ( WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:VER), there is no objection to such an additional goal. In fact, Wikipedia encourages well written text (Refreshing Brilliant Prose, as it was once called).
So please, lets work together on how we can improve this article, ok? HermanHiddema ( talk) 10:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi 128, sorry if I haven't seemed responsive to your arguments, so let me clarify that. I believe the best way to teach is to show correct situations and explain them, not to show incorrect situations and try to make sense of what is not sensible. If the position you offer appeared in a real game between real beginners, according to AGA rules they would play it out and decide among themselves who won. There can be no "correct" or "precise" explanation of an incorrect situation, like the one you offer.
And if it's a choice between "precision" and "simplicity" with beginners, to me the choice is obvious . . .
BTW others have asked that you creat a login account as an editor so people can tell who you are when you log in from different URLs, I also request that you do so, perhaps you could explain why you haven't?
kibi ( talk) 13:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for creating an identity, ucbear. BTW we are actually using AGA rules, not Tromp-Taylor, at least those are the rules you cite to justify your assessment of the position. Going with that, you are right, the position given is valid under AGA rules. Perhaps a better word than "incorrect" would be "incomplete", since any experienced player can see that the position is unfinished. I strongly disagree with your premise that one must explain bad moves (except a game in which bad moves were actually played). If the position isn't finished, and you want to xplain something, explain how it should be finished!
I would agree that there is room for at-length explication of the rules, for experienced players who are interested in the differences, fine points, etc. But a detailed analysis of an incomplete position is not going to teach any beginner anything useful. kibi ( talk) 17:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this revision, I would like to obtain consensus on which edit is better for the article.
The first of the two edits, reversion to "...and that is not connected to any other stones", is a source of confusion for me. I am a novice Go player. Rather than explaining why I am confused (it's hard for some who doesn't understand something to explain why he doesn't understand it!), I want to focus everyone's attention on this phrase and double-check that it is as clearly written as possible?
For the second edit, Ucbear's observation that "'same color' is superfluous" is correct but in my opinion not sufficient reason to re-delete the phrase. My argument is that the intention and function of the phrase "... is the same as saying that" is exactly to be superfluous. In addition, the "same color" phrase reminds the reader that one should not ever refer to two stones of different colors as connected with each other. Bsoo ( talk) 04:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the first argument, I think the point is to show that in this example:
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
That B1 and B2 do not form a separate chain. So B1-B2-B3 is a chain because it is not connected to any other stones, but B1-B2 is no a chain because it is connected to other stones (and the same goes for B2-B3). I do think the wording can be improved here though, the current wording is somewhat formal, mathematical, one might say, and may indeed lead to confusion. HermanHiddema ( talk) 11:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Ucbear. I think that does the job!
Revisiting the first point, I have a suggestion now. First, to quote the sentence in question again: "A chain is a set of one or more stones of the same color that are all connected to each other and that are not connected to any other stones."
Suggestion: "When a set of stones are connected to each other, they are collectively referred to as a chain. A chain has the following properties:
- A single stone is itself a chain when it is not connected to any other stones.
- The term "chain" always refers to all members of the chain collectively, and never a subset. Therefore a chain cannot be said to be connected to any other stone (or chain)."
First of all, I think we can remove references to colors since it is already stated in the definition of connected. I think referring to colors adds confusion, as if we were focusing on a same-color "case" of connected stones. Secondly, I think this rewording requires less mental effort to comprehend but still paints a complete picture - I would think this is how most people actually understands this definition in their head - it is certainly how I understand it now. -- Bsoo ( talk) 14:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
" The oldest counting method is as follows: At the end of the game, all white stones are removed from the board, and the players use black stones to fill the entirety of the black territory. Score is determined by counting the black stones. Since the board contains 361 intersections, black must have 181 or more stones to win. This method is still widely used in mainland of China. " - Where does this come from? This is not the oldest known method. The oldest known method is something else entirely, and there has been speculation that the oldest method was to simply count the number of stones on the board (thus resembling area scoring with group tax), but this is by no means known. So where does this statement come from? I don't see any references. What's being described in the quote is a method for using area scoring, written quite hastily (it's not very thourough, and it's also not necessary to remove white stones). Area scoring - as described above - popped up in the 20th century when the chinese term of "land" (= "place where you can put a living stone") was replaced with the japanese term "territory" (= "an empty point surrounded by your own stones"). This is wrong so it should either be sourced or removed. 83.142.0.60 ( talk) 19:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Who gives a crap about the tromp-taylor rules? The rules that should be described in the lead and the "explanation of basic rules" should be either japanese rules or chinese rules (or even better: Both). Here they are: Chinese rules in english: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/Chinese.html ; More recent chinese rules in chinese: http://go.yenching.edu.hk/chirule.htm ; and japanese rules in english: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/Japanese.html . Here the tromp-taylor rules are presented first and then the article goes on to mention japanese, chinese, AGA, Ing and New Zealand rules as a curiosity - it should be the other way around. In fact, I don't see why the tromp-taylor rules need to mentioned at all - then we might aswell start to describe every little rule set along with toroidal boards ("daoqi") and so on; it's hardly notable enough in comparison to all the other major rule sets. The same goes for "simplified ing rules" and "logical rules". 83.142.0.60 ( talk) 20:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
grrrrrrrrrr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.79.23 ( talk) 02:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Stone scoring shouldn't be identified with area scoring. Please get that right. No matter if SC ever was used or how short. After all it's the most logical of all and should be at the top. RP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.232.133 ( talk) 11:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
This article feels morel like a how to than an encyclopedia article. You wouldn't include a game guide in an article for Super Mario Bros., so why include it in this.
The wording is even outside of the voice of an encyclopedia. for example:
"For simplicity, we will illustrate the rules mostly using 5 × 5 boards"
I have never seen "we" used on wikipedia. This article needs serious overhall TylerRDavis ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC).
In the section "Attempts at reconciling the scoring systems", if Black passes last, area counting will yield 1 more point for Black than territory counting because White did not have the opportunity to give a passing stone to balance the score. AGA rules forces White to pass last for this very reason. This should be made clear in the article. 199.180.97.5 ( talk) 07:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)